|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On June 24 2016 04:25 TRAP[yoo] wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:57 superstartran wrote:On June 23 2016 18:38 Incognoto wrote:On June 22 2016 03:01 Leporello wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 21 2016 16:48 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 15:04 Leporello wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hnA8X8X.jpg) This was in my news feed, these stories, back to back. Proliferating more and more deadlier and deadlier weapons is a stupid fucking idea. End of story. We have more guns than people in this country. What is more likely? That a gun will be used to save someone's life, or that it will end up shooting somebody that wasn't a threat to the shooter? The answer is obvious, proven, and always has been. Guns kill people. You want to save yourself from getting shot: try a bulletproof vest, and try to stop guns from being put into the hands of everyone who wants one. Giving everyone a gun is the worst way to prevent yourself from being shot. It is not to say that guns should be eradicated. I want certain police to have guns, for example. But I do not want people to own guns. Everyday, emotional, self-certain, self-righteous people should not own a gun, because it only takes one instance in a lifetime for a good person to commit murder. Like myself, for example. And you. Neither of us should have a gun. No one who isn't actively required to respond to actual threats, should own or possess a gun. No guns, no militias, no "necessary security" from people who are more likely to shoot their neighbor than actually protect the Free State. Revoke the ridiculously archaic, nonsense 2nd Amendment. Everything about it has faded into obscurity. Even the part people DO like about it: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Ummm... where's the lines here? It's "infringement" to ban automatic weapons, but we're all okay with banning high-explosives? Why? Why is an automatic rifle "necessary to the security of a Free State" but high-explosives aren't? Of course, this all hinges on the Amendment's actual subject: militias. Militias, being necessary to the security of a free State. Well, there's a hell of a presumption. I see a lot of "states", i.e. countries, in the world. A lot of them enjoy, arguably, more freedoms than ever America is comfortable with. They don't need guns. They don't have guns. The Netherlands will let you buy drugs and a prostitute before it lets a person buy a gun. But I think they still have their freedom over there. I don't think modern Europe is staving off their past Monarchs by the threat of militiamen. I think they just realized that people can govern themselves and will demand it. That demand is simply all it takes. If anything, guns are a threat to self-governance. How is it that America's self-governance is going to be saved by a person with a gun? We're the country that DOES have militias, and the last time I heard from one of these militias in the news, they were taking over public land, aiming guns at public officials working for public institutions that were created by a government that the people voted for. It is all such nonsense. I am tired of all the weakness on this issue. Set the precedent for the future. Ban guns. Make every gun owner account for every gun they own. Arrest anyone who has a gun that isn't accounted for. No more buying or selling. Tell gun manufacturers to sell to Somalia or find better jobs. The tragedy isn't mass-shootings. It isn't Orlando. It's the fact that more people are shot all over this country everyday than were shot in that Orlando nightclub. It's neighbors settling domestic disputes between angry couples, who end up getting shot by "responsible gun owners" who simply lost their mind for a moment, as happens to everyone. We are distributing more and more deadlier guns, and who in their right mind can continue to say it's making us safer? There is so much to be disagreed with your post, I wonder if you're just trying to bait people into reacting negatively. First and foremost, Orlando and mass shootings are the tragedy. Secondly, gun violence in the USA isn't exactly bright but it's hardly as bad as you make it out to be either, there are many other issues which take many more lives in the USA which you ignore, lest it devalue your rhetoric. Thirdly, your own views are your own; don't assume the entire world agrees with you. Tyranny of the majority is a shitty thing and the norm right now is to step away from that (LBGT rights show this), not go in that direction. Anyway your entire post is full to the brim with rhetoric and slipperly slopes. Not very compelling at all. Oh dear, I posted rhetoric and opinion, and stated clearly why I think guns should be outlawed. Of which you don't have responses to.  Personally, I thought it was a good post I made. The 2nd Amendment is archaic bullshit and everyone, including you, knows it. Except you somehow say that LBGT rights is a display of the "tyranny of the majority". [vomit] This is the only real argument in your post that I can see, and it seems kind of crazy. And, somehow it's supposed to tie favorably into proliferating hundreds of millions of guns across the country? Somehow it vindicates the need for militias? I don't know. Well, I guess you make the argument that there are other things that kill more Americans. Like, I don't know, heart disease? You don't give an example, but it doesn't matter. "Heart disease kills more Americans than guns, therefore, guns are great and the 2nd Amendment is fine," is a terrible argument. Guns are not fine. I'll repeat: guns kill more innocent people everyday in America than the amount that died in the Orlando nightclub. The Orlando nightclub is a tragedy, sure. But to say it is the tragedy is wrong. The tragedy is rampant, widespread violence being proliferated across the country, everyday, excused due to an archaic nonsensical sentence that uses "militias" as it's actual subject, written over 200 years ago. You don't defend the 2nd Amendment. Because you can't. Read as a whole, it is blatantly nonsense. Just as the logic, which you also refuse to address, that more guns make us safer, is also blatantly nonsense. Once again, forgive me for daring to have an opinion on this blatant nonsense, displayed in the thread for which such opinions was created.  