|
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 20 2018 00:33 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 23:30 superstartran wrote: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.orgMost 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.
The NRA only has 5 million registered members. That's a pretty big stretch too considering how they probably inflated those numbers. How do you think that with such a small number they are able to win so many seats? The amount of money they spend, their membership size, etc. All of these things suggest that the NRA should be a fringe lobby group at best, and yet they have more sway over legislatures than even pharmaceutical companies who spend 100x more money than the NRA does.
Yet they win out in multiple elections despite all these factors. Alot of this is because the NRA has a ton of support from the silent majority who chooses not to publicly declare their status, just like how Donald Trump ended up winning in a land slide despite all the polls showing Clinton at an advantage. So yes, you need to win those people over.
And I am for one glad that I live in a country where direct democracy doesn't exist. The founding fathers knew better than to implement such a system that has shown that it has trampled on the rights of the minority in the past. America's system isn't perfect, but it works a hell of alot better than some of the shit people come up with.
|
5930 Posts
On May 19 2018 23:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Yes, there was a person killed in Georgia during some graduation ceremony. It doesn't seem like a planned shooting, seemed like some people got angry and someone drew their firearm. Obviously it could have ended up much worse since it was in a parking lot during a mass public event.
On May 20 2018 00:56 superstartran wrote:Yet they win out in multiple elections despite all these factors. Alot of this is because the NRA has a ton of support from the silent majority who chooses not to publicly declare their status, just like how Donald Trump ended up winning in a land slide despite all the polls showing Clinton at an advantage. So yes, you need to win those people over.
Not really disputing the rest of your post but Trump didn't win in a landslide nor were the polls wrong as they were accurate within margin of error with regards to popular vote.
|
On May 20 2018 01:06 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 23:58 Danglars wrote: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? Yes, there was a person killed in Georgia during some graduation ceremony. It doesn't seem like a planned shooting, seemed like some people got angry and someone drew their firearm. Obviously it could have ended up much worse since it was in a parking lot during a mass public event. Show nested quote +On May 20 2018 00:56 superstartran wrote:Yet they win out in multiple elections despite all these factors. Alot of this is because the NRA has a ton of support from the silent majority who chooses not to publicly declare their status, just like how Donald Trump ended up winning in a land slide despite all the polls showing Clinton at an advantage. So yes, you need to win those people over. Trump didn't win in a landslide nor were the polls wrong as they were accurate within margin of error with regards to popular vote.
Trump won states that a conventional Republican candidate probably wouldn't have a prayer of winning. He also won 307 electoral votes to 227. It was a beat down and an embarrassment to the Democratic party, especially considering how much of a shit show he was on the campaign trail (and currently).
So yes, keep living in some weird reality where Trump didn't stomp Clinton, but he did.
|
If folks are going to critique the NRA, they should stick to the NRAs leadership. There more than enough to get point across that NRA is a lobby that is focused on boosting gun sales.
Edit: is this some post faculty nonsense? He lost the popular vote and just got enough votes in key states to carry them. It was one of the closest elections in modern history given the margins in the key swing states. And it was a low turn out election as well. There was no landslide.
|
Also, the NRA has access to very active single-issue voters. They have people who will always vote for guns, and always against gun legislation, no matter what other issues are relevant for the ballot. Furthermore, these are also people who actually will message their representatives on masse.
|
I just hope all the shootings in the US don't give the crazies on our side of the pond any ideas.
|
5930 Posts
On May 20 2018 01:13 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2018 01:06 Womwomwom wrote:On May 19 2018 23:58 Danglars wrote: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? Yes, there was a person killed in Georgia during some graduation ceremony. It doesn't seem like a planned shooting, seemed like some people got angry and someone drew their firearm. Obviously it could have ended up much worse since it was in a parking lot during a mass public event. On May 20 2018 00:56 superstartran wrote:Yet they win out in multiple elections despite all these factors. Alot of this is because the NRA has a ton of support from the silent majority who chooses not to publicly declare their status, just like how Donald Trump ended up winning in a land slide despite all the polls showing Clinton at an advantage. So yes, you need to win those people over. Trump didn't win in a landslide nor were the polls wrong as they were accurate within margin of error with regards to popular vote. Trump won states that a conventional Republican candidate probably wouldn't have a prayer of winning. He also won 307 electoral votes to 227. It was a beat down and an embarrassment to the Democratic party, especially considering how much of a shit show he was on the campaign trail (and currently). So yes, keep living in some weird reality where Trump didn't stomp Clinton, but he did.
