|
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 February 16 2018 23:50 VHbb wrote:
from an outside perspective, what I don't understand is why gun control is an issue of democrats vs republicans, or left vs right.
Is there something intrinsic in the republican or democratic programs that supports or doesn't support gun control?
I ask out of genuine curiosity, not knowing very well the US politics
This is a subject where I feel that understanding the ongoing debate, as an european, is extremely difficult - since the arguments at stake are completely alien to me, to my culture, and to almost any debate here - but it's interesting to understand better.
it has become a considerably aligned debate over the years, though there's still some variation. I'm not entirely sure on the history of how it came to be that way; but it's common on contentious issues for them to end up being aligned, as each party tries to gather support of a faction.
the dem programs tend to be more gun control, with the gop being much less so. I think it has become part of their platforms by now.
note that republican and democrat programs may not be ideologically coherent, but are often more a cobbled together mix of whatever happens to appeal to groups they can get the support of without losing the support of other groups, with some people applying an ideological coating to it and mildly trying to enforce coherency. I'm sure some of it is an outgrowth of prior alignments/predispositions, that simply became reinforced over time. Rural areas tend to be much more pro gun; and are (currently and iirc for some time) heavily republican.
it's also important to understand that arguments in the political sphere aren't so much about the facts, especially these days; and there's little push for policy based on thoughtful analysis. So the arguments being thrown around are generally more of a cover/rationalization for what they simply feel to be than anything.
is there something more in particular you want info on?
|
On February 17 2018 00:08 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 23:53 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:55 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:51 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:45 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:38 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:35 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:32 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:27 zlefin wrote:
supertran, you also seem far more interested in pushing your agenda than focusing on the facts, as you've ignored the counterpoints which seem to dismantle sizeable amounts of your case.
then again, you did say "everyone in here", so I suppose you did mean to include yourself in that; carry on then. What counter facts? Because there's literally zero. On February 16 2018 21:30 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
The majority of Americans support quite a wide array of gun control... yet Republican house and senate members, who get paid massively by the NRA, consistently avoid the issue.
But it's the left's fault.
Okay @sst. You tell em. Again, example of what I am talking about. This guy doesn't even know that the NRA doesn't even donate a fraction of what Pharmaceutical Companies and Tech Giants do. The NRA's strength lies in getting voters in on key swing state representatives. there's been plenty of them, you just ignored them. so like I said, carry on. you clearly meant to include yourself in the description, and hence htere's no hypocrisy so I don't mind at all; you're just pushing an agenda like everyone else is. There's plenty of them, and yet you can't even list three of them. Ok. "Yeah man, look at all those facts, you're wrong and you're an asshole, but I'm not even going to bother because I'm wasting my time." where did I say you're an asshole? I don't see a strong implication of it anywhere; but I do see how you could erroneously conclude tha'ts what I meant. you are correct that I shouldn't waste time on here with you, which is why I'm trying to withdraw; I'm just bad at withdrawing. Because the tone that comes from your statements comes off as you calling me an asshole. You say that there are plenty of facts in this thread that refute my arguments yet you are unable to list even three of them even in bullet point form, let alone in thoughtful arguments. Which pretty much supports the idea that you actually have no clue what you're talking about, and you're talking straight from emotion. or it means I was trying to withdraw from the argument; and listing facts which were already presented and you ignored would only result in you claiming they weren't facts, and hence would not progress anything at all. are you talking from emotion, or from reason? and how can you tell the difference? It seems like you use "talking from emotion" as a cudgel to assert your opponents arguments are baseless, and therefore claim victory. oh, and my tone wasn't "asshole"; it was more like "fool", IF there was such a tone and you weren't just reading too muhc into it; there's always the possibility I was just interjecting my opinion of the overall convincingness of the arguments presented. this is the internet after all, it's not uncommon for both sides in an argument to be making a weak case. also, I originally said "counterpoints" not "counterfacts", i'm generally quite precise in my word choice, and choose the exact word I meant to say, and not a related word. otherwise you end up arguing against something other than what I actually said. Lol, what facts? There is literally nothing here presented to support gun control other than "guns are inherently bad" The fact that you continue to dodge my request for factual evidence only supports the idea that you guys have no clue what you are talking about and aren't even educated on the subject of firearms. you've proven you're arguing in bad faith, so there's no point in talking to you anymore. please learn to improve the quality of your discourse and arguments, and/or choose to do so if you know how but chose not to.
So when I make multiple requests for supposed 'facts' that are counterpoints to my argument you completely ignore it and simply post in response an elaborate and 'polite' ad homenin.