Secondly, gun violence in the USA isn't exactly bright but it's hardly as bad as you make it out to be either, there are many other issues which take many more lives in the USA which you ignore, lest it devalue your rhetoric. How bad am I "making it out to be"? And I'm "ignoring" what? I'm not supposed to talk about gun-violence without bringing up every other natural cause of death that kills people? "Lest it devalue my rhetoric"? What? What a fucking pathetic attempt to dismiss something. You obviously have never lost anyone in your life who was young due to gun-violence. "It's tragic that this young person died from violent gunshot wounds, but you know, in 30 years, he would've likely died to heart disease." Nauseating logic. It isn't just bad, it nauseates. I was hoping for a response that would actually argue the merits of the 2nd Amendment, and the merits of gun-proliferation among the general public. Kind of sad that people REFUSE to give these arguments. They just want to dismiss the discussion altogether. "Oh, you're trying to politicize this tragedy, how dare you?" "Oh, you're just being argumentative." These are the modern-day arguments favoring the 2nd Amendment. It's very pathetic. Your attempts at dismissal in lieu of arguing the merits of your beliefs strongly suggests you're insecure about your beliefs. Not that I blame you, entirely, because, really, no one can read the 2nd Amendment and honestly say that it makes sense in today's world. No one can look at gun-violence in America and honestly say that gun-proliferation has been a good thing. No one can honestly say that we're "freer" than other civilized countries due to gun-proliferating. Not in any real, earnest, reciprocated exchange, will anyone even dare to make these arguments. We're supposed to just live and die with them instead. Well, I'm completely done with that. It's way past time we had more outrage at weapon-manufacturers and the crud-propaganda that supports them. Whether you like it or not, guns are going to become an even bigger problem. Assault rifles today will pale in comparison to the handguns of the future. We need to draw lines, set rules and precedents, despite the bullshit from the 2nd Amendment "advocates". The best solution would be to simply ban guns, like other good civilized countries figured out a long, long time ago. OK, so I skimmed this post. I'm not going to even bother answering it. This guy puts words in my mouth, (purposely?) misunderstands what I say and says things which are absolutely groundless (no evidence, no studies, no statistics, no real argumentation). This guy is 100% rhetoric and I would like to take thank all the other posters in this thread who have actually legitimately though about this problem. I just want to set one thing straight: LGBT not having rights is "tyranny of the majority" and the trend of them having equal rights to others is the right trend. Where a majority doesn't oppress a minority. Edit: lol. i hate how so many people keep coming back to this
how do you guys even define freedom? there is practically nothing in this world that isnt regulated or governed somehow by some entity. there is no such thing as freedom. literally everything given to any single person on the planet aside from some random place in africa is a privilege because our governments allowed it to be. for now your governments have allowed guns to be as easily accessible and loosely regulated as it is, and the abuse of this PRIVILEGE is leading to deaths.
get your heads out of your asses; you dont own guns because you are 'free'. Freedom is defined as "doing whatever you want without impeding on the rights of others". Freedom is not defined as "do whatever you want". This nuance is something which escapes many anti-gun folk, unfortunately. The biggest reason I am pro-gun is that I do not believe that responsible, trustworthy gun owners should be forced to give up their interests (whether as a hobby or for self defence, etc.) because a minority abuse firearms. Most firearm related deaths are due to suicide, then it's drug gangs. The amount of death due to firearms pales compared to many other causes, so let's not monger fear disproportionately. Yes, firearms should be better regulated. No, they should not be banned entirely. Edit: Furthermore, talking about the 2nd Amendment is a moot point. Firearms are legal in many European countries where the 2nd Amendment does not exist. I never argue based on the 2nd Amendment, to me it's an obsolete piece of legislation. Also a disproportionate amount of firearm homicides are committed by African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. 3 groups that are commonly associated poverty (particularly Native Americans and African Americans, less so with Hispanics). If you look at firearm homicide rates among Asian Americans and Caucasians, you'll find that the percentages are very similar to our European and Asian counterparts such as Australia, Great Britain, France, Japan, the Netherlands, etc. So there's obviously a whole lot more going on then just ease of access to firearms. And yet here we are with a bunch of people just saying 'ban guns.' Like that will do anything to reduce the amount of violent crimes among some of our poorest ethnic groups within our country. its funny how you always manage to say something like "people just saying ban guns is the solution". i think everybody is aware of the different culture and the different circumstances in the united states compared to europe,australia or whatever and im also pretty sure that quite a few people would agree that banning guns alone is not enough. BUT most people arguing for strict regulations or bans think that its one part of a bigger problem that is relatively easy to solve
But saying over and over that guns are good is the master plan to winning this argument. Its victory by attrition.