Winning several swing states by a combined total of a little more than 100,000 votes isn't a stomping. Nor was Trump actually a shit show of a campaign in hindsight. His campaign was significantly better run than Clinton's from his constant movement on the campaign trail to direct targeted advertising in swing states via social media where Clinton opted for far less direct and far more expensive TV advertisements. He didn't even need expensive TV advertisements, the media reports on him were doing just that for free.
So I don't think I'm really living in a weird reality.
|
So this shooting happened yesterday, yet a good chunk of people in the U.S already forgot about the shooting because the royal wedding happened. I mean, I guess you want something refreshing, but thats all I hear about for today, "Omg the royal wedding". Uh yea, but yesterday we just had ANOTHER mass shooting.
|
I don’t think it is fair to assume that at all.
|
I just think it's disgusting how people are going out of their way to watch this wedding, while they can't be bothered about school shootings, so they send "thoughts & prayers"...
|
On May 20 2018 01:19 PoulsenB wrote:
I just hope all the shootings in the US don't give the crazies on our side of the pond any ideas.
Well, unfortunately idiocy is universal, we'll have to keep our idiots in check.
Sadly the U.S. is a system of neglect, especially when it comes to takin care of the weaker links of society, like the physically and mentally ill. So, I gues we'll keep breeding idiots, just like the old saying you reap what you sow....
|
I am going to a wedding today and I won't be bringing up the subject of the shooting because its a wedding. That does not mean I don't care.
|
On May 20 2018 01:06 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 23:58 Danglars wrote: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? Yes, there was a person killed in Georgia during some graduation ceremony. It doesn't seem like a planned shooting, seemed like some people got angry and someone drew their firearm. Obviously it could have ended up much worse since it was in a parking lot during a mass public event.
Ok I see it. One was killed and another was wounded in a parking lot argument. It occurred after a graduation ceremony. It definitely fits in anyone's definition of gun violence, but wouldn't be included in everybody's definition of a school shooting. Then again, details on that one haven't been released.
On May 20 2018 01:13 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2018 01:06 Womwomwom wrote:On May 19 2018 23:58 Danglars wrote: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? Yes, there was a person killed in Georgia during some graduation ceremony. It doesn't seem like a planned shooting, seemed like some people got angry and someone drew their firearm. Obviously it could have ended up much worse since it was in a parking lot during a mass public event. On May 20 2018 00:56 superstartran wrote:Yet they win out in multiple elections despite all these factors. Alot of this is because the NRA has a ton of support from the silent majority who chooses not to publicly declare their status, just like how Donald Trump ended up winning in a land slide despite all the polls showing Clinton at an advantage. So yes, you need to win those people over. Trump didn't win in a landslide nor were the polls wrong as they were accurate within margin of error with regards to popular vote. Trump won states that a conventional Republican candidate probably wouldn't have a prayer of winning. He also won 307 electoral votes to 227. It was a beat down and an embarrassment to the Democratic party, especially considering how much of a shit show he was on the campaign trail (and currently). So yes, keep living in some weird reality where Trump didn't stomp Clinton, but he did.
He shouldn't have had a prayer of winning. But he did. Simultaneously, the crazy electoral result looks like more of a smackdown than it really was. Take four big swing states that were too close to call for ages after polls closed, WI MI PA and FL. The margins were 0.7% 0.3% 0.7% and 1.2%. Those margins gave Trump 75 EC votes to 0 EC for Clinton, which more than covers the final difference between the two. The fact that Dems shouldn't have been struggling in more than a couple is true, but doesn't make for a true blowout.
|
On May 20 2018 01:41 ShoCkeyy wrote:
So this shooting happened yesterday, yet a good chunk of people in the U.S already forgot about the shooting because the royal wedding happened. I mean, I guess you want something refreshing, but thats all I hear about for today, "Omg the royal wedding". Uh yea, but yesterday we just had ANOTHER mass shooting.
On May 20 2018 01:47 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I just think it's disgusting how people are going out of their way to watch this wedding, while they can't be bothered about school shootings, so they send "thoughts & prayers"...
When you know just how poisonous the debate will be in the wake of a tragedy, I see absolutely no harm in fangirling over a wedding if you're into that stuff. The bride was an American after all.
