|
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 May 19 2018 10:33 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 10:31 Plansix wrote:
That is not a majority of the House and would not pass the senate. I taught civics, that bill is about as serious as one to fund anding a man on mars. Are you saying that 176 of the 193 current Democrat seats doesn't show that there is a strong push from the liberal left to ban assault weapons? Because the crux of the issue here is that the NRA is able to swing lots of moderate voters in their favor because of the fact that they are able to EASILY prove that the liberal left does have an agenda. That bill alone proves it.
To quote you, Bull. Fucking. Shit. The NRA swings no moderate voters. The NRA has a huge amount of sway with the small fraction of the US electorate that regularly vote in Republican primaries, and they leverage that force Republican congresspeople to suck up to the NRA.
|
On May 19 2018 10:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 10:50 Sermokala wrote:On May 19 2018 10:45 Plansix wrote:
You can’t blame democrats for throwing the political football back to the NRA. They made guns a wedge issue for a core part of the Republican base. A cultural issue even. The Democrats are going to respond in kind.
And the national license to carry law was a pile of trash that would have been thrown out by the federal courts. States do not need to respect the right to carry laws of other states. The democrats do not have a monopoly of shitty gun bills. We can blame the democrats for acting in the same way as the NRA and then trying to pass themselves off as the party trying to do something. You can't play in the mud on an issue and then try to act high and mighty about the same issue. Handguns are the guns that kill people yet get no attention from the people who pretend that they're trying to same these peoples lives. This I agree with. But this started with me refuting the claim that there is national push for an assault rifle ban. There is not.
I'm really too lazy currently to actually delve into all the sources and look at all the polls, but a basic google search pretty much pulls up this.
http://www.businessinsider.com/assault-weapons-ban-poll-gun-reform-2018-2
Along with the assault weapons ban bill with a sponsored 176 Democrats, I'm pretty sure you really can't say there is no 'national push for an assault rifle ban' because that's pretty much categorically false.
|
On May 19 2018 11:01 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 10:33 superstartran wrote:On May 19 2018 10:31 Plansix wrote:
That is not a majority of the House and would not pass the senate. I taught civics, that bill is about as serious as one to fund anding a man on mars. Are you saying that 176 of the 193 current Democrat seats doesn't show that there is a strong push from the liberal left to ban assault weapons? Because the crux of the issue here is that the NRA is able to swing lots of moderate voters in their favor because of the fact that they are able to EASILY prove that the liberal left does have an agenda. That bill alone proves it. To quote you, Bull. Fucking. Shit. The NRA swings no moderate voters. The NRA has a huge amount of sway with the small fraction of the US electorate that regularly vote in Republican primaries, and they leverage that force Republican congresspeople to suck up to the NRA.
The NRA swings tons of moderate voters. The NRA's power base comes from gun owners, which are not all predominantly white contrary to popular opinion. Statistics show that increasingly African Americans and women are becoming a larger populations among gun owners, and I'd probably venture out there and say that a good chunk of those AA/women gun owners also either joined the NRA, or have been exposed to the NRA through gun safety classes.
There's alot more diversity and moderate voters in the NRA than people think, but the continued ignorance and demonizing of its members and organization itself just further defeats the liberal lefts goals of instituting sensible gun control laws.
