|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 03 2017 05:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 05:47 Logo wrote:On October 03 2017 05:35 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I've been reading it's upwards to 50k+ ads in total, and the 3000 here are the ones he plans to make public. The reach that $100k can have in Facebook is ridiculously btw. I work in Marketing and $100k is a lot in general for ads. Especially if an ad can cost you between $0.03 - $1.50 per click/view on facebook. *Especially for Facebook* where you could say, target your content/ads for Red leaning congressional districts in swings states where the user has indicated a like of guns (or some other metric you feel more applicable). And there are no rules for disclosure if the ads are targeted. So the person using facebook has no idea the rest of the country isn’t seeing the same thing. Or their neighbor.
You mean to tell me there's a way to make sure a lot of very specific people see articles related to Clinton's crime bill? And that it might be possible to use this to weaken democrats? Impossible! I wonder if the term "super predator" ever came up in this thread..?
|
On October 03 2017 05:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 05:51 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 05:47 Logo wrote:On October 03 2017 05:35 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I've been reading it's upwards to 50k+ ads in total, and the 3000 here are the ones he plans to make public. The reach that $100k can have in Facebook is ridiculously btw. I work in Marketing and $100k is a lot in general for ads. Especially if an ad can cost you between $0.03 - $1.50 per click/view on facebook. *Especially for Facebook* where you could say, target your content/ads for Red leaning congressional districts in swings states where the user has indicated a like of guns (or some other metric you feel more applicable). And there are no rules for disclosure if the ads are targeted. So the person using facebook has no idea the rest of the country isn’t seeing the same thing. Or their neighbor. You mean to tell me there's a way to make sure a lot of very specific people see articles related to Clinton's crime bill? And that it might be possible to use this to weaken democrats? Impossible!
To be fair, it is far more effectively in letting everyone know about Clinton's crime bill than not.
|
On October 03 2017 05:59 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 05:56 Mohdoo wrote:On October 03 2017 05:51 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 05:47 Logo wrote:On October 03 2017 05:35 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I've been reading it's upwards to 50k+ ads in total, and the 3000 here are the ones he plans to make public. The reach that $100k can have in Facebook is ridiculously btw. I work in Marketing and $100k is a lot in general for ads. Especially if an ad can cost you between $0.03 - $1.50 per click/view on facebook. *Especially for Facebook* where you could say, target your content/ads for Red leaning congressional districts in swings states where the user has indicated a like of guns (or some other metric you feel more applicable). And there are no rules for disclosure if the ads are targeted. So the person using facebook has no idea the rest of the country isn’t seeing the same thing. Or their neighbor. You mean to tell me there's a way to make sure a lot of very specific people see articles related to Clinton's crime bill? And that it might be possible to use this to weaken democrats? Impossible! To be fair, it is far more effectively in letting everyone know about Clinton's crime bill than not.
I don't understand what you mean by this
|
United States42604 Posts
On October 03 2017 06:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 05:59 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2017 05:56 Mohdoo wrote:On October 03 2017 05:51 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 05:47 Logo wrote:On October 03 2017 05:35 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I've been reading it's upwards to 50k+ ads in total, and the 3000 here are the ones he plans to make public. The reach that $100k can have in Facebook is ridiculously btw. I work in Marketing and $100k is a lot in general for ads. Especially if an ad can cost you between $0.03 - $1.50 per click/view on facebook. *Especially for Facebook* where you could say, target your content/ads for Red leaning congressional districts in swings states where the user has indicated a like of guns (or some other metric you feel more applicable). And there are no rules for disclosure if the ads are targeted. So the person using facebook has no idea the rest of the country isn’t seeing the same thing. Or their neighbor. You mean to tell me there's a way to make sure a lot of very specific people see articles related to Clinton's crime bill? And that it might be possible to use this to weaken democrats? Impossible! To be fair, it is far more effectively in letting everyone know about Clinton's crime bill than not. I don't understand what you mean by this
In fairness nor does he.
|
On October 03 2017 05:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 05:51 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 05:47 Logo wrote:On October 03 2017 05:35 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I've been reading it's upwards to 50k+ ads in total, and the 3000 here are the ones he plans to make public. The reach that $100k can have in Facebook is ridiculously btw. I work in Marketing and $100k is a lot in general for ads. Especially if an ad can cost you between $0.03 - $1.50 per click/view on facebook. *Especially for Facebook* where you could say, target your content/ads for Red leaning congressional districts in swings states where the user has indicated a like of guns (or some other metric you feel more applicable). And there are no rules for disclosure if the ads are targeted. So the person using facebook has no idea the rest of the country isn’t seeing the same thing. Or their neighbor. You mean to tell me there's a way to make sure a lot of very specific people see articles related to Clinton's crime bill? And that it might be possible to use this to weaken democrats? Impossible! I wonder if the term "super predator" ever came up in this thread..?
