Vladimir Kasacheuski

Someone is shy

Vladimir hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

Noface
Vladimir Kasacheuski
Posted over 2 years ago
Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
Again, cant reply further, so heres my responce. First. Statistics. UK 2011 Violent crime rate - 1360.07/100,000 Position on gun control - No civilian gun ownership. USA 2011 Violent crime rate - 387.6/100,000 Position on gun control - Regulated civilian gun ownership. Yikes, what a difference. Lets check out a different demographic Chicago 2011 Violent crime rate - 10.33/1,000 Position on gun control - Extremely Restrictive gun control (can not carry outside of home) Phoenix 2011 Violent crime rate - 5.52/1,000 Position on gun control - Extremely lenient gun control (open (without a permit) and concealed (many cases without a permit) carry.) Now to your point. The argument does not boil down to gun power. Not only are Assault rifles extremely difficult to obtain * legally*. Criminals would not carry Assault rifles to rob a house. Not only that, but it doesn't matter if you have more fire power, this isnt war, this is a few people at most. Its whoever hits first. Anyway, criminals will get guns either way. Banning guns wont make it harder for criminals to get guns, but it will make it harder for citizens to get them. And every illegal gun being legally made in america is a bold statement. But one that dosent matter. America sells guns to different countries at rampage. Even to mexico. What they do, is none of its consideration. Gun restriction wont cool off the gun industry. To summarize : The more civilians (majority of citizens being good, law abiding citizens) that own guns, the higher the chance a violent criminal will get stopped, and the better defended a civilian is. As one could logically assume, and as backed by data, gun control averages parallel to violent crime rate. In the end, the more citizens own guns the safer the community becomes overall.
Noface
Vladimir Kasacheuski
Posted over 2 years ago
Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
Unable to reply to the comment above this one(so do you meant to say suicides are ok...), so ill reply here. That's a great point, and leads to a whole conversation of suicide, depression, and their "treatments" in the united states which is another thorough topic. But we'll stick to gun control. While the other 50 percent of suicide does acknowledge that he can and actually does kill him self with a knife on occasion, that is beyond the point. Our gun laws should, and if im not mistaken do, deem mentally unstable persons ineligible for gun ownership. The only problem is enforcement of these laws. Instead the media exploding with this "WAR ON GUNS", and the government banning more guns (like "assault rifles" which are not even assault rifles), we should put more effort into enforcing the already present gun laws. We should make it known through the media that instead of taking away the public's guns, we are cracking down on already illegal possessions of these guns, and making it harder to get into the wrong persons hands. There are many other topics, problems that effect the public much more greatly, that are being overshadowed by this. (US's great financial situation, our dependence on fossil fuel, our tumorous "defence" expenditures, the environmental ravaging of our land, our unsustainable population growth) Our real problems stem from exactly this: Ignoring major calamities, pushing them off until later, distracting ourselfs from them, and expecting the best.
Noface
Vladimir Kasacheuski
Posted over 2 years ago
Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
You're completely correct. The more normal house holds have guns, the likelier it is to have a mishap. It is completely logical to predict a rise in gun related injures as more guns are available. It will always be impossible to get rid of death because of human error. But, this is where the difference between violent *crimes* and *gun* related injurys comes to play. It is also completely logical to assume that criminals would be less motivated to commit crimes if they are under the assumption that every other guy can protect themselves with a fire arm. Not only is it logical, but its proven. If your skeptical about the statistics between gun ownership and violent crimes i will be glad to source them to you, as im in a bit of a time crunch at the moment.
Noface
Vladimir Kasacheuski
Posted over 2 years ago
Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
Guns are horrible, violent creations of the devil; but, personal emotions aside, lets look at some facts. *Throughout the world, it is clearly seen that the more guns that the common people have in possession, the lower the rate of violent crime becomes.* But we will focus on America, and fire arm contributions to human mortality. To assume that violent gun crimes are America's highest death cause, and worst problem, one must actively decline to acknowledge other factors of death in America. Center for disease control reports - Firearm homicides 2011 Number of deaths: 11,078 Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports - Motor vehicle death 2011 Number of deaths: 32,310 Deaths per 100,000 population : 10.4 Center for disease control reports - Leading causes of death 2010 Heart disease: 597,689 (192.4 / 100,000) Cancer: 574,743 (185.1 / 100,000) Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080 (44.4 / 100,000) Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476 (41.6 / 100,000) Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859 (38.9 / 100,000) Alzheimer's disease: 83,494 (26.8 / 100,000) Diabetes: 69,071 (22.2 / 100,000) Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476 (16.2 / 100,000) Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097 (16.1 / 100,000) Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364 (12.3 / 100,000) Well hey, would you look at that. Maybe gun violence is being blown out of proportion? Funny how we don't hear the same public outrage about the rest. I guess nothing makes a good story like scarring the shit out of people. Horror stories are always in season. But no, the media would never exploit public emotion like that.
Noface
Vladimir Kasacheuski
Posted over 2 years ago
Is hydraulic fracturing the answer especially when you take in consideration the environmental impact it is having?
The problem with hydraulic fracturing is that it can not be safely regulated. Impacts vary from immediate concerns to others that spread over time, and distance. Water is contaminated throughout the region where the process takes place. Similarly, wild life is destroyed in the operation around the site. Down the road, structures, like the Tar-Sands pipeline (stretching from Canada to Texas), are erected leading to more environmental hazard and destruction to transport the fossil fuel. Most importantly, however, is that the overall dependency on unsustainable fossil fuel is only increased; therefore, limiting growth of renewable energy, and renewable energy research. Ultimately, i can not see how saving pennies for the average consumer and funding a corporate titan outweighs destroying wildlife (throughout continents), promoting unsustainable living, deterring innovative growth, and all this at the mercy of public health. To summarize: Saving money in the short term does not outweigh the environmental destruction that comes with fracking (long term and short term).