|
On May 19 2018 10:23 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 10:16 superstartran wrote:On May 19 2018 10:09 Kyadytim wrote:On May 19 2018 09:59 superstartran wrote:On May 19 2018 09:50 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2018 09:41 superstartran wrote:On May 19 2018 09:31 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2018 09:22 superstartran wrote:On May 19 2018 09:19 Plansix wrote:
Every other tragedy gets politicized and uses as a reason to change policy. Folks call for deportations the instant a single illegal immigrant is linked to a murder. And I’ve been informed I need to respect and their anger and outrage when that happens. I don’t see any problem with guns owners rights advocates doing the same after these shooting. And then you wonder why you can't win over the moderate conservatives over when it comes to the gun control arguments? If you're going to be unreasonable, why should they ever budge an inch? Like Danglers said, we need more facts before we start making judgments on whether this was a gun violence issue or something else like mental health. The kid clearly could have caused far more casualties considering he had pressure cookers and pipe bombs ready, all which are much more lethal in a smaller confined radius like a school classroom. I don’t need to, they already support robust background checks, empowering judges to remove guns from high risk people and ending gun show loopholes. Why do I need to win people over on policies that are already popular and proven reduce gun related deaths? My real opponent is the pro gun sale NRA. I don’t need to win them over. I just need to help build a national lobby of equal size and influence. Like Moms who demand action, who have passed laws like the ones above in several states. This isn’t a debate, it’s about organizing a better lobby than the NRA. Except the funny part is that the NRA is seemingly always able to amass a plethora of votes in key swing elections while the opposition is not able to do so. And I'm not definitely saying that the other side doesn't care, but they seemingly only care when a mass shooting occurs, not looking at the overall high number of firearm related homicides that stem from gang violence and handguns. Mostly they primary republicans who vote for gun control measures and scare the shit out of people by lying that gun control advocates are going to take away their guns. After sandy hook congress couldn’t even have a debate about gun laws. Just talk about it. But the NRA argues the guns are going to be taken away or banned every time. Also drives up gun sales too. But you are right that gun control groups have been a poor lobby for a while. That needs to change and this foolish idea that it’s about “changing minds” needs to be euthanized. This point I vehemently disagree with. That statement works because there are politicians and agenda driven organizations that lie and misrepresent many things about firearms in general in order to drive home their political agenda. It makes it look like they are trying to just get rid of guns rather than find some common ground on sensible legislation and regulation. The reason why MADD was successful (Mothers against Drunk Driving) was because they had sensible, moderate suggestions that no one could really argue against. If a movement started with sensible gun regulations, the NRA wouldn't have a foot to stand on. The problem is that the gun control lobbies can never come up with a sensible platform, they just misrepresent facts and just try to push agendas rather than actual come up with real solutions half the time. Have you watched any of the NRA's ads? The NRA 100% tries to scare people into doing what the NRA wants them to do. And we've had suggestions for reasonable gun regulations. They get shot down as too oppressive, leaving things like trying to ban bump stocks, which then gets attacked as merely symbolic. Let's get a national gun registry and start tracking where guns used in gun violence come from so we can start having an informed discussion about the best ways to reduce gun violence while minimally impacting gun ownership and use. 'Suggestions for reasonable gun regulations' You mean like banning of all 'assault/military style' weapons? Come on now. Don't play innocent and try and say that gun control advocates have never suggested anything absolutely asinine. I am pro-gun-control and I find that in practice these "assault weapon" bans are pretty darn useless. By banning ergonomic features instead of writing good gun control laws, we've spent a ton of political capital and will here in California without actually getting at the issue. Most gun crime is done with handguns, not long guns; most gun deaths are suicides, and most gun homicides are done with illegal guns that left the system somehow. Better registration, mental health evaluation requirements for gun ownership, gun buybacks to get illegal guns off the street, etc would all be way more effective at reducing gun deaths than banning front-grips on long guns. Sadly, few people are educated on the pro-gun-control side about which measures would be most effective and the actual statistics of gun violence, and few gun owners and pro-gun-ownership-people are inclined to help out in drafting legislation like this. As a result, when we do get political victories, they're spent on useless laws that don't get at the core of illegal guns, handguns that fell out of the system, suicidal people who own guns, etc. Very frustrating. I don't have high hopes of this changing; if in 2020 we get a Democrat in the presidency again and pass a new gun control bill, it'll probably do something dumb like ban bayonet lugs and ergonomic stocks like all the "assault weapon" bans do without appreciably reducing gun deaths, because this is what people demand even though it's useless. This is what happened in California, where we control everything, and it's pretty darned annoying because we SHOULD be able to pass an actual gun law that's useful, instead we ban things that LOOK scary and people are still dying! Sigh.
I disagree with every word of your proposed gun control legislation, but I am very glad that you can see the assault weapon bans for what they are. A 2020 Democrat would start legislation that affect features like stocks and silencers as things stand today. I live in California, and our legislation is entirely focused on the big, scary-looking features, and totally useless. But everybody can feel very good that we've done something for gun control.
|
On May 19 2018 11:02 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 10:58 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2018 10:50 Sermokala wrote:On May 19 2018 10:45 Plansix wrote:
You can’t blame democrats for throwing the political football back to the NRA. They made guns a wedge issue for a core part of the Republican base. A cultural issue even. The Democrats are going to respond in kind.