Pretty much. 2016 has a whole new look if you accept the idea that the Russians were using targeted ads to drive the country apart, rather than make one person win.
|
This was a really dumb move, methinks.
CBS has parted ways with one of the company’s top lawyers after she said she is “not even sympathetic” to victims of the Las Vegas shooting because “country music fans often are Republican,” when discussing the tragic mass shooting that occurred in Las Vegas late Sunday night.
“This individual, who was with us for approximately one year, violated the standards of our company and is no longer an employee of CBS. Her views as expressed on social media are deeply unacceptable to all of us at CBS. Our hearts go out to the victims in Las Vegas and their families,” a CBS spokeswoman told Fox News.
Hayley Geftman-Gold, the network's now-former vice president and senior counsel, took to Facebook after a gunman opened fire at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas, killing at least 58 people and sending more than 500 others to hospitals.
“If they wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered I have no hope that Repugs [sic] will ever do the right thing,” Geftman-Gold wrote in a now-deleted message that was first reported and captured by The Daily Caller.
Geftman-Gold continued: “I’m actually not even sympathetic bc [sic] country music fans often are Republican gun toters [sic].”
[...]
Geftman-Gold did not work directly with the network’s news division. According to her LinkedIn bio, Geftman-Gold worked at CBS since September 2016 and graduated from the prestigious Columbia University law school in 2000.
www.foxnews.com
|
On October 03 2017 05:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 04:21 Logo wrote:Clearly the solution is to ban guns, because bad parenting of children means you should be unarmed in case of needing to defend yourself. I'm generally against nanny state government, but particularly in the case where you need to punish the law abiding for the reckless and the criminals.
Responses like this are incredibly disingenuous. You're already abiding by or complicit with restrictions on what you're arguing is a civil right here. There are many existing gun restrictions in an effort to curtail the reckless and criminals. Is your ideological view that existing gun laws (i.e ANY law controlling guns) are unacceptable restrictions of your rights? If not then you agree there's a line dividing acceptable restrictions from unacceptable ones. But you defend your position, and the current line, as if it is ideologically pure and thus unbendable. It's already a bent position, some people think the line should be elsewhere. Even if you disagree it doesn't lead you to the arguments you are making. It's really no different than other topics where people do the same thing ("I only support completely free speech, but support trademarks and copyright laws!") Right back at you for ignoring the disingenuous "what about the children?" calls. You snipped it as a response, but that was tailored to child accidents, not some wide detailed ideological position. You'll have to do better or I'll get the impression you're looking to snip responses to emotional pleas to pretend it represents the full argument. Any real response to childhood safety? I've drawn two acceptable restrictions of my gun rights. If you didn't bother to read my prior interactions on this topic in the last pages, maybe I'm disinclined to fight the wind with your new arguments made in ignorance.
I didn't make any "What about the children calls?" I didn't make any sort of actual claim on gun control or children protection, I merely pointed out how you are admitting to accepting some gun control measures but then digging your heels in deep on some ideological measure in any sort of further debate as if you've drawn up some ideologically pure stance where any gun control is abhorrent because that frames the debate where you don't need to defend your views on their merit and can instead just say, "punish the law abiding for the reckless and the criminals" as if you *aren't* doing the exact same thing with the bits of gun control you accept and/or are find it too uncomfortable to argue against.
|
On October 03 2017 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 05:28 LegalLord wrote:
Let's see if those ads were worth the $100k it cost to put em up. Has to be. A million times over. If young activists see this type of stuff posted by people who seem similar to them (helped by Russian social media bots made to look like a certain type of activist), these ads suddenly have 100x the credibility of any major news outlet. Particularly when relating to race issues. When people reach a certain level of feeling powerless and disenfranchised, they are going to have a really easy time believing and spreading false ideology so long as it is empowering. It's not even a matter of having the article clicked. Just that headline being liked or shared by someone who looks like the kind of person they'd agree with has a huge impact on validating extremist views. The hivemind kicks in and suddenly a Russian operative is influencing thousands of young activists.
Why are you doing this again? You didn't substantiate your last really bad hot take, then you just come back with a slightly less hostile version of the same thing.
On October 03 2017 05:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 05:51 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 05:47 Logo wrote:On October 03 2017 05:35 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I've been reading it's upwards to 50k+ ads in total, and the 3000 here are the ones he plans to make public. The reach that $100k can have in Facebook is ridiculously btw. I work in Marketing and $100k is a lot in general for ads. Especially if an ad can cost you between $0.03 - $1.50 per click/view on facebook. *Especially for Facebook* where you could say, target your content/ads for Red leaning congressional districts in swings states where the user has indicated a like of guns (or some other metric you feel more applicable). And there are no rules for disclosure if the ads are targeted. So the person using facebook has no idea the rest of the country isn’t seeing the same thing. Or their neighbor. You mean to tell me there's a way to make sure a lot of very specific people see articles related to Clinton's crime bill? And that it might be possible to use this to weaken democrats? Impossible! I wonder if the term "super predator" ever came up in this thread..?