Typical; you can't actually factually backup your claims and you simply avoid the subject. And then you wonder why the NRA has such significant lobbying power. Their lobbying power comes from the fact that your side of the argument is incapable of arguing from an objective standpoint. Your refusal to actual list arguments, factual studies, statistics, or any peer reviewed academic journals only demonstrates that you are in fact arguing from emotion.
|
The problem with that argument is that it is the same argument that has been used for every unsolvable political problem in the US. Reasonable abortion laws. Reasonable immigration laws. The left just needs to meet the right in the middle and then the laws will come. But no matter what is put forth, not matter what concession are made, the votes never happen. The laws don’t get written. And the right/republicans/gun owners have controlled congresses for almost 20 years non-stop. And in many cases, they could pass the gun laws without the Democrats.
|
On February 17 2018 00:18 Plansix wrote:
The problem with that argument is that it is the same argument that has been used for every unsolvable political problem in the US. Reasonable abortion laws. Reasonable immigration laws. The left just needs to meet the right in the middle and then the laws will come. But no matter what is put forth, not matter what concession are made, the votes never happen. The laws don’t get written. And the right/republicans/gun owners have controlled congresses for almost 20 years non-stop. And in many cases, they could pass the gun laws without the Democrats.
Moderate Republicans do not have enough votes to get anything done on their own, they need the extreme conservative said to get things done. The fact that you're saying shit like "Republicans could have gotten it done on their own!" shows how naive your view on politics actually is. It's much more complicated then that.
Why do you think the NRA is able to mobilize so many voters in key swingstates Plainsix? Do you really believe it's because people truly believe in the NRA's agenda? That millions of people truly believe in the NRA's hardline stance? No; the thing is that people support the NRA because despite the hardline stance that they have, they would rather support the status quo and the NRA rather than deal with the possible ramifications of passing gun control laws by politicians/people who really have no idea what they are doing. This entire thread regarding gun control in general is a microcosm of why gun owners in general support the NRA; zeflin states "There are plenty of facts that counter your point", and you have Europeans coming in here saying "Guns are inherently bad and serve no social purpose"
You then really expect gun owners to concede and then work with the other side of the argument? Don't make me laugh. Most polls already show that the vast majority of gun owners do support things like stronger restrictions such as expanded background checks. It's not that gun owners, members of the NRA, etc. haven't already tried to concede some ground. The big issue is that there are a ton of people on the other side of the argument that alienate you completely.
|
On February 17 2018 00:18 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 00:08 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 23:53 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:55 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:51 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:45 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:38 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:35 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:32 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:27 zlefin wrote:
supertran, you also seem far more interested in pushing your agenda than focusing on the facts, as you've ignored the counterpoints which seem to dismantle sizeable amounts of your case.
then again, you did say "everyone in here", so I suppose you did mean to include yourself in that; carry on then. What counter facts? Because there's literally zero. On February 16 2018 21:30 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
The majority of Americans support quite a wide array of gun control... yet Republican house and senate members, who get paid massively by the NRA, consistently avoid the issue.
But it's the left's fault.
Okay @sst. You tell em. Again, example of what I am talking about. This guy doesn't even know that the NRA doesn't even donate a fraction of what Pharmaceutical Companies and Tech Giants do. The NRA's strength lies in getting voters in on key swing state representatives. there's been plenty of them, you just ignored them. so like I said, carry on. you clearly meant to include yourself in the description, and hence htere's no hypocrisy so I don't mind at all; you're just pushing an agenda like everyone else is. There's plenty of them, and yet you can't even list three of them. Ok. "Yeah man, look at all those facts, you're wrong and you're an asshole, but I'm not even going to bother because I'm wasting my time." where did I say you're an asshole? I don't see a strong implication of it anywhere; but I do see how you could erroneously conclude tha'ts what I meant. you are correct that I shouldn't waste time on here with you, which is why I'm trying to withdraw; I'm just bad at withdrawing. Because the tone that comes from your statements comes off as you calling me an asshole. You say that there are plenty of facts in this thread that refute my arguments yet you are unable to list even three of them even in bullet point form, let alone in thoughtful arguments. Which pretty much supports the idea that you actually have no clue what you're talking about, and you're talking straight from emotion. or it means I was trying to withdraw from the argument; and listing facts which were already presented and you ignored would only result in you claiming they weren't facts, and hence would not progress anything at all. are you talking from emotion, or from reason? and how can you tell the difference? It seems like you use "talking from emotion" as a cudgel to assert your opponents arguments are baseless, and therefore claim victory. oh, and my tone wasn't "asshole"; it was more like "fool", IF there was such a tone and you weren't just reading too muhc into it; there's always the possibility I was just interjecting my opinion of the overall convincingness of the arguments presented. this is the internet after all, it's not uncommon for both sides in an argument to be making a weak case. also, I originally said "counterpoints" not "counterfacts", i'm generally quite precise in my word choice, and choose the exact word I meant to say, and not a related word. otherwise you end up arguing against something other than what I actually said. Lol, what facts? There is literally nothing here presented to support gun control other than "guns are inherently bad" The fact that you continue to dodge my request for factual evidence only supports the idea that you guys have no clue what you are talking about and aren't even educated on the subject of firearms. you've proven you're arguing in bad faith, so there's no point in talking to you anymore. please learn to improve the quality of your discourse and arguments, and/or choose to do so if you know how but chose not to. So when I make multiple requests for supposed 'facts' that are counterpoints to my argument you completely ignore it and simply post in response an elaborate and 'polite' ad homenin. Typical; you can't actually factually backup your claims and you simply avoid the subject. And then you wonder why the NRA has such significant lobbying power. Their lobbying power comes from the fact that your side of the argument is incapable of arguing from an objective standpoint. Your refusal to actual list arguments, factual studies, statistics, or any peer reviewed academic journals only demonstrates that you are in fact arguing from emotion.