And the national license to carry law was a pile of trash that would have been thrown out by the federal courts. States do not need to respect the right to carry laws of other states. The democrats do not have a monopoly of shitty gun bills. We can blame the democrats for acting in the same way as the NRA and then trying to pass themselves off as the party trying to do something. You can't play in the mud on an issue and then try to act high and mighty about the same issue. Handguns are the guns that kill people yet get no attention from the people who pretend that they're trying to same these peoples lives. This I agree with. But this started with me refuting the claim that there is national push for an assault rifle ban. There is not. I'm really too lazy currently to actually delve into all the sources and look at all the polls, but a basic google search pretty much pulls up this. http://www.businessinsider.com/assault-weapons-ban-poll-gun-reform-2018-2Along with the assault weapons ban bill with a sponsored 176 Democrats, I'm pretty sure you really can't say there is no 'national push for an assault rifle ban' because that's pretty much categorically false.
Again, this bill is as serious as repealing the income tax. Claiming the existence of a sponsored bill that has zero chance of a floor vote means anything shows a basic misunderstanding of how laws are passed in congress. This bill is just piece of paper with some names on it.
|
On May 19 2018 00:56 nothingmuch wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 00:42 TRAP[yoo] wrote:On May 19 2018 00:35 Thomasmarkle wrote:
Unfortunate news of a school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas (just southeast of Houston). Multiple fatalities. So far it sounds like someone pulled a fire alarm again to draw people out of classes. i guess its time to get rid of all fire alarms? No dude, you just get a (heavily armed) fireman in each school/public building that constantly checks everyone for fire alarm pulling capabilities/flammable material and shoots them if necessary. For freedom. + Show Spoiler +User was temp banned for this post.
This post made me laugh. I learned about mass shooting just a few minutes ago, a few days after watching dear white people on netflix, and now this. What does it mean to you ? That I'm being too old / cynical / whatever you can think of OR that your country is a BIG F@#$ING JOKE ?
Man. USA will never cease to amaze me.
And now we're arguing again about law and sh.t and democrats and liberals. It's a never-ending cycle.
You know what I think about this now ? It went to a point where a couldn't careless anymore. My sympathies go for the victims. But really, you know what would've been better ? That I'd not have said it. GL with that, you're in deep shit.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 19 2018 09:33 KwarK wrote:
Given how ineffective the airport security theatre is I don't see why we need to roll the same thing out across the nation's schools. It'd make more sense to treat the school shootings as a kind of "freedom tithe", a price we pay for the right to have guns in a society. Just accept that the price of guns is school shootings and move on imo.
I sense that I might not be understanding your position clearly, so allow to me ask a clarifying question here: Do you propose anything at all? Like what is your solution here?
|
On May 19 2018 12:26 RaiZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 00:56 nothingmuch wrote:On May 19 2018 00:42 TRAP[yoo] wrote:On May 19 2018 00:35 Thomasmarkle wrote:
Unfortunate news of a school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas (just southeast of Houston). Multiple fatalities. So far it sounds like someone pulled a fire alarm again to draw people out of classes. i guess its time to get rid of all fire alarms? No dude, you just get a (heavily armed) fireman in each school/public building that constantly checks everyone for fire alarm pulling capabilities/flammable material and shoots them if necessary. For freedom. + Show Spoiler +User was temp banned for this post. This post made me laugh. I learned about mass shooting just a few minutes ago, a few days after watching dear white people on netflix, and now this. What does it mean to you ? That I'm being too old / cynical / whatever you can think of OR that your country is a BIG F@#$ING JOKE ? Man. USA will never cease to amaze me. And now we're arguing again about law and sh.t and democrats and liberals. It's a never-ending cycle. You know what I think about this now ? It went to a point where a couldn't careless anymore. My sympathies go for the victims. But really, you know what would've been better ? That I'd not have said it. GL with that, you're in deep shit.
Thanks for choosing the one dumbass in the thread to respond to and draw generalizations around. If you're not aware, most of us in the US are just as horrified by what is happening as outside observers are.
Try to think before your next post, thanks.
|
On May 19 2018 08:41 Archeon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 08:10 Aveng3r wrote:
Its kind of telling that this thread only gets like 20 posts for the latest shooting. Its almost so routine now that nobody is even surprised anymore.