Again, what are you talking about?
|
On October 03 2017 06:08 Nevuk wrote:This was a really dumb move, methinks. Show nested quote +CBS has parted ways with one of the company’s top lawyers after she said she is “not even sympathetic” to victims of the Las Vegas shooting because “country music fans often are Republican,” when discussing the tragic mass shooting that occurred in Las Vegas late Sunday night.
“This individual, who was with us for approximately one year, violated the standards of our company and is no longer an employee of CBS. Her views as expressed on social media are deeply unacceptable to all of us at CBS. Our hearts go out to the victims in Las Vegas and their families,” a CBS spokeswoman told Fox News.
Hayley Geftman-Gold, the network's now-former vice president and senior counsel, took to Facebook after a gunman opened fire at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas, killing at least 58 people and sending more than 500 others to hospitals.
“If they wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered I have no hope that Repugs [sic] will ever do the right thing,” Geftman-Gold wrote in a now-deleted message that was first reported and captured by The Daily Caller.
Geftman-Gold continued: “I’m actually not even sympathetic bc [sic] country music fans often are Republican gun toters [sic].”
[...]
Geftman-Gold did not work directly with the network’s news division. According to her LinkedIn bio, Geftman-Gold worked at CBS since September 2016 and graduated from the prestigious Columbia University law school in 2000.
www.foxnews.comhttps://twitter.com/TheBrandonMorse/status/914885815901319168
First of all, lacking sympathy is completely different from saying they had it coming. But this woman is still a bag of shit.
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
On October 03 2017 05:06 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 04:44 Logo wrote:On October 03 2017 04:40 ChristianS wrote:
Policy suggestion: require guns to be made in such a way that it's harder to mod them? Dunno how doable that is.
Unrelated policy suggestions on gun control: make any effort at all to enforce laws against straw purchases, require the AR 15 upper to have serial number, manufacturer name, etc. just like the lower has, limit magazine sizes so even if you mod a gun to be automatic, your clip still runs out pretty quick. Some of the mods that supposedly simulate automatic fire (like bump firing) aren't illegal though so why do they need to be restricted? My understanding is bump firing isn't that practical if you want to hit something in particular, because it's almost impossible to aim while bump firing. It's mostly just for experiencing what it feels like to fire an automatic.
except if you're indiscriminantly firing into a crowd of people
|
On October 03 2017 06:11 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 05:06 ChristianS wrote:On October 03 2017 04:44 Logo wrote:On October 03 2017 04:40 ChristianS wrote:
Policy suggestion: require guns to be made in such a way that it's harder to mod them? Dunno how doable that is.
Unrelated policy suggestions on gun control: make any effort at all to enforce laws against straw purchases, require the AR 15 upper to have serial number, manufacturer name, etc. just like the lower has, limit magazine sizes so even if you mod a gun to be automatic, your clip still runs out pretty quick. Some of the mods that supposedly simulate automatic fire (like bump firing) aren't illegal though so why do they need to be restricted? My understanding is bump firing isn't that practical if you want to hit something in particular, because it's almost impossible to aim while bump firing. It's mostly just for experiencing what it feels like to fire an automatic. except if you're indiscriminantly firing into a crowd of people
and from a tripod and at a pre-ranged target.
|
On October 03 2017 06:12 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 06:11 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 05:06 ChristianS wrote:On October 03 2017 04:44 Logo wrote:On October 03 2017 04:40 ChristianS wrote:
Policy suggestion: require guns to be made in such a way that it's harder to mod them? Dunno how doable that is.
Unrelated policy suggestions on gun control: make any effort at all to enforce laws against straw purchases, require the AR 15 upper to have serial number, manufacturer name, etc. just like the lower has, limit magazine sizes so even if you mod a gun to be automatic, your clip still runs out pretty quick. Some of the mods that supposedly simulate automatic fire (like bump firing) aren't illegal though so why do they need to be restricted? My understanding is bump firing isn't that practical if you want to hit something in particular, because it's almost impossible to aim while bump firing. It's mostly just for experiencing what it feels like to fire an automatic. except if you're indiscriminantly firing into a crowd of people and from a tripod and at a pre-ranged target.