Ok, objective facts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24054955
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454
The US has higher gun deaths, in general gun deaths correlate highly with gun ownership. Crime does not significantly correlate with gun ownership rates.
Fun tidbitAmong these 23 countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States, 86% of women killed by firearms were US women, and 87% of all children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms were US children.
Of course, your answer to that will be "You can't compare the US with other countries!". And of course, there are no internal US studies, because the CDC can only publish those studies that don't "promote gun control", so only studies which do not show a problem with guns.
|
On February 17 2018 00:27 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 00:18 Plansix wrote:
The problem with that argument is that it is the same argument that has been used for every unsolvable political problem in the US. Reasonable abortion laws. Reasonable immigration laws. The left just needs to meet the right in the middle and then the laws will come. But no matter what is put forth, not matter what concession are made, the votes never happen. The laws don’t get written. And the right/republicans/gun owners have controlled congresses for almost 20 years non-stop. And in many cases, they could pass the gun laws without the Democrats. Moderate Republicans do not have enough votes to get anything done on their own, they need the extreme conservative said to get things done. The fact that you're saying shit like "Republicans could have gotten it done on their own!" shows how naive your view on politics actually is. It's much more complicated then that.
Stop it with the name calling and insults. The moderate republicans outnumber the conservatives almost 2-1 in the House in 2018. Moderates filled the house through most of the 2000’s. There are plenty of moderate democrats during those times too. The laws didn’t get passed because any moderate that voted on them would risk being primaried by a candidate that the NRA would throw its full weight behind.
|
On February 17 2018 00:18 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 00:08 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 23:53 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:55 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:51 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:45 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:38 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:35 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:32 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:27 zlefin wrote:
supertran, you also seem far more interested in pushing your agenda than focusing on the facts, as you've ignored the counterpoints which seem to dismantle sizeable amounts of your case.
then again, you did say "everyone in here", so I suppose you did mean to include yourself in that; carry on then. What counter facts? Because there's literally zero. On February 16 2018 21:30 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
The majority of Americans support quite a wide array of gun control... yet Republican house and senate members, who get paid massively by the NRA, consistently avoid the issue.
But it's the left's fault.
Okay @sst. You tell em. Again, example of what I am talking about. This guy doesn't even know that the NRA doesn't even donate a fraction of what Pharmaceutical Companies and Tech Giants do. The NRA's strength lies in getting voters in on key swing state representatives. there's been plenty of them, you just ignored them. so like I said, carry on. you clearly meant to include yourself in the description, and hence htere's no hypocrisy so I don't mind at all; you're just pushing an agenda like everyone else is. There's plenty of them, and yet you can't even list three of them. Ok. "Yeah man, look at all those facts, you're wrong and you're an asshole, but I'm not even going to bother because I'm wasting my time." where did I say you're an asshole? I don't see a strong implication of it anywhere; but I do see how you could erroneously conclude tha'ts what I meant. you are correct that I shouldn't waste time on here with you, which is why I'm trying to withdraw; I'm just bad at withdrawing. Because the tone that comes from your statements comes off as you calling me an asshole. You say that there are plenty of facts in this thread that refute my arguments yet you are unable to list even three of them even in bullet point form, let alone in thoughtful arguments. Which pretty much supports the idea that you actually have no clue what you're talking about, and you're talking straight from emotion. or it means I was trying to withdraw from the argument; and listing facts which were already presented and you ignored would only result in you claiming they weren't facts, and hence would not progress anything at all. are you talking from emotion, or from reason? and how can you tell the difference? It seems like you use "talking from emotion" as a cudgel to assert your opponents arguments are baseless, and therefore claim victory. oh, and my tone wasn't "asshole"; it was more like "fool", IF there was such a tone and you weren't just reading too muhc into it; there's always the possibility I was just interjecting my opinion of the overall convincingness of the arguments presented. this is the internet after all, it's not uncommon for both sides in an argument to be making a weak case. also, I originally said "counterpoints" not "counterfacts", i'm generally quite precise in my word choice, and choose the exact word I meant to say, and not a related word. otherwise you end up arguing against something other than what I actually said. Lol, what facts? There is literally nothing here presented to support gun control other than "guns are inherently bad" The fact that you continue to dodge my request for factual evidence only supports the idea that you guys have no clue what you are talking about and aren't even educated on the subject of firearms. you've proven you're arguing in bad faith, so there's no point in talking to you anymore. please learn to improve the quality of your discourse and arguments, and/or choose to do so if you know how but chose not to. So when I make multiple requests for supposed 'facts' that are counterpoints to my argument you completely ignore it and simply post in response an elaborate and 'polite' ad homenin. Typical; you can't actually factually backup your claims and you simply avoid the subject. And then you wonder why the NRA has such significant lobbying power. Their lobbying power comes from the fact that your side of the argument is incapable of arguing from an objective standpoint. Your refusal to actual list arguments, factual studies, statistics, or any peer reviewed academic journals only demonstrates that you are in fact arguing from emotion.