Fuck this. What do you expect? It's a complicated problem and all the possible partial solutions are too expensive for how rarely this really happens. More teachers for more time/student, psychologists at schools, better gun controls, no-reporting-policies, all of that costs money. Alternatively the politicians hold some speeches, proclaim absurd "hardliner"-ideas to gather some conservative voters, the media races for the fastest coverage while shitting on everyone's emotions and the schools continue their high pressure low care model because that's inexpensive and produces efficient cogwheels for the economy, so the economy is happy and so are the parents once the child found a job. So everyone with influence gets what they wish for, which means that this will just continue for the next 100 years.
okay first of all:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/us/school-shootings-2018-list-trnd/index.html
Second. You finish your brilliant post with "This will just continue for the next 100 years". Jesus Fucking Christ! You have nothing to offer aside from that? There are no solutions you would be willing to try out? Nothing? We just have to accept a fucking reality where schools are an active battleground? MONEY IS WHAT IS STOPPING YOU FROM WORKING TOWARDS A SOLUTION? KIDS LIVES ARE TOO EXPENSIVE?
|
On May 19 2018 13:32 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 08:41 Archeon wrote:On May 19 2018 08:10 Aveng3r wrote:
Its kind of telling that this thread only gets like 20 posts for the latest shooting. Its almost so routine now that nobody is even surprised anymore.
Fuck this. What do you expect? It's a complicated problem and all the possible partial solutions are too expensive for how rarely this really happens. More teachers for more time/student, psychologists at schools, better gun controls, no-reporting-policies, all of that costs money. Alternatively the politicians hold some speeches, proclaim absurd "hardliner"-ideas to gather some conservative voters, the media races for the fastest coverage while shitting on everyone's emotions and the schools continue their high pressure low care model because that's inexpensive and produces efficient cogwheels for the economy, so the economy is happy and so are the parents once the child found a job. So everyone with influence gets what they wish for, which means that this will just continue for the next 100 years. okay first of all: https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/us/school-shootings-2018-list-trnd/index.htmlSecond. You finish your brilliant post with "This will just continue for the next 100 years". Jesus Fucking Christ! You have nothing to offer aside from that? There are no solutions you would be willing to try out? Nothing? We just have to accept a fucking reality where schools are an active battleground? MONEY IS WHAT IS STOPPING YOU FROM WORKING TOWARDS A SOLUTION? KIDS LIVES ARE TOO EXPENSIVE?
Love the enthusiasm. But remember, you're yelling on an internet forum. No one can hear you.
Now, as in the US poli thread, we have the solutions but lack the means to implement. Namely, politicians who put the good of the many ahead of the few. Go vote this November and any other election in your area and replace the people who do not hold the best interests of the populace first and foremost.
|
United States42667 Posts
On May 19 2018 13:03 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 09:33 KwarK wrote:
Given how ineffective the airport security theatre is I don't see why we need to roll the same thing out across the nation's schools. It'd make more sense to treat the school shootings as a kind of "freedom tithe", a price we pay for the right to have guns in a society. Just accept that the price of guns is school shootings and move on imo. I sense that I might not be understanding your position clearly, so allow to me ask a clarifying question here: Do you propose anything at all? Like what is your solution here?
I think you understand, I propose doing nothing. You either have guns + school shootings or you have no school shootings, but also no guns. I don't think throwing money at the problem is going to make it possible for a society to have guns but no school shootings. The price of allowing people to have cars is vehicular terrorism but we pay it happily enough because what are we going to do, ban cars? Why should this be different? The gun supporters should come out and say that school shootings are a price they're willing to pay, rather than pretending that there is a third way.
|
On May 19 2018 13:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 13:03 Aveng3r wrote:On May 19 2018 09:33 KwarK wrote:
Given how ineffective the airport security theatre is I don't see why we need to roll the same thing out across the nation's schools. It'd make more sense to treat the school shootings as a kind of "freedom tithe", a price we pay for the right to have guns in a society. Just accept that the price of guns is school shootings and move on imo. I sense that I might not be understanding your position clearly, so allow to me ask a clarifying question here: Do you propose anything at all? Like what is your solution here? I think you understand, I propose doing nothing. You either have guns + school shootings or you have no school shootings, but also no guns. I don't think throwing money at the problem is going to make it possible for a society to have guns but no school shootings. The price of allowing people to have cars is vehicular terrorism but we pay it happily enough because what are we going to do, ban cars? Why should this be different? The gun supporters should come out and say that school shootings are a price they're willing to pay, rather than pretending that there is a third way.
How about a "Scholastic Memorial Day" federal holiday? Considering that school children are starting to die at a faster rate than service members, I think they've earned it.
|
On May 19 2018 11:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 11:02 superstartran wrote:On May 19 2018 10:58 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2018 10:50 Sermokala wrote:On May 19 2018 10:45 Plansix wrote:
You can’t blame democrats for throwing the political football back to the NRA. They made guns a wedge issue for a core part of the Republican base. A cultural issue even. The Democrats are going to respond in kind.