And with basically an unlimited # of attempts.
|
On October 03 2017 05:48 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 04:34 RenSC2 wrote:The Second amendment: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's not well defined, but there is that whole part about a well-regulated militia. I would think well-regulated would at least include keeping track of who is in that militia to possibly own a gun. I would also question the necessity of a well-regulated militia to maintain the security of a free state. We have the most powerful military in the world and it's not even close. We don't need a citizens' militia to defend America from invaders and we have a whole political process to defend us from the military itself (and your small-arms fire isn't going to stop airstrikes). Then there's the issue of police. It turns out that a whole hell of a lot of police in America have been gunned down in the line of duty. Police in America are much more on-edge than police in other first world countries without America's gun problems and they tend to be trigger happy and gun down citizens much more frequently. So arming the populace isn't disincentivizing police violence, but actually is one of the root causes of it. Focusing on the militia clause is a bad thought process because it actually would make even more gun control laws unconstitutional. Why? Here: 1. To start. States were the entities that "regulated" said "well regulated militias". Well regulated actually means well equipped in this context, but that doesn't really help. This means the Federal Government is 100% banned from regulating the militias until they are called up. For example, if we consider this a "state right", if Rhode Island and Florida want to equip militia members with Tanks, Apaches, and Nukes, Washington can say jack shit about it. 2. Next, the Militia is made up of all able bodied men (being defined as anyone past puberty), not really a great restriction. I guess it would be modified in the present day to include women, maybe, by the 14th. 3. The 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean that all the restrictions that applied to the Federal government only in the Bill of Rights (Speech, Religion, 5th amendment, etc) are also applied against the state. When logically applied, it now means each individual person is now his own militia, and can decide that it is "necessary to the security of a free State" that he himself needs a tank and a nuke. We know Washington can have no say, because militias were never regulated by the Federal government prior to being called up, but because of incorporation doctrine, state capitals also have no say. In other words, by obsessing over the "militia" portion, you just made an argument for private tactical nukes for anyone who can afford it. The Scalia individual right interpretation gets around all the problems of the militia clause by saying it was an individual right from the very beginning, and that the right is subject to reasonable regulation, just like we don't have the right to publish slander, and the 4th Amendment doesn't mean cops can't chase a bank robber into an apartment building.
In fact, the Scalia Heller decision indulges the bolded part to explain the prefatory clause and operative clause.
In fact, reading Heller would knock down a very high portion of these misunderstandings in this thread and 2nd amendment deniers in journalism. LINK
It details the use of disarming opponents by English kings, prompting the general wariness. Samesuch on the colonists.
Founding era understanding of the right to repel force by force
It doesn't automatically mean an unlimited right, as the first amendment has also had restrictions at the fringes
|
On October 03 2017 01:51 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2017 01:33 sc-darkness wrote:
Another gun incident. Another wasted chance to reduce weapons in the US. Next I guess? But have you thought about the guys who do so much money selling war weapons to everyone and all those clients who get a hard on by purchasing stuff that can turn 400 people into steak tartare in 15 minutes? Oh and also ideology nuts who really believe that everyone having enough ammo to wipe out a city is what keeps murican freedom going and prevent evil government from taking over. Maveric far west proto fascist fantasies are well worth a few thousand lives, aren't they? Are you sure it's nuts and gun companies and not just regular people and the second amendment? I mean is there a bigger civil rights group than the NRA?
Maybe the second amendment is dumb as shit, made sense in the XVIIIth century and none today and if you really wanna stick to it despite how dumb it is, then having any civilian at all be able to carry devastating war weapons makes absolutely 0 sense. The fact that it is even discussed wether or not any psycho could just buy huge semi automatic weapons with a zillion ammo shows how batshit crazy conservative are in that country. It's so stupid it's painful.
Hey, here is a question: why aren't people allowed to buy a fucking Abraham tank? It doesn't make one bit more sense to allow someone to buy a weapon that can only be relevant either in fucking Fallujah or to murder a zillion people in a few minutes, than to allow them to buy a tank. After all it's gonna be great to have people with abraham tanks the day evil government wants to take over. And it's fantastic for home defense!!
Plus since we are gonna keep being offensively stupid, it's not Abraham tanks that kill, it's people.
There is no case to let anyone have the right to buy a fucking assault weapon. At all, under any circumstances. And don't insult our intelligence by associating the criminal assholes from the NRA with people who fought for bkack people to have the right not to be treated like animals or gay people not to go to jail. It's offensive.
|
So, should bump fire stocks be banned? They sound like they're not really useful outside of being flashy or shooting at a packed crowd.