|
On June 24 2016 08:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 04:25 TRAP[yoo] wrote:On June 24 2016 02:57 superstartran wrote:On June 23 2016 18:38 Incognoto wrote:On June 22 2016 03:01 Leporello wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 21 2016 16:48 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 15:04 Leporello wrote:This was in my news feed, these stories, back to back. Proliferating more and more deadlier and deadlier weapons is a stupid fucking idea. End of story. We have more guns than people in this country. What is more likely? That a gun will be used to save someone's life, or that it will end up shooting somebody that wasn't a threat to the shooter? The answer is obvious, proven, and always has been. Guns kill people. You want to save yourself from getting shot: try a bulletproof vest, and try to stop guns from being put into the hands of everyone who wants one. Giving everyone a gun is the worst way to prevent yourself from being shot. It is not to say that guns should be eradicated. I want certain police to have guns, for example. But I do not want people to own guns. Everyday, emotional, self-certain, self-righteous people should not own a gun, because it only takes one instance in a lifetime for a good person to commit murder. Like myself, for example. And you. Neither of us should have a gun. No one who isn't actively required to respond to actual threats, should own or possess a gun. No guns, no militias, no "necessary security" from people who are more likely to shoot their neighbor than actually protect the Free State. Revoke the ridiculously archaic, nonsense 2nd Amendment. Everything about it has faded into obscurity. Even the part people DO like about it: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Ummm... where's the lines here? It's "infringement" to ban automatic weapons, but we're all okay with banning high-explosives? Why? Why is an automatic rifle "necessary to the security of a Free State" but high-explosives aren't? Of course, this all hinges on the Amendment's actual subject: militias. Militias, being necessary to the security of a free State. Well, there's a hell of a presumption. I see a lot of "states", i.e. countries, in the world. A lot of them enjoy, arguably, more freedoms than ever America is comfortable with. They don't need guns. They don't have guns. The Netherlands will let you buy drugs and a prostitute before it lets a person buy a gun. But I think they still have their freedom over there. I don't think modern Europe is staving off their past Monarchs by the threat of militiamen. I think they just realized that people can govern themselves and will demand it. That demand is simply all it takes. If anything, guns are a threat to self-governance. How is it that America's self-governance is going to be saved by a person with a gun? We're the country that DOES have militias, and the last time I heard from one of these militias in the news, they were taking over public land, aiming guns at public officials working for public institutions that were created by a government that the people voted for. It is all such nonsense. I am tired of all the weakness on this issue. Set the precedent for the future. Ban guns. Make every gun owner account for every gun they own. Arrest anyone who has a gun that isn't accounted for. No more buying or selling. Tell gun manufacturers to sell to Somalia or find better jobs. The tragedy isn't mass-shootings. It isn't Orlando. It's the fact that more people are shot all over this country everyday than were shot in that Orlando nightclub. It's neighbors settling domestic disputes between angry couples, who end up getting shot by "responsible gun owners" who simply lost their mind for a moment, as happens to everyone. We are distributing more and more deadlier guns, and who in their right mind can continue to say it's making us safer? There is so much to be disagreed with your post, I wonder if you're just trying to bait people into reacting negatively. First and foremost, Orlando and mass shootings are the tragedy. Secondly, gun violence in the USA isn't exactly bright but it's hardly as bad as you make it out to be either, there are many other issues which take many more lives in the USA which you ignore, lest it devalue your rhetoric. Thirdly, your own views are your own; don't assume the entire world agrees with you. Tyranny of the majority is a shitty thing and the norm right now is to step away from that (LBGT rights show this), not go in that direction. Anyway your entire post is full to the brim with rhetoric and slipperly slopes. Not very compelling at all. Oh dear, I posted rhetoric and opinion, and stated clearly why I think guns should be outlawed. Of which you don't have responses to. Personally, I thought it was a good post I made. The 2nd Amendment is archaic bullshit and everyone, including you, knows it. Except you somehow