And the national license to carry law was a pile of trash that would have been thrown out by the federal courts. States do not need to respect the right to carry laws of other states. The democrats do not have a monopoly of shitty gun bills. We can blame the democrats for acting in the same way as the NRA and then trying to pass themselves off as the party trying to do something. You can't play in the mud on an issue and then try to act high and mighty about the same issue. Handguns are the guns that kill people yet get no attention from the people who pretend that they're trying to same these peoples lives. This I agree with. But this started with me refuting the claim that there is national push for an assault rifle ban. There is not. I'm really too lazy currently to actually delve into all the sources and look at all the polls, but a basic google search pretty much pulls up this. http://www.businessinsider.com/assault-weapons-ban-poll-gun-reform-2018-2Along with the assault weapons ban bill with a sponsored 176 Democrats, I'm pretty sure you really can't say there is no 'national push for an assault rifle ban' because that's pretty much categorically false. Again, this bill is as serious as repealing the income tax. Claiming the existence of a sponsored bill that has zero chance of a floor vote means anything shows a basic misunderstanding of how laws are passed in congress. This bill is just piece of paper with some names on it.
Stop with the misrepresentation of my point. There is a significant amount of people along with legislatures that want an assault weapons ban. That qualifies as. "significant national push" in your own words.
Can it with your backhanded insults. I know exactly how the legislative process works.
|
Maybe if these politicians' children start getting shot up at their private academies, outside money might stop mattering as much. As it stands it's almost not even worth debating because nothing meaningful is going to get done.
|
On May 19 2018 23:28 mierin wrote:
Maybe if these politicians' children start getting shot up at their private academies, outside money might stop mattering as much. As it stands it's almost not even worth debating because nothing meaningful is going to get done.
Maybe if people weren't so highly aggressive towards gun owners you'd win some of them over and actually could have constructive conversations with them on how to reduce gun violence.
|
On May 19 2018 23:28 mierin wrote:
As it stands it's almost not even worth debating because nothing meaningful is going to get done.
There's nothing you can do about it so shut up and take it. NO NO NO NO NO
|
i used to think this thread had a purpose but now its fairly obvious that this thread goes through a routine that is pretty much identical every single time. and those who dont want to take part in the neverending cycle of gun control debate no longer post anymore because mass shootings have occurred too many times at this point for us to even be surprised. how sad...
well actually there was another school shooting that i think happened the day after? santa fe so... thats new i guess. consecutive school shootings happening now.
|
On May 19 2018 23:47 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i used to think this thread had a purpose but now its fairly obvious that this thread goes through a routine that is pretty much identical every single time. and those who dont want to take part in the neverending cycle of gun control debate no longer post anymore because mass shootings have occurred too many times at this point for us to even be surprised. how sad...
well actually there was another school shooting that i think happened the day after? santa fe so... thats new i guess. consecutive school shootings happening now.
There was another school shooting that happened the day after?
|
On May 19 2018 23:30 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 23:28 mierin wrote:
Maybe if these politicians' children start getting shot up at their private academies, outside money might stop mattering as much. As it stands it's almost not even worth debating because nothing meaningful is going to get done. Maybe if people weren't so highly aggressive towards gun owners you'd win some of them over and actually could have constructive conversations with them on how to reduce gun violence.
This "you could win people over" politics, especially in a nation where voter participation and lack there of is by and large the deciding factor in who comes out ahead in the political process (in terms of representation at least), is utter bullshit.
Pew survey if you want some numbers:
www.pewresearch.org
Most americans support, by not all that slim a margin:
1) Preventing mentally ill from obtaining guns.
2) Background checks for all gun sales.
3) Preventing people on watch lists from obtaining guns.
4) Creating a federal database to track gun sales.
5) Banning assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines.
All of those would be policy in a "direct" democracy with little argument. Which isn't necessarily the best litmus for whether or not they should happen, but we are talking about support. Winning over people who don't already have the "correct" opinion is a waste of energy in that political landscape, the problem is turning that majority support into representation and then legislation.
Also, the NRA has ads that would, in a sane society, qualify as stochastic terrorism. If calling that crap out means "chasing away people you could win over" or some nonsense, so be it. Something something negotiate with terrorists something something.
|
United States24678 Posts
Ciaus_Dronu by labeling the NRA and their supporters as terrorists you are helping the NRA to maintain the status quo, regardless of what moral highground you decide to hang out on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