|
On October 03 2017 06:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 05:48 cLutZ wrote:On October 03 2017 04:34 RenSC2 wrote:The Second amendment: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's not well defined, but there is that whole part about a well-regulated militia. I would think well-regulated would at least include keeping track of who is in that militia to possibly own a gun. I would also question the necessity of a well-regulated militia to maintain the security of a free state. We have the most powerful military in the world and it's not even close. We don't need a citizens' militia to defend America from invaders and we have a whole political process to defend us from the military itself (and your small-arms fire isn't going to stop airstrikes). Then there's the issue of police. It turns out that a whole hell of a lot of police in America have been gunned down in the line of duty. Police in America are much more on-edge than police in other first world countries without America's gun problems and they tend to be trigger happy and gun down citizens much more frequently. So arming the populace isn't disincentivizing police violence, but actually is one of the root causes of it. Focusing on the militia clause is a bad thought process because it actually would make even more gun control laws unconstitutional. Why? Here: 1. To start. States were the entities that "regulated" said "well regulated militias". Well regulated actually means well equipped in this context, but that doesn't really help. This means the Federal Government is 100% banned from regulating the militias until they are called up. For example, if we consider this a "state right", if Rhode Island and Florida want to equip militia members with Tanks, Apaches, and Nukes, Washington can say jack shit about it. 2. Next, the Militia is made up of all able bodied men (being defined as anyone past puberty), not really a great restriction. I guess it would be modified in the present day to include women, maybe, by the 14th. 3. The 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean that all the restrictions that applied to the Federal government only in the Bill of Rights (Speech, Religion, 5th amendment, etc) are also applied against the state. When logically applied, it now means each individual person is now his own militia, and can decide that it is "necessary to the security of a free State" that he himself needs a tank and a nuke. We know Washington can have no say, because militias were never regulated by the Federal government prior to being called up, but because of incorporation doctrine, state capitals also have no say. In other words, by obsessing over the "militia" portion, you just made an argument for private tactical nukes for anyone who can afford it. The Scalia individual right interpretation gets around all the problems of the militia clause by saying it was an individual right from the very beginning, and that the right is subject to reasonable regulation, just like we don't have the right to publish slander, and the 4th Amendment doesn't mean cops can't chase a bank robber into an apartment building. In fact, the Scalia Heller decision indulges the bolded part to explain the prefatory clause and operative clause. In fact, reading Heller would knock down a very high portion of these misunderstandings in this thread and 2nd amendment deniers in journalism. LINKIt details the use of disarming opponents by English kings, prompting the general wariness. Samesuch on the colonists. Founding era understanding of the right to repel force by force It doesn't automatically mean an unlimited right, as the first amendment has also had restrictions at the fringes
I'm torn, because we need better gun laws but neither party has any interest in them. The right (politicians) want nothing, and the Left (politicians) want dumb laws based in ignorance and feels.
+ Show Spoiler +One thing did become evident today, a rich white man is responsible for the deadliest mass shooting in American history. Rich white men seem to be at the center of a lot of human suffering. Maybe we should ban them until we figure out what the hell is going on?
On October 03 2017 06:24 Nevuk wrote:
So, should bump fire stocks be banned? They sound like they're not really useful outside of being flashy or shooting at a packed crowd.
I mean it's fun to shoot, and this is probably the first time it's been used like this (if it was), but probably. We'd probably prevent more shooting and death in general with mandatory mental health services (for everyone, like vaccines or something) than any of the gun laws suggested.
That's not to say people with mental illness are dangerous, just that regular mental health services would be more likely to pick something up before it got to "I'm going to murder as many people as I can" than background checks.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 03 2017 05:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 05:44 LegalLord wrote:On October 03 2017 05:35 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I've been reading it's upwards to 50k+ ads in total, and the 3000 here are the ones he plans to make public. The reach that $100k can have in Facebook is ridiculously btw. I work in Marketing and $100k is a lot in general for ads. Especially if an ad can cost you between $0.03 - $1.50 per click/view on facebook. We should try to put a dollar amount on the quantity of democracy that those $50-100k destroyed. Are you saying the Russia has proven the US to be a low quality democracy through this act? Or that it’s not a big deal, and please ignore the man behind the curtain, who happens to be Putin?
I'm saying we should try to price the amount of democracy that was destroyed through this since evidently, the act of people from another country spending money on run of the mill political advertisements is destroying democracy. But how much of it is the real question.
Maybe we should also perform the same exercise for any other group that spends any amount of money in politics. They might not have foreign devil cred in the aftermath but no one knew or had to know who bought the ads back then. Money is money, after all.
|
On October 03 2017 05:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 04:31 Simberto wrote:On October 03 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 03:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 03 2017 03:46 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 02:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 03 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:When faced with senseless, horrific shootings, people in Washington and on cable news often end up politicizing them in order to argue over gun laws, especially if the location where the incident took place has relatively relaxed regulations. With this morning’s awful mass shooting in Las Vegas, we may not hear such talk, since the suspect, Stephen Paddock, allegedly used a fully automatic weapon, which is illegal no matter what, unless legally purchased and registered prior to May 19, 1986, when they were basically banned under federal law. Of course, it’s possible that he reconfigured a legal semi-automatic weapon to make it fire automatically but that would then make it an illegal weapon.
