This is a problem a few âdystopianâ Sci Fi publications have, theyâre often better than what we have now.
Yeah it literally wouldnât be sci fi without the sci, with the edge case of post-apocalypse scenarios aside, it would be kind of hard to do a sci fi without better tech. In fact aside from post-apocalypse or older outdated sci fi, I literally cannot think of any property we would call sci fi that doesnât have better tech.
Thereâs always the ones where AI are always omnicidal and all digital tech is taboo, or the ones that predate the information age where you have very manual but powerful tech⌠Like sure, FTL is definitely sci-fi, but without automation (even human guided automation like ripperdocs) you end up with very unequal societies where magic tech exists, but only for the rich or large organizations
The first is a newer genre so I canât think of anything well known, the second includes things like the time machine where the time machine is sci-fi, but technology regresses, and the last one could be things like dune. Or 1984, where weâve surpassed the âfuturisticâ tech (and unfortunately was mostly used like a how-to guide in recent years)
You mean like Cassette Futurism?
âExplain to me how night City isnt a utopiaâ âright to bear arms? Yepâ
Sounds like he explained one big reason himself.
For some people the right to keep and bear arms is a good thing not a bad thing.
I think the bigger problem is not that armed people are everywhere, but that violent crime is commonâŚ
Right to self defense and reasonable means to do so is a fair enough.
The problem is that currently people think the explodey instant death pointers are somehow a defensive tool instead of just adding more offense to the problem.
Want to feel secure in your home? Invest in something actually useful like durable doors and windows, difficult to pick locks, if law enforcement is outside a safe response time range, a panic room is probably a good idea. All of those are infinitely more helpful against the one in a million shot of a home intruder event happening to you than all but handing said intruder the weapon they will soon kill you with.
And thatâs not exaggerating, women who purchase arms for defense against stalkers and/or abusers are more likely to be specifically killed with that weapon they bought for their own defense than they are to successfully defend themselves with it.
Also, most of these home intruder fantasizers have all the sense of avoiding escalation in a conflict of a fucking nuclear powered rocket breaking the carmen line speed record.
While I recognize your good faith argument, I donât believe it fits with the reality of how criminals operate, or the practicality of what most people can afford.
You can turn your house into a prison/fortress, which is expensive and only protects you when youâre inside with everything locked up. Panic rooms are expensive as fuck, if you werenât aware.
And the odds of self-defense are MUCH better than you think. Itâs not a âone in a millionâ shot that your gun helps you- in 90+% of defensive gun uses, the criminal sees the gun and runs away because heâs not there to fight to the death, heâs there to steal things he can get somewhere else from someone else without risk to his life. He wants a helpless victim, not a fight.
Click this reddit link- it goes to redditâs /r/ccw (concealed carry weapon) but filtered to show only stories of when /r/CCW members had to use their guns in self-defense.
Please just go read some of those stories and rethink your âone in a million shotâ position.
Iâm one of those. An educated armed population is a formidable adversary. Now I donât agree with most American bullshitery but being armed isnât the issue, being armed, dumb and emotionally unstable is the issue which are 100% things we as a society chose not fix not something that isnât fixable.
Um, please think this through. Youâre basically saying that weapons cause violence.
But thatâs not how human nature works. Some PEOPLE are violent, and they commit acts of violence whether they have weapons or not.
I could approach you on the street and beat you up- thatâs a violent crime. No guns involved.
I could approach you on the street and stab you or hit you with a baseball bat- thatâs a violent crime. No guns involved.
Guns donât cause violence. Weapons donât cause violence. Weapons in the wrong hands can make violence worse, or in the right hands can prevent violence or stop it.
Yes a world where crackheads can legally carry guns will definitely not lead to violence.
You think a crackhead gives one single fuck what they are legally allowed to do?
The crackhead is gonna have a gun whether itâs legal or not (or maybe theyâll sell it for more crack). The gangster that sells them the crack is DEFINITELY gonna have a gun. Laws have no effect on the lawless.
The question though is you. When you encounter the violent crackhead, do YOU want to have a gun?
In a place like Night City i think itâs pretty clear why everyone walking around armed to the gills is a bad idea.
The fact that youâre pretty likely to be shot into ribbons is a big downside, even if sometimes thatâs survivable (and itâs pretty clear that it is not for most people).
corporations are le bad
People who support free market and capitalism should support Night City in order to be consistent with their beliefs.
This selective ignorance is very common in actual political discussion