say that LBGT rights is a display of the "tyranny of the majority". [vomit] This is the only real argument in your post that I can see, and it seems kind of crazy. And, somehow it's supposed to tie favorably into proliferating hundreds of millions of guns across the country? Somehow it vindicates the need for militias? I don't know. Well, I guess you make the argument that there are other things that kill more Americans. Like, I don't know, heart disease? You don't give an example, but it doesn't matter. "Heart disease kills more Americans than guns, therefore, guns are great and the 2nd Amendment is fine," is a terrible argument. Guns are not fine. I'll repeat: guns kill more innocent people everyday in America than the amount that died in the Orlando nightclub. The Orlando nightclub is a tragedy, sure. But to say it is the tragedy is wrong. The tragedy is rampant, widespread violence being proliferated across the country, everyday, excused due to an archaic nonsensical sentence that uses "militias" as it's actual subject, written over 200 years ago. You don't defend the 2nd Amendment. Because you can't. Read as a whole, it is blatantly nonsense. Just as the logic, which you also refuse to address, that more guns make us safer, is also blatantly nonsense. Once again, forgive me for daring to have an opinion on this blatant nonsense, displayed in the thread for which such opinions was created. Secondly, gun violence in the USA isn't exactly bright but it's hardly as bad as you make it out to be either, there are many other issues which take many more lives in the USA which you ignore, lest it devalue your rhetoric. How bad am I "making it out to be"? And I'm "ignoring" what? I'm not supposed to talk about gun-violence without bringing up every other natural cause of death that kills people? "Lest it devalue my rhetoric"? What? What a fucking pathetic attempt to dismiss something. You obviously have never lost anyone in your life who was young due to gun-violence. "It's tragic that this young person died from violent gunshot wounds, but you know, in 30 years, he would've likely died to heart disease." Nauseating logic. It isn't just bad, it nauseates. I was hoping for a response that would actually argue the merits of the 2nd Amendment, and the merits of gun-proliferation among the general public. Kind of sad that people REFUSE to give these arguments. They just want to dismiss the discussion altogether. "Oh, you're trying to politicize this tragedy, how dare you?" "Oh, you're just being argumentative." These are the modern-day arguments favoring the 2nd Amendment. It's very pathetic. Your attempts at dismissal in lieu of arguing the merits of your beliefs strongly suggests you're insecure about your beliefs. Not that I blame you, entirely, because, really, no one can read the 2nd Amendment and honestly say that it makes sense in today's world. No one can look at gun-violence in America and honestly say that gun-proliferation has been a good thing. No one can honestly say that we're "freer" than other civilized countries due to gun-proliferating. Not in any real, earnest, reciprocated exchange, will anyone even dare to make these arguments. We're supposed to just live and die with them instead. Well, I'm completely done with that. It's way past time we had more outrage at weapon-manufacturers and the crud-propaganda that supports them. Whether you like it or not, guns are going to become an even bigger problem. Assault rifles today will pale in comparison to the handguns of the future. We need to draw lines, set rules and precedents, despite the bullshit from the 2nd Amendment "advocates". The best solution would be to simply ban guns, like other good civilized countries figured out a long, long time ago. OK, so I skimmed this post. I'm not going to even bother answering it. This guy puts words in my mouth, (purposely?) misunderstands what I say and says things which are absolutely groundless (no evidence, no studies, no statistics, no real argumentation). This guy is 100% rhetoric and I would like to take thank all the other posters in this thread who have actually legitimately though about this problem. I just want to set one thing straight: LGBT not having rights is "tyranny of the majority" and the trend of them having equal rights to others is the right trend. Where a majority doesn't oppress a minority. Edit: lol. i hate how so many people keep coming back to this
how do you guys even define freedom? there is practically nothing in this world that isnt regulated or governed somehow by some entity. there is no such thing as freedom. literally everything given to any single person on the planet aside from some random place in africa is a privilege because our governments allowed it to be. for now your governments have allowed guns to be as easily accessible and loosely regulated as it is, and the abuse of this PRIVILEGE is leading to deaths.