While it’s true that Nevada does allow people to legally carry firearms in public, only legal weapons are covered by this. Paddock would have broken the law before even pulling the trigger, since—assuming he hadn’t been holding onto this weapon for more than 30 years—the law forbids having the gun in the first place. Not only that, but the shooting took place at the Mandalay Bay, which has a strict no-weapons policy. Such policies technically don’t have the weight of law, meaning they can’t remove your weapon, but they can tell you to leave and have you arrested for trespass if you don’t.
As far as legal firearms in Nevada go, it is legal to carry them openly in public, with exceptions for places like government buildings, airports, schools, and child care facilities. Permits are required to carry a concealed firearm, and they can be denied for a number of reasons, including if the applicant has an open warrant for their arrest, or if they have a criminal history including violence or stalking. In Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, all handguns must be registered. Convicted felons in the state are banned from possessing firearms altogether, as are people who are found to have unlawfully used controlled substances, and people who have been committed to mental health facilities or have been adjudicated mentally ill.
Other horrible attacks sparked debates over what types of guns should or should not be legal, or under what circumstances, but this situation is different. It does not appear that this terrible assault would have been prevented by stronger gun control regulations. Law Newz This is illogical, and not backed up by evidence. You just need to compare the rate of this happening in the USA to countries where guns are banned to see the effect of stricter gun control. Fewer guns = smaller chance of a modded gun showing up. I'm generally not in favor of punishing the lawful gun owners so the guilty ones are less likely to do that much of damage. It's better to see civil rights respected everywhere than to indiscriminately punish owners for the actions of a few. If you want to look to other countries, include crime incidents against an unarmed population. Victims of terrorist violence, of rape, that had to be victimized to get justice after the fact. Any simple google search will show you gun owners in America stopping crime and ensuring peace and security in their life. You have the right to self defense with a gun. Our founders knew that, and thank God. If you want to open the can of worms at migrant violence or terrorist violence in the countries of Europe, by all means go ahead. The police violence response to the Catalonian referendum seems to be a very current example of state tyranny against a disarmed populace. They might be a little more hesitant to beat pollgoers with batons and shoot rubber bullets into crowds, and instead only call it an illegal vote instead of deploying four thousand. How many hundreds are injured because Spain's government knew they could get out the billy clubs and drag & kick people with impunity? Google searches will also show you hundreds of accidental suicides of children across the United States because their parents owned a firearm, but we probably shouldn't be using google searches to judge differential international public health impact. Good thing the NRA lobbied and made it functionally impossible to actually do those public health studies, then, huh? If only the tobacco lobby had managed that. Clearly the solution is to ban guns, because bad parenting of children means you should be unarmed in case of needing to defend yourself. I'm generally against nanny state government, but particularly in the case where you need to punish the law abiding for the reckless and the criminals. On October 03 2017 04:00 hootsushi wrote:On October 03 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 03:44 hootsushi wrote:On October 03 2017 03:28 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 03:02 Artisreal wrote:On October 03 2017 02:25 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 01:12 Broetchenholer wrote:
[quote]
Allright, so all western countries are just morons for trusting the democratic process then? I remember the reunification of Germany, when all those guys with AKMs murdered the tyrannical government, mowed down the NVA. And when those tanks roled out afterwards, thank god my father had an antitank missile he bought before or i would not be here today.
How exactly are AR-15s in the hands of your population a moral check? Either your government is willing to use force against you, then AR-15s won't solve the problem, because you are going to get airstriked. Or they are not, in which case your AR-15 is either useless or you are a murderer for killing your government with it. I cannot see a single scenario in which the population being armed to the teath with handguns and semi-automatic rifles will prevent or stop an illegal activity by the state. Please tell me how you think such a scenario would look like. Other western nations are forgetting the lessons of history. You should remember you own history, where gun registries were used by the National Socialists to disarm the population. The Weimar republic had strict gun control laws even before that. My great country was aided in its rebellion by an armed populace against the dictatorial English regime. Despite your trollish hystericals, it's sound doctrine. Tyranny creeps. It won't start with tanks on your boulevard, it's the policeman enforcing an unjust law. They know giving actions the appearance of routine police work/enforcement is key to their success. Airstriking will prompt more armed rebellions, because the population is already armed. Frankly, if you want to defend your home against armed robbers or robbers with a badge, I don't care if you think your AR-15 is your weapon of choice rather than a glock. I'll draw the line at fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers, but pick your semi-auto handgun or rifle at your leisure. I've seen enough threats of state violence against current weapon holders to make the threat legitimate. You appear to draw a false conclusion from whatever you pick from German history. Even an armed poulace would not have resisted the NSDAP's lead in any way. While it is not undisputed by scholars, it's rather safe to assume that most everyone not affected by their early actions had their favourite topic that the Nazis catered. Be it eradicating unemployment, empowerment against the winners of WW1, finding a common scapegoat, ceating a German Superstate. Just look at Göbbels... + Show Spoiler +And think again, whether the supposed disarmament of civilians, which, if you had read the wikipedia article carefully you might have known, or you willingly left it out, targeted Jews as well as Sinti an Roma and not the broad populace, actually happened. Or reconsider your assumption that an armed populace would actually have resisted Hitler and not waved their arms in approval. It's a faulty understanding to propose an ineffective resistance is proof that no armed resistance from an armed populace is ever possible when tyrants come to power. I wouldn't want to be the one telling Jews that it's better for them to die in concentration camps than resisting with violence violence on their persons. What I also find incredibly funny is the following sentence: Yes, this is actually Danglars posting!