The NRA's lobbying power comes from the fact that they are rich, have many members, and republican politicians are absolutely terrified of them, way too scared to even try and make a move on a single common sense gun law.
|
On February 17 2018 00:45 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 00:18 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 00:08 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 23:53 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:55 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:51 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:45 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:38 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:35 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:32 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
What counter facts?
Because there's literally zero.
[quote]
Again, example of what I am talking about. This guy doesn't even know that the NRA doesn't even donate a fraction of what Pharmaceutical Companies and Tech Giants do. The NRA's strength lies in getting voters in on key swing state representatives. there's been plenty of them, you just ignored them. so like I said, carry on. you clearly meant to include yourself in the description, and hence htere's no hypocrisy so I don't mind at all; you're just pushing an agenda like everyone else is. There's plenty of them, and yet you can't even list three of them. Ok. "Yeah man, look at all those facts, you're wrong and you're an asshole, but I'm not even going to bother because I'm wasting my time." where did I say you're an asshole? I don't see a strong implication of it anywhere; but I do see how you could erroneously conclude tha'ts what I meant. you are correct that I shouldn't waste time on here with you, which is why I'm trying to withdraw; I'm just bad at withdrawing. Because the tone that comes from your statements comes off as you calling me an asshole. You say that there are plenty of facts in this thread that refute my arguments yet you are unable to list even three of them even in bullet point form, let alone in thoughtful arguments. Which pretty much supports the idea that you actually have no clue what you're talking about, and you're talking straight from emotion. or it means I was trying to withdraw from the argument; and listing facts which were already presented and you ignored would only result in you claiming they weren't facts, and hence would not progress anything at all. are you talking from emotion, or from reason? and how can you tell the difference? It seems like you use "talking from emotion" as a cudgel to assert your opponents arguments are baseless, and therefore claim victory. oh, and my tone wasn't "asshole"; it was more like "fool", IF there was such a tone and you weren't just reading too muhc into it; there's always the possibility I was just interjecting my opinion of the overall convincingness of the arguments presented. this is the internet after all, it's not uncommon for both sides in an argument to be making a weak case. also, I originally said "counterpoints" not "counterfacts", i'm generally quite precise in my word choice, and choose the exact word I meant to say, and not a related word. otherwise you end up arguing against something other than what I actually said. Lol, what facts? There is literally nothing here presented to support gun control other than "guns are inherently bad" The fact that you continue to dodge my request for factual evidence only supports the idea that you guys have no clue what you are talking about and aren't even educated on the subject of firearms. you've proven you're arguing in bad faith, so there's no point in talking to you anymore. please learn to improve the quality of your discourse and arguments, and/or choose to do so if you know how but chose not to. So when I make multiple requests for supposed 'facts' that are counterpoints to my argument you completely ignore it and simply post in response an elaborate and 'polite' ad homenin. Typical; you can't actually factually backup your claims and you simply avoid the subject. And then you wonder why the NRA has such significant lobbying power. Their lobbying power comes from the fact that your side of the argument is incapable of arguing from an objective standpoint. Your refusal to actual list arguments, factual studies, statistics, or any peer reviewed academic journals only demonstrates that you are in fact arguing from emotion. The NRA's lobbying power comes from the fact that they are rich, have many members, and republican politicians are absolutely terrified of them, way too scared to even try and make a move on a single common sense gun law.