get your heads out of your asses; you dont own guns because you are 'free'. Freedom is defined as "doing whatever you want without impeding on the rights of others". Freedom is not defined as "do whatever you want". This nuance is something which escapes many anti-gun folk, unfortunately. The biggest reason I am pro-gun is that I do not believe that responsible, trustworthy gun owners should be forced to give up their interests (whether as a hobby or for self defence, etc.) because a minority abuse firearms. Most firearm related deaths are due to suicide, then it's drug gangs. The amount of death due to firearms pales compared to many other causes, so let's not monger fear disproportionately. Yes, firearms should be better regulated. No, they should not be banned entirely. Edit: Furthermore, talking about the 2nd Amendment is a moot point. Firearms are legal in many European countries where the 2nd Amendment does not exist. I never argue based on the 2nd Amendment, to me it's an obsolete piece of legislation. Also a disproportionate amount of firearm homicides are committed by African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. 3 groups that are commonly associated poverty (particularly Native Americans and African Americans, less so with Hispanics). If you look at firearm homicide rates among Asian Americans and Caucasians, you'll find that the percentages are very similar to our European and Asian counterparts such as Australia, Great Britain, France, Japan, the Netherlands, etc. So there's obviously a whole lot more going on then just ease of access to firearms. And yet here we are with a bunch of people just saying 'ban guns.' Like that will do anything to reduce the amount of violent crimes among some of our poorest ethnic groups within our country. its funny how you always manage to say something like "people just saying ban guns is the solution". i think everybody is aware of the different culture and the different circumstances in the united states compared to europe,australia or whatever and im also pretty sure that quite a few people would agree that banning guns alone is not enough. BUT most people arguing for strict regulations or bans think that its one part of a bigger problem that is relatively easy to solve But saying over and over that guns are good is the master plan to winning this argument. Its victory by attrition.
Where have I or any other firearm owner ever stated that I believe that we should have unregulated gun access?
Where have I or any other firearm owner in this thread ever stated that guns are always good?
See, this is exactly the kind of attitude that pisses me off. Many legitimate firearm owners have come in here, expressed their informed opinion on the matter, and yet the other side hasn't posted anything but massive walls of rhetoric, without any kind of research, statistics, or facts to support their claims. All the 'left' side of the issue has stated is that guns are bad, and that they have potential to harm people. And yet despite sifting through like the past 100 pages or so, I haven't seen anyone that has posted actual research or statistics that support their claims, yet I've seen many people who are in support of firearms back all their claims with research and statistics. People will say 'oh well congress bans research on firearm violence.' Ok. So the study that Obama ordered the CDC to conduct pretty much came inconclusive at best in most cases, and in fact has many stances that supports firearm owners. The only statistic many of the left utilize is the fact that countries like Japan, Australia, the Netherlands, etc. all have far better statistics when it comes to gun homicide. Yet they also forget said same countries also just have significantly lower crime rates in general, so no fucking duh they will have lower gun homicide rates.
In fact, in this particular thread, it's the complete opposite. The master plan of the liberals is to make guns to be horrible devices of mass destruction and then beat the other side to submission.
|
United States24668 Posts
That's not to say the NRA is the voice of reason anymore (long ago they were). Now they robocall people telling them to call their congressmen and say they oppose all new gun restrictions (by default). Both sides sicken me.
|
You assume my opinion isn't informed. I grew up on a farm, I have shot may guns. I am well informed up on the subject of fire arms ownership and I am not thrilled with the state of regulation of fire arms sales. You can own all the guns you want, I don't care.
|
On June 24 2016 09:14 micronesia wrote:
That's not to say the NRA is the voice of reason anymore (long ago they were). Now they robocall people telling them to call their congressmen and say they oppose all new gun restrictions (by default). Both sides sicken me.
I think most responsible gun owners actually don't like the NRA, however they feel that it's necessary to support them because of how much bias there is towards legitimate and responsible gun owners. Pretty much every leftist news media outlet shows massive bias against firearms, and continually utilize mass shootings as an opportunity to push their agenda through. I'd be willing to bet if the left would be willing to compromise and stop being totally unreasonable on the issue (and actually do some research) that the NRA would immediately lose many of their more moderate supporters (which actually make up the vast majority of their supporters).
But until CNN, NBC, and every other leftist news media outlet, along with the entire left tries to stop trying to paint firearms as the bane of existence, you will have many responsible firearm owners who will continue to support the NRA despite the fact that I believe the NRA are a bunch of assholes.
On June 24 2016 09:16 Plansix wrote:
You assume my opinion isn't informed. I grew up on a farm, I have shot may guns. I am well informed up on the subject of fire arms ownership and I am not thrilled with the state of regulation of fire arms sales. You can own all the guns you want, I don't care.
You sure haven't shown any kind of informed opinion on this matter. Anecdotes don't show that you're informed. Backing your arguments with statistics, facts, and research shows that you are informed.
|
Not really into the "spam that link as evidence" style of discussion. It bores me. And I'm not really interested in living up to your standard of "informed".
|
On June 24 2016 09:31 Plansix wrote:
Not really into the "spam that link as evidence" style of discussion. It bores me. And I'm not really interested in living up to your standard of "informed".
I.E.
"I'm too lazy to actually do research about the topic and actually be informed about it. My opinion is right and your opinion is wrong even though you're using statistics, research, and studies that were ordered by a democratic President that all support your position."