Tyranny creeps. It won't start with tanks on your boulevard, it's the policeman enforcing an unjust law. Lmfao that's exactly what GreenHorizon is complaing about - among other things. Finally we know you agree on a theoretical level, just not when it comes to PoCs. He's posted that he's a gun owner. I'll assert his right of self-defense. Just make sure to respect everyone's civil rights, yourself, including their second amendment rights. Regardless of color of skin. How about you tell all the families of those who died today that you need that right to carry an AR15, M4A1 or w/e just IN CASE someone would seize power in the future. Are we really talking about that? I did link an article related to why gun control is a poor argument in this case. If you want to tell grieving families you blame the second amendment for their loss, go right ahead. You mean the article that clearly stated that it's only speculated if it's an illegal automatic rifle or just a modified semi-auto rifle, which can be obtained legally? If the person broke existing gun control laws in one way or another? Yeah, that article. Yes, but who cares. You don't seem to (want to) understand the argument. Due to your gun laws, it is easy to get a gun which you can turn into an automatic rifle at home, and then start murdering people with it. No one knows that you broke the gun laws until you start murdering people, at which point you are already murdering people, so it doesn't really matter if you also broke the gun laws. Good admission of the inefficacy of gun control laws. Show nested quote +Of course, it’s possible that he reconfigured a legal semi-automatic weapon to make it fire automatically but that would then make it an illegal weapon. Others before me already pointed out how to easy it is to find a guide on youtube how to modify it. Its about saving lives, because the next mass shooting is bound to happen and it will most definitely happen. It's not about finding someone to blame. You really want to tell the ppl these "human sacrifices" are necessary because we have to be prepared to fight the oppression and tyranny, which we don't even know if it ever happens in america? I haven't heard a policy suggestion from you yet about saving lives. I can only speculate you want to amend the constitution to take away the second amendment, or ban only semi-auto rifles so the greater deaths by pistols is magnified further, or would rather innocent victims die from not having access to a self-defense victim. But I'm gathering from the "human sacrifices" that you're engaging in political grandstanding rather than real debate. Also no word yet if you're telling grieving families you blame the second amendment for their loss. Because you certainly started with a bang alleging that was my intent. This discussion is always the same. I am totally fine with blaming your second amendment, because i don't think that constitutions are holy texts which are perfect in their current form, and may never be changed. Your second amendment is anachronistic and gets people killed. I know exactly how this discussion plays out: Some dude in the US kills a bunch of people with a gun. A: Maybe if people in the US didn't have so many guns, there would be less people killed with guns. B: But if people didn't have guns, only criminals have guns! We have to protect ourselves! Also government tyranny! A: Other country which have sensible gun laws don't have this problem with people killing random people with guns in this amount B: American exceptionalism!!! And there is no data from the US that supports that easier access to guns means that people can more easily get a gun to kill people with A: Because it is illegal to gather that data in the US due to laws pushed through by the gun lobby. But look at all these other countries. B: Only american data works! America is so exceptional it can never be compared to another country! Also tyranny! Also, there will be a bunch of weird ideas like that people who are for gun control want to ban all people from having guns. And the weird inability to understand that the availability of legal guns also influences the availability of illegal guns. It never works. So you will have to live with a random dude snapping and grabbing a gun to kill a bunch of people every few days forever. Because there is nothing that can be done. Except in all of the other countries which don't have this problem to this extent. And like "these discussions are always the same," no admission of the asymmetric disadvantages the other countries accept. You get weird ideas like opponents are arguing for "American exceptionalism," "only American data works," "I won't address tyranny, so I'm gonna herp derp 'tyranny' ironically!" We have to punish the law abiding because who knows when a criminal will snap! I should say, "a random dude snapping and grabbing his [randomly modified semi-auto or randomly pre-1986 full auto] gun to go kill a bunch... . It's poisonous and always equates criminals to the largely law-abiding, statistically less likely to cimmit crimes, stopping violent criminals from inflicting injury on their person or loved ones. Other countries might not protect their children from rape gangs, or borders from economic migrants, or their tabloid rags from jihadists, or politicians from hiding New Year's Eve sexual assaults. Hey, their citizens accept the results. I hope their representative governance reflects their citizens' choice of compromises.