Not true. The NRA historically has not spent a truck ton of money up until literally 2017, and even then it's nothing compared to other lobbying groups. The NRA's power comes from its individual voters.
|
On February 17 2018 01:08 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 00:45 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 17 2018 00:18 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 00:08 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 23:53 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:55 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:51 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:45 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:38 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:35 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
there's been plenty of them, you just ignored them. so like I said, carry on. you clearly meant to include yourself in the description, and hence htere's no hypocrisy so I don't mind at all; you're just pushing an agenda like everyone else is. There's plenty of them, and yet you can't even list three of them. Ok. "Yeah man, look at all those facts, you're wrong and you're an asshole, but I'm not even going to bother because I'm wasting my time." where did I say you're an asshole? I don't see a strong implication of it anywhere; but I do see how you could erroneously conclude tha'ts what I meant. you are correct that I shouldn't waste time on here with you, which is why I'm trying to withdraw; I'm just bad at withdrawing. Because the tone that comes from your statements comes off as you calling me an asshole. You say that there are plenty of facts in this thread that refute my arguments yet you are unable to list even three of them even in bullet point form, let alone in thoughtful arguments. Which pretty much supports the idea that you actually have no clue what you're talking about, and you're talking straight from emotion. or it means I was trying to withdraw from the argument; and listing facts which were already presented and you ignored would only result in you claiming they weren't facts, and hence would not progress anything at all. are you talking from emotion, or from reason? and how can you tell the difference? It seems like you use "talking from emotion" as a cudgel to assert your opponents arguments are baseless, and therefore claim victory. oh, and my tone wasn't "asshole"; it was more like "fool", IF there was such a tone and you weren't just reading too muhc into it; there's always the possibility I was just interjecting my opinion of the overall convincingness of the arguments presented. this is the internet after all, it's not uncommon for both sides in an argument to be making a weak case. also, I originally said "counterpoints" not "counterfacts", i'm generally quite precise in my word choice, and choose the exact word I meant to say, and not a related word. otherwise you end up arguing against something other than what I actually said. Lol, what facts? There is literally nothing here presented to support gun control other than "guns are inherently bad" The fact that you continue to dodge my request for factual evidence only supports the idea that you guys have no clue what you are talking about and aren't even educated on the subject of firearms. you've proven you're arguing in bad faith, so there's no point in talking to you anymore. please learn to improve the quality of your discourse and arguments, and/or choose to do so if you know how but chose not to. So when I make multiple requests for supposed 'facts' that are counterpoints to my argument you completely ignore it and simply post in response an elaborate and 'polite' ad homenin. Typical; you can't actually factually backup your claims and you simply avoid the subject. And then you wonder why the NRA has such significant lobbying power. Their lobbying power comes from the fact that your side of the argument is incapable of arguing from an objective standpoint. Your refusal to actual list arguments, factual studies, statistics, or any peer reviewed academic journals only demonstrates that you are in fact arguing from emotion. The NRA's lobbying power comes from the fact that they are rich, have many members, and republican politicians are absolutely terrified of them, way too scared to even try and make a move on a single common sense gun law. Not true. The NRA historically has not spent a truck ton of money up until literally 2017, and even then it's nothing compared to other lobbying groups. The NRA's power comes from its individual voters.
Still you can't really argue that their power comes from the left's 'emotional' debate points.
It comes from the fact that they have wormed their way into the political scene and managed to transform what should be a simple, practical issue of public safety into an all out ideological war.
|
So what is your counterargument to "Guns are inherently bad and serve no social purpose"? I'll rephrase that. Imagine a fantasy world where all of a sudden, all guns would disappear from the US and owning one is not allowed except for hunting. Shooting ranges still exist. No new guns an be bought. Would you still want to live in your country. And if the answer is no, what would you do if suddenly 2/3 of congress and senate would amend the constitution, nullifying the 2nd amendment and initiating a disarming of the population?
|
On February 17 2018 01:20 Broetchenholer wrote:
So what is your counterargument to "Guns are inherently bad and serve no social purpose"? I'll rephrase that. Imagine a fantasy world where all of a sudden, all guns would disappear from the US and owning one is not allowed except for hunting. Shooting ranges still exist. No new guns an be bought. Would you still want to live in your country. And if the answer is no, what would you do if suddenly 2/3 of congress and senate would amend the constitution, nullifying the 2nd amendment and initiating a disarming of the population?
That there are reasonable explanations to use guns, such as self-defense, sport shooting, and collecting (some people don't even fire their firearms, they just collect them for historical purposes).
|
How about you answer the question, instead of answering an imaginary question?
He has allowed for guns for sports shooting and hunting, but there you go answering a question not asked.