And then people wonder why so many moderate republicans support the NRA despite the fact that we know that they are a bunch of fucking asshats.
|
i think the automatic weapons need to be extremely difficult to get
|
On June 24 2016 09:42 ilililililililiii wrote:
i think the automatic weapons need to be extremely difficult to get
Automatic weapons are illegal for civilian usage if they were made past 1986 (I think? Can't remember exactly off the top of my head). Those that were made pre-1986 had to be forced to be registered and are tracked extensively by the Federal Government. In order to own one you have to fill out a bazillion forms, pass a shitton of checks, and then pay something north or 30k-40k in order to legally own a fully automatic select fire firearm.
I've already suggested in this thread that bumpfire/slidefire should be illegal. It's literally a legal fully automatic weapon.
|
On June 24 2016 09:36 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 09:31 Plansix wrote:
Not really into the "spam that link as evidence" style of discussion. It bores me. And I'm not really interested in living up to your standard of "informed". I.E. "I'm too lazy to actually do research about the topic and actually be informed about it. My opinion is right and your opinion is wrong even though you're using statistics, research, and studies that were ordered by a democratic President that all support your position." And then people wonder why so many moderate republicans support the NRA despite the fact that we know that they are a bunch of fucking asshats.
Man its like you can have this discussion all by yourself, I see where farvacola was coming from on this. And the CDC and other government agencies are allowed too research gun violence. Or guns at all. It is prohibited to use public funds to research guns. Well it doesn't' really say that outright. It says the research will be funded, as long as the findings don't support gun control. We don't even have data on police violence because of this rule. Because no one is going to conduct research and then have to make up an outcomes to assure the funding doesn't get cut.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/12/08/458952821/congress-still-limits-health-research-on-gun-violence
I have no problem with owning guns. But shit like this needs to end.
|
On June 24 2016 09:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 09:36 superstartran wrote:On June 24 2016 09:31 Plansix wrote:
Not really into the "spam that link as evidence" style of discussion. It bores me. And I'm not really interested in living up to your standard of "informed". I.E. "I'm too lazy to actually do research about the topic and actually be informed about it. My opinion is right and your opinion is wrong even though you're using statistics, research, and studies that were ordered by a democratic President that all support your position." And then people wonder why so many moderate republicans support the NRA despite the fact that we know that they are a bunch of fucking asshats. Man its like you can have this discussion all by yourself, I see where farvacola was coming from on this. And the CDC and other government agencies are allowed too research gun violence. Or guns at all. It is prohibited to use public funds to research guns. Well it doesn't' really say that outright. It says the research will be funded, as long as the findings don't support gun control. We don't even have data on police violence because of this rule. Because no one is going to conduct research and then have to make up an outcomes to assure the funding doesn't get cut. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/12/08/458952821/congress-still-limits-health-research-on-gun-violenceI have no problem with owning guns. But shit like this needs to end.
The CDC can research as much as they want without promoting gun control. You may want to read the actual rider before saying the CDC cannot research at all. This is a popular and huge misconception.
|
On June 24 2016 09:59 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 09:53 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 09:36 superstartran wrote:On June 24 2016 09:31 Plansix wrote:
Not really into the "spam that link as evidence" style of discussion. It bores me. And I'm not really interested in living up to your standard of "informed". I.E. "I'm too lazy to actually do research about the topic and actually be informed about it. My opinion is right and your opinion is wrong even though you're using statistics, research, and studies that were ordered by a democratic President that all support your position." And then people wonder why so many moderate republicans support the NRA despite the fact that we know that they are a bunch of fucking asshats. Man its like you can have this discussion all by yourself, I see where farvacola was coming from on this. And the CDC and other government agencies are allowed too research gun violence. Or guns at all. It is prohibited to use public funds to research guns. Well it doesn't' really say that outright. It says the research will be funded, as long as the findings don't support gun control. We don't even have data on police violence because of this rule. Because no one is going to conduct research and then have to make up an outcomes to assure the funding doesn't get cut. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/12/08/458952821/congress-still-limits-health-research-on-gun-violenceI have no problem with owning guns. But shit like this needs to end. The CDC can research gun violence as long as it doesn't actually research guns themselves. Based on the recent CDC findings, many of the claims of the left have been debunked.
That does not change my opinion at all. The rule assures that any research done/funded by the CDC will never point to the need or benefit of gun control.