The New-Years Eve story from Germany has been debunked as actual fake news (not the DT kind.) As for the rapes, I guess you refer to India, and there are major protests there, and yes, they have a problem, but you cant argue the population find the consequences acceptable.
School shootings, gun accidents, major attacks like the one we just saw, and generally the INSANE gun-death rate in the US compared to any other comparable country should not be an accepted price for the outdated "right to protect yourself." It is not easy to get rid of the massive gun-problem you have in the US, but you have to start somewhere, and banning rifles that can be modified to be automatic is a reasonable place to start. If not, where is the limit to "acceptable" private weapons? Genades? Trucks with mounted guns? If the government itself is a potential enemy, why not get private torpedoes, fighterjets and anti-aircraft missiles, while you are at it?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 03 2017 06:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 01:51 oBlade wrote:On October 03 2017 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2017 01:33 sc-darkness wrote:
Another gun incident. Another wasted chance to reduce weapons in the US. Next I guess? But have you thought about the guys who do so much money selling war weapons to everyone and all those clients who get a hard on by purchasing stuff that can turn 400 people into steak tartare in 15 minutes? Oh and also ideology nuts who really believe that everyone having enough ammo to wipe out a city is what keeps murican freedom going and prevent evil government from taking over. Maveric far west proto fascist fantasies are well worth a few thousand lives, aren't they? Are you sure it's nuts and gun companies and not just regular people and the second amendment? I mean is there a bigger civil rights group than the NRA? Hey, here is a question: why aren't people allowed to buy a fucking Abraham tank? It doesn't make one bit more sense to allow someone to buy a weapon that can only be relevant either in fucking Fallujah or to murder a zillion people in a few minutes, than to allow them to buy a tank. After all it's gonna be great to have people with abraham tanks the day evil government wants to take over. And it's fantastic for home defense!!
Who says you aren't?
|
On October 03 2017 06:10 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 05:54 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 04:21 Logo wrote:Clearly the solution is to ban guns, because bad parenting of children means you should be unarmed in case of needing to defend yourself. I'm generally against nanny state government, but particularly in the case where you need to punish the law abiding for the reckless and the criminals.
Responses like this are incredibly disingenuous. You're already abiding by or complicit with restrictions on what you're arguing is a civil right here. There are many existing gun restrictions in an effort to curtail the reckless and criminals. Is your ideological view that existing gun laws (i.e ANY law controlling guns) are unacceptable restrictions of your rights? If not then you agree there's a line dividing acceptable restrictions from unacceptable ones. But you defend your position, and the current line, as if it is ideologically pure and thus unbendable. It's already a bent position, some people think the line should be elsewhere. Even if you disagree it doesn't lead you to the arguments you are making. It's really no different than other topics where people do the same thing ("I only support completely free speech, but support trademarks and copyright laws!") Right back at you for ignoring the disingenuous "what about the children?" calls. You snipped it as a response, but that was tailored to child accidents, not some wide detailed ideological position. You'll have to do better or I'll get the impression you're looking to snip responses to emotional pleas to pretend it represents the full argument. Any real response to childhood safety? I've drawn two acceptable restrictions of my gun rights. If you didn't bother to read my prior interactions on this topic in the last pages, maybe I'm disinclined to fight the wind with your new arguments made in ignorance. I didn't make any "What about the children calls?" I didn't make any sort of actual claim on gun control or children protection, I merely pointed out how you are admitting to accepting some gun control measures but then digging your heels in deep on some ideological measure in any sort of further debate as if you've drawn up some ideologically pure stance where any gun control is abhorrent because that frames the debate where you don't need to defend your views on their merit and can instead just say, "punish the law abiding for the reckless and the criminals" as if you *aren't* doing the exact same thing with the bits of gun control you accept and/or are find it too uncomfortable to argue against.
You quoted my response to someone using accidental suicides of children against citing cases where a lawful gun owner stopped crime. You're either ignoring that framing out of straight ignorance or disingenuity. If you want to make a similar argument using the children to debate gun control, have at it. I can't see much use in debating ideologically pure stances when you missed my restrictions and take the context of responses out of the picture. Make an actual claim, ask an actual stance-related question, or share your own ideology. I will be incredibly dismissive if you allege disingenuity and skip context and previous posts on the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