I highly doubt anybody has a problem with a tiny minority those who collect guns without ammunition. How can they shoot people? With imaginary bullets? But that wasn't the question asked.
|
You don't need to own working firearms for sport shooting or collecting so we can probably drop them from the argument. I mean, it's still a valid reason to use them, it's just a much weaker argument to have something potential dangerous. So, self defense, how much less of a murder rate would you trade your guns for. If you could simply reduce murder by disarming the civil society and it would result in reduced murder off the bat, but the rest of murdered people could not have the chance to defend them selves?
|
I have another question for the pro gun people here:
What kind of event would it take for you to pressure your representatives to vote for common sense gun legislation in states that don't have any?
|
On February 17 2018 00:45 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 00:18 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 00:08 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 23:53 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:55 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:51 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:45 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:38 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:35 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:32 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
What counter facts?
Because there's literally zero.
[quote]
Again, example of what I am talking about. This guy doesn't even know that the NRA doesn't even donate a fraction of what Pharmaceutical Companies and Tech Giants do. The NRA's strength lies in getting voters in on key swing state representatives. there's been plenty of them, you just ignored them. so like I said, carry on. you clearly meant to include yourself in the description, and hence htere's no hypocrisy so I don't mind at all; you're just pushing an agenda like everyone else is. There's plenty of them, and yet you can't even list three of them. Ok. "Yeah man, look at all those facts, you're wrong and you're an asshole, but I'm not even going to bother because I'm wasting my time." where did I say you're an asshole? I don't see a strong implication of it anywhere; but I do see how you could erroneously conclude tha'ts what I meant. you are correct that I shouldn't waste time on here with you, which is why I'm trying to withdraw; I'm just bad at withdrawing. Because the tone that comes from your statements comes off as you calling me an asshole. You say that there are plenty of facts in this thread that refute my arguments yet you are unable to list even three of them even in bullet point form, let alone in thoughtful arguments. Which pretty much supports the idea that you actually have no clue what you're talking about, and you're talking straight from emotion. or it means I was trying to withdraw from the argument; and listing facts which were already presented and you ignored would only result in you claiming they weren't facts, and hence would not progress anything at all. are you talking from emotion, or from reason? and how can you tell the difference? It seems like you use "talking from emotion" as a cudgel to assert your opponents arguments are baseless, and therefore claim victory. oh, and my tone wasn't "asshole"; it was more like "fool", IF there was such a tone and you weren't just reading too muhc into it; there's always the possibility I was just interjecting my opinion of the overall convincingness of the arguments presented. this is the internet after all, it's not uncommon for both sides in an argument to be making a weak case. also, I originally said "counterpoints" not "counterfacts", i'm generally quite precise in my word choice, and choose the exact word I meant to say, and not a related word. otherwise you end up arguing against something other than what I actually said. Lol, what facts? There is literally nothing here presented to support gun control other than "guns are inherently bad" The fact that you continue to dodge my request for factual evidence only supports the idea that you guys have no clue what you are talking about and aren't even educated on the subject of firearms. you've proven you're arguing in bad faith, so there's no point in talking to you anymore. please learn to improve the quality of your discourse and arguments, and/or choose to do so if you know how but chose not to. So when I make multiple requests for supposed 'facts' that are counterpoints to my argument you completely ignore it and simply post in response an elaborate and 'polite' ad homenin. Typical; you can't actually factually backup your claims and you simply avoid the subject. And then you wonder why the NRA has such significant lobbying power. Their lobbying power comes from the fact that your side of the argument is incapable of arguing from an objective standpoint. Your refusal to actual list arguments, factual studies, statistics, or any peer reviewed academic journals only demonstrates that you are in fact arguing from emotion. The NRA's lobbying power comes from the fact that they are rich, have many members, and republican politicians are absolutely terrified of them, way too scared to even try and make a move on a single common sense gun law.
They aren’t rich. They’re country bumpkins in lobbying politicians. Period. Anyone who calls them rich is an idiot. They’re spending 30k on a politician that gets 14million from oil. Akin to saying you’re a rich player when you gave one dollar to a guy getting 450$ from other single sources (but stupidity in gun control debate is an American pastime). Their power is mobilization of their membership against politicians that don’t get their stamp, and mobilization towards their challengers. Superstartran is correct in pointing out their hardline stance is a cakewalk when the opposition transparently argues from emotion, is totally clueless on guns, and aims to demonize lawful owners.
The second that stops, you can see background check reform or bump stocks. We would’ve already had bump stock changes had Dems not insisted on concomitant regs on mags and suppressors.
|
On February 17 2018 02:03 Jockmcplop wrote:
I have another question for the pro gun people here:
What kind of event would it take for you to pressure your representatives to vote for common sense gun legislation in states that don't have any?