Nice edit there. I know the rider, it assure only research that promotes gun ownership will be done.
|
On June 24 2016 10:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 09:59 superstartran wrote:On June 24 2016 09:53 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 09:36 superstartran wrote:On June 24 2016 09:31 Plansix wrote:
Not really into the "spam that link as evidence" style of discussion. It bores me. And I'm not really interested in living up to your standard of "informed". I.E. "I'm too lazy to actually do research about the topic and actually be informed about it. My opinion is right and your opinion is wrong even though you're using statistics, research, and studies that were ordered by a democratic President that all support your position." And then people wonder why so many moderate republicans support the NRA despite the fact that we know that they are a bunch of fucking asshats. Man its like you can have this discussion all by yourself, I see where farvacola was coming from on this. And the CDC and other government agencies are allowed too research gun violence. Or guns at all. It is prohibited to use public funds to research guns. Well it doesn't' really say that outright. It says the research will be funded, as long as the findings don't support gun control. We don't even have data on police violence because of this rule. Because no one is going to conduct research and then have to make up an outcomes to assure the funding doesn't get cut. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/12/08/458952821/congress-still-limits-health-research-on-gun-violenceI have no problem with owning guns. But shit like this needs to end. The CDC can research gun violence as long as it doesn't actually research guns themselves. Based on the recent CDC findings, many of the claims of the left have been debunked. That does not change my opinion at all. The rule assures that any research done/funded by the CDC will never point to the need or benefit of gun control. Nice edit there. I know the rider, it assure only research that promotes gun ownership will be done.
The rider was put into place for a reason. As bat shit crazy as the NRA was, the CDC was extremely biased in the 1990s towards firearms.
+ Show Spoiler +
Government-funded research was openly biased in the 1990s. CDC officials unabashedly supported gun bans and poured millions of dollars into “research” that was, in fact, advocacy. One of the lead researchers employed in the CDC’s effort was quoted, stating “We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths.” Another researcher said he envisioned a long-term campaign “to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”
Also, like I said, the rider doesn't ban gun violence research. The CDC recently did a study, and although not comprehensive, actually contradicts many of the claims of the liberal left.
This is exactly what the rider says
+ Show Spoiler +“Provided further, that none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”
|
Yeah, I don't see it that way. Any ban of specific findings or recommendations is wrong. Research should be challenged, not restricted because it doesn't line up with one sides world view.
|
On June 24 2016 10:15 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, I don't see it that way. Any ban of specific findings or recommendations is wrong. Research should be challenged, not restricted because it doesn't line up with one sides world view.
The rider merely states the CDC cannot promote or advocate for gun control. It can make all the findings it wants, which it has recently.
The reason why the CDC doesn't do a whole lot of studies is because they are afraid that their funding will be cut (which it has in the past). And the reason why its funding got cut is because they were not being objective in their findings.
And the NRA actually did challenge the research the CDC did in the 1990s. They refused to openly talk about it though. Even the former director of the CDC Mike Rosenburg admitted that they weren't exactly objective during the 90s. Had the liberal left not been a bunch of dickwads in the 90s, you wouldn't have had this situation in the first place.
I think currently the NRA are being asses for sure; I think a comprehensive and objective study should be done on firearm related violence and what we can do to reduce it across the nation. But don't try and pretend that shit just happen for no reason and that the NRA in the 90s were a bunch of jackasses trying to promote their agenda.
|
On June 24 2016 10:19 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 10:15 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, I don't see it that way. Any ban of specific findings or recommendations is wrong. Research should be challenged, not restricted because it doesn't line up with one sides world view. The rider merely states the CDC cannot promote or advocate for gun control. It can make all the findings it wants, which it has recently.
Yes, which makes the research worthless if it can't advocate all options or solutions. It also limits research that could have results that show gun control is effective at reducing gun violence. Or comparing our rules to rules of other nations with similar populations. I am well aware of this subject and researchers have said it limits outcomes. The article that I posted said had several experts saying just that. The restriction should not exist.
|
On June 24 2016 10:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 10:19 superstartran wrote:On June 24 2016 10:15 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, I don't see it that way. Any ban of specific findings or recommendations is wrong. Research should be challenged, not restricted because it doesn't line up with one sides world view. The rider merely states the CDC cannot promote or advocate for gun control. It can make all the findings it wants, which it has recently. Yes, which makes the research worthless if it can't advocate all options or solutions. It also limits research that could have results that show gun control is effective at reducing gun violence. Or comparing our rules to rules of other nations with similar populations. I am well aware of this subject and researchers have said it limits outcomes. The article that I posted said had several experts saying just that. The restriction should not exist.
But what people are telling you it that it isn't advocating all options or solutions. They're saying that in the 1990's when they instituted the restriction that it was advocating for only one side of the debate and speficialy targeted its studies to advocate for that side.