It makes you wonder, if what has transpired this decade hasn't been enough, what will it take?
|
On February 17 2018 02:02 Broetchenholer wrote:
You don't need to own working firearms for sport shooting or collecting so we can probably drop them from the argument. I mean, it's still a valid reason to use them, it's just a much weaker argument to have something potential dangerous. So, self defense, how much less of a murder rate would you trade your guns for. If you could simply reduce murder by disarming the civil society and it would result in reduced murder off the bat, but the rest of murdered people could not have the chance to defend them selves?
You're under the assumption that removing firearms instantly reduces murder rates. That's the furthest thing from the truth and you know it, as evidence to countries like Russia and Brazil where firearms are virtually banned and yet the murder rate is through the roof. It is a much more complex situation, especially when you consider that pockets of the United States of America are more in line with a 3rd world country than many of the 1st world countries that everyone loves to parade around as the pinnacle of peace and prosperity.
On February 17 2018 02:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 00:45 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 17 2018 00:18 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 00:08 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 23:53 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:55 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:51 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:45 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:38 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:35 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
there's been plenty of them, you just ignored them. so like I said, carry on. you clearly meant to include yourself in the description, and hence htere's no hypocrisy so I don't mind at all; you're just pushing an agenda like everyone else is. There's plenty of them, and yet you can't even list three of them. Ok. "Yeah man, look at all those facts, you're wrong and you're an asshole, but I'm not even going to bother because I'm wasting my time." where did I say you're an asshole? I don't see a strong implication of it anywhere; but I do see how you could erroneously conclude tha'ts what I meant. you are correct that I shouldn't waste time on here with you, which is why I'm trying to withdraw; I'm just bad at withdrawing. Because the tone that comes from your statements comes off as you calling me an asshole. You say that there are plenty of facts in this thread that refute my arguments yet you are unable to list even three of them even in bullet point form, let alone in thoughtful arguments. Which pretty much supports the idea that you actually have no clue what you're talking about, and you're talking straight from emotion. or it means I was trying to withdraw from the argument; and listing facts which were already presented and you ignored would only result in you claiming they weren't facts, and hence would not progress anything at all. are you talking from emotion, or from reason? and how can you tell the difference? It seems like you use "talking from emotion" as a cudgel to assert your opponents arguments are baseless, and therefore claim victory. oh, and my tone wasn't "asshole"; it was more like "fool", IF there was such a tone and you weren't just reading too muhc into it; there's always the possibility I was just interjecting my opinion of the overall convincingness of the arguments presented. this is the internet after all, it's not uncommon for both sides in an argument to be making a weak case. also, I originally said "counterpoints" not "counterfacts", i'm generally quite precise in my word choice, and choose the exact word I meant to say, and not a related word. otherwise you end up arguing against something other than what I actually said. Lol, what facts? There is literally nothing here presented to support gun control other than "guns are inherently bad" The fact that you continue to dodge my request for factual evidence only supports the idea that you guys have no clue what you are talking about and aren't even educated on the subject of firearms. you've proven you're arguing in bad faith, so there's no point in talking to you anymore. please learn to improve the quality of your discourse and arguments, and/or choose to do so if you know how but chose not to. So when I make multiple requests for supposed 'facts' that are counterpoints to my argument you completely ignore it and simply post in response an elaborate and 'polite' ad homenin. Typical; you can't actually factually backup your claims and you simply avoid the subject. And then you wonder why the NRA has such significant lobbying power. Their lobbying power comes from the fact that your side of the argument is incapable of arguing from an objective standpoint. Your refusal to actual list arguments, factual studies, statistics, or any peer reviewed academic journals only demonstrates that you are in fact arguing from emotion. The NRA's lobbying power comes from the fact that they are rich, have many members, and republican politicians are absolutely terrified of them, way too scared to even try and make a move on a single common sense gun law. They aren’t rich. They’re country bumpkins in lobbying politicians. Period. Anyone who calls them rich is an idiot. They’re spending 30k on a politician that gets 14million from oil. Akin to saying you’re a rich player when you gave one dollar to a guy getting 450$ from other single sources (but stupidity in gun control debate is an American pastime). Their power is mobilization of their membership against politicians that don’t get their stamp, and mobilization towards their challengers. Superstartran is correct in pointing out their hardline stance is a cakewalk when the opposition transparently argues from emotion, is totally clueless on guns, and aims to demonize lawful owners. The second that stops, you can see background check reform or bump stocks. We would’ve already had bump stock changes had Dems not insisted on concomitant regs on mags and suppressors.