It wasn't being an impartial research department that it should have been and would be really awesome to have for a functioning democracy.
|
On June 24 2016 10:45 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 10:24 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 10:19 superstartran wrote:On June 24 2016 10:15 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, I don't see it that way. Any ban of specific findings or recommendations is wrong. Research should be challenged, not restricted because it doesn't line up with one sides world view. The rider merely states the CDC cannot promote or advocate for gun control. It can make all the findings it wants, which it has recently. Yes, which makes the research worthless if it can't advocate all options or solutions. It also limits research that could have results that show gun control is effective at reducing gun violence. Or comparing our rules to rules of other nations with similar populations. I am well aware of this subject and researchers have said it limits outcomes. The article that I posted said had several experts saying just that. The restriction should not exist. But what people are telling you it that it isn't advocating all options or solutions. They're saying that in the 1990's when they instituted the restriction that it was advocating for only one side of the debate and speficialy targeted its studies to advocate for that side. It wasn't being an impartial research department that it should have been and would be really awesome to have for a functioning democracy.
But being impartial means all results and recommendations should be allowed. Or the restriction should also say it can't promote gun ownership or the value of guns anyway. Or restrict all findings and only provide raw data at all times.
But that isn't really how research papers work. So the limitation should be removed and guns advocates should just provide their own data or prove the findings have fault.
|
On June 24 2016 10:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 10:45 Sermokala wrote:On June 24 2016 10:24 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 10:19 superstartran wrote:On June 24 2016 10:15 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, I don't see it that way. Any ban of specific findings or recommendations is wrong. Research should be challenged, not restricted because it doesn't line up with one sides world view. The rider merely states the CDC cannot promote or advocate for gun control. It can make all the findings it wants, which it has recently. Yes, which makes the research worthless if it can't advocate all options or solutions. It also limits research that could have results that show gun control is effective at reducing gun violence. Or comparing our rules to rules of other nations with similar populations. I am well aware of this subject and researchers have said it limits outcomes. The article that I posted said had several experts saying just that. The restriction should not exist. But what people are telling you it that it isn't advocating all options or solutions. They're saying that in the 1990's when they instituted the restriction that it was advocating for only one side of the debate and speficialy targeted its studies to advocate for that side. It wasn't being an impartial research department that it should have been and would be really awesome to have for a functioning democracy. But being impartial means all results and recommendations should be allowed. Or the restriction should also say it can't promote gun ownership or the value of guns anyway. Or restrict all findings and only provide raw data at all times. But that isn't really how research papers work. So the limitation should be removed and guns advocates should just provide their own data or prove the findings have fault.
But then its not an even playing field regardless of the data. One side will point and say "government studies show this" while the other side doesn't get to speak from that position of authority regardless of how bad the data is to begin with.
Trump works this a ton in his campaign by saying a hundred things and forcing people to react to him and prove him wrong, yet people will still believe his lies and lies and lies he says every day.
|
On June 24 2016 11:07 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 10:57 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 10:45 Sermokala wrote:On June 24 2016 10:24 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 10:19 superstartran wrote:On June 24 2016 10:15 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, I don't see it that way. Any ban of specific findings or recommendations is wrong. Research should be challenged, not restricted because it doesn't line up with one sides world view. The rider merely states the CDC cannot promote or advocate for gun control. It can make all the findings it wants, which it has recently. Yes, which makes the research worthless if it can't advocate all options or solutions. It also limits research that could have results that show gun control is effective at reducing gun violence. Or comparing our rules to rules of other nations with similar populations. I am well aware of this subject and researchers have said it limits outcomes. The article that I posted said had several experts saying just that. The restriction should not exist. But what people are telling you it that it isn't advocating all options or solutions. They're saying that in the 1990's when they instituted the restriction that it was advocating for only one side of the debate and speficialy targeted its studies to advocate for that side. It wasn't being an impartial research department that it should have been and would be really awesome to have for a functioning democracy. But being impartial means all results and recommendations should be allowed. Or the restriction should also say it can't promote gun ownership or the value of guns anyway. Or restrict all findings and only provide raw data at all times. But that isn't really how research papers work. So the limitation should be removed and guns advocates should just provide their own data or prove the findings have fault. But then its not an even playing field regardless of the data. One side will point and say "government studies show this" while the other side doesn't get to speak from that position of authority regardless of how bad the data is to begin with. Trump works this a ton in his campaign by saying a hundred things and forcing people to react to him and prove him wrong, yet people will still believe his lies and lies and lies he says every day.
My issue with the rule is that it dictates an outcome. So research can't be done on specific topics, like the most effective forms of background checks. Or ways to interconnect systems background and criminal record systems. The merits of smart guns. All of these are see as "promoting gun control" and are off limits to the funding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