I mean, let's be serious. I just got a pm that I'm a terrible person and that the blood of children is on my hands. No one will be named, but it's hilarious that is what the opposition says when they have no real arguments. And then people wonder why so many lawful, moderate gun owners support the NRA's hardline stance despite the fact that they may not actual support the NRA's hardline stance on everything.
|
On February 17 2018 02:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 00:45 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 17 2018 00:18 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 00:08 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 23:53 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:55 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:51 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:45 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:38 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:35 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
there's been plenty of them, you just ignored them. so like I said, carry on. you clearly meant to include yourself in the description, and hence htere's no hypocrisy so I don't mind at all; you're just pushing an agenda like everyone else is. There's plenty of them, and yet you can't even list three of them. Ok. "Yeah man, look at all those facts, you're wrong and you're an asshole, but I'm not even going to bother because I'm wasting my time." where did I say you're an asshole? I don't see a strong implication of it anywhere; but I do see how you could erroneously conclude tha'ts what I meant. you are correct that I shouldn't waste time on here with you, which is why I'm trying to withdraw; I'm just bad at withdrawing. Because the tone that comes from your statements comes off as you calling me an asshole. You say that there are plenty of facts in this thread that refute my arguments yet you are unable to list even three of them even in bullet point form, let alone in thoughtful arguments. Which pretty much supports the idea that you actually have no clue what you're talking about, and you're talking straight from emotion. or it means I was trying to withdraw from the argument; and listing facts which were already presented and you ignored would only result in you claiming they weren't facts, and hence would not progress anything at all. are you talking from emotion, or from reason? and how can you tell the difference? It seems like you use "talking from emotion" as a cudgel to assert your opponents arguments are baseless, and therefore claim victory. oh, and my tone wasn't "asshole"; it was more like "fool", IF there was such a tone and you weren't just reading too muhc into it; there's always the possibility I was just interjecting my opinion of the overall convincingness of the arguments presented. this is the internet after all, it's not uncommon for both sides in an argument to be making a weak case. also, I originally said "counterpoints" not "counterfacts", i'm generally quite precise in my word choice, and choose the exact word I meant to say, and not a related word. otherwise you end up arguing against something other than what I actually said. Lol, what facts? There is literally nothing here presented to support gun control other than "guns are inherently bad" The fact that you continue to dodge my request for factual evidence only supports the idea that you guys have no clue what you are talking about and aren't even educated on the subject of firearms. you've proven you're arguing in bad faith, so there's no point in talking to you anymore. please learn to improve the quality of your discourse and arguments, and/or choose to do so if you know how but chose not to. So when I make multiple requests for supposed 'facts' that are counterpoints to my argument you completely ignore it and simply post in response an elaborate and 'polite' ad homenin. Typical; you can't actually factually backup your claims and you simply avoid the subject. And then you wonder why the NRA has such significant lobbying power. Their lobbying power comes from the fact that your side of the argument is incapable of arguing from an objective standpoint. Your refusal to actual list arguments, factual studies, statistics, or any peer reviewed academic journals only demonstrates that you are in fact arguing from emotion. The NRA's lobbying power comes from the fact that they are rich, have many members, and republican politicians are absolutely terrified of them, way too scared to even try and make a move on a single common sense gun law. They aren’t rich. They’re country bumpkins in lobbying politicians. Period. Anyone who calls them rich is an idiot. They’re spending 30k on a politician that gets 14million from oil. Akin to saying you’re a rich player when you gave one dollar to a guy getting 450$ from other single sources (but stupidity in gun control debate is an American pastime). Their power is mobilization of their membership against politicians that don’t get their stamp, and mobilization towards their challengers. Superstartran is correct in pointing out their hardline stance is a cakewalk when the opposition transparently argues from emotion, is totally clueless on guns, and aims to demonize lawful owners. The second that stops, you can see background check reform or bump stocks. We would’ve already had bump stock changes had Dems not insisted on concomitant regs on mags and suppressors.
The NRA is one of the most powerful and effective lobbies in the US. Politicians of both parties say it. Reporters are saying it today. Lobbyist say it. The NRA brags about it. The people who deny it are people who wish to downplay the influence of the NRA on Washington DC.
|
So it wouldn't do it immediatly but longterm.
Your argument is?
|
I'm not sure how someone can argue that better gun controls will reduce school shootings is an emotion from violence. You have a wealth of sources from the other 6 billion people in the world. You don't need to ban guns. In the UK, guns are not illegal. Many farmers still legally own guns, as do sports enthusiasts and hunters. There has been many gun amnesties and people still do smuggle guns and every now and then someone gets accidently shot and so on and so forth, but gun crime has drastically decreased over the periods when gun legislation were passed. You simply cannot obtain one without reason and certainly if you are not sound of mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