You don't have a strong argument here at all. Who wants to tune in and see their sincere condolences mocked as a pathetic excuse to not take action (as is the spin from many gun control advocates)? You instead make a strong argument to ignore the base invective for a period, because they're doing a great disservice to their cause in their flashes of anger immediately afterwards.
|
On May 20 2018 02:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2018 01:06 Womwomwom wrote:On May 19 2018 23:58 Danglars wrote: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? Yes, there was a person killed in Georgia during some graduation ceremony. It doesn't seem like a planned shooting, seemed like some people got angry and someone drew their firearm. Obviously it could have ended up much worse since it was in a parking lot during a mass public event. Ok I see it. One was killed and another was wounded in a parking lot argument. It occurred after a graduation ceremony. It definitely fits in anyone's definition of gun violence, but wouldn't be included in everybody's definition of a school shooting. Then again, details on that one haven't been released. Show nested quote +On May 20 2018 01:13 superstartran wrote:On May 20 2018 01:06 Womwomwom wrote:On May 19 2018 23:58 Danglars wrote: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? Yes, there was a person killed in Georgia during some graduation ceremony. It doesn't seem like a planned shooting, seemed like some people got angry and someone drew their firearm. Obviously it could have ended up much worse since it was in a parking lot during a mass public event. On May 20 2018 00:56 superstartran wrote:Yet they win out in multiple elections despite all these factors. Alot of this is because the NRA has a ton of support from the silent majority who chooses not to publicly declare their status, just like how Donald Trump ended up winning in a land slide despite all the polls showing Clinton at an advantage. So yes, you need to win those people over. Trump didn't win in a landslide nor were the polls wrong as they were accurate within margin of error with regards to popular vote. Trump won states that a conventional Republican candidate probably wouldn't have a prayer of winning. He also won 307 electoral votes to 227. It was a beat down and an embarrassment to the Democratic party, especially considering how much of a shit show he was on the campaign trail (and currently). So yes, keep living in some weird reality where Trump didn't stomp Clinton, but he did. He shouldn't have had a prayer of winning. But he did. Simultaneously, the crazy electoral result looks like more of a smackdown than it really was. Take four big swing states that were too close to call for ages after polls closed, WI MI PA and FL. The margins were 0.7% 0.3% 0.7% and 1.2%. Those margins gave Trump 75 EC votes to 0 EC for Clinton, which more than covers the final difference between the two. The fact that Dems shouldn't have been struggling in more than a couple is true, but doesn't make for a true blowout.
It was a blow out in the sense that the Democrats should have never lost WI MI or PA, and it was considered a massive upset. You can't take 'popular' votes or 'number of votes' as the only factors here, you have to take into consideration that the three states that he flipped have been historically Democratic for quite sometime now. Again, alot of this is in relation to the idea that there are far more Trump supporters than one would actually believe.
Similarly to the NRA, just because the NRA's official membership is about 5 million, if you really think about it, the NRA probably actually represents a much larger population then that. It's just that many of them don't actually register with the NRA for fear of being tagged as a 'gun nut.' The actual number of people the NRA represents is probably something closer to 10 million+, otherwise there's no way they would have so much political clout. Their ability to mobilize such a large number of gun owners is phenomenal, it's pretty much unprecedented in modern political history. People keep harping on about NRA leadership, etc. but at it's core, the NRA is a grass roots movement of gun owners. You have to convince those grass roots people that there's a problem (which I think your generic run of the mill NRA member would agree to), and you need to get them on your side in order to come up with realistic solutions.
That being said, you could also just say that all gun supporters are demons and call it a day. That's what the liberal left does.
|
On May 20 2018 03:37 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2018 02:27 Danglars wrote:On May 20 2018 01:06 Womwomwom wrote:On May 19 2018 23:58 Danglars wrote: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? Yes, there was a person killed in Georgia during some graduation ceremony. It doesn't seem like a planned shooting, seemed like some people got angry and someone drew their firearm. Obviously it could have ended up much worse since it was in a parking lot during a mass public event. Ok I see it. One was killed and another was wounded in a parking lot argument. It occurred after a graduation ceremony. It definitely fits in anyone's definition of gun violence, but wouldn't be included in everybody's definition of a school shooting. Then again, details on that one haven't been released. On May 20 2018 01:13 superstartran wrote:On May 20 2018 01:06 Womwomwom wrote:On May 19 2018 23:58 Danglars wrote: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? Yes, there was a person killed in Georgia during some graduation ceremony. It doesn't seem like a planned shooting, seemed like some people got angry and someone drew their firearm. Obviously it could have ended up much worse since it was in a parking lot during a mass public event. On May 20 2018 00:56 superstartran wrote:Yet they win out in multiple elections despite all these factors. Alot of this is because the NRA has a ton of support from the silent majority who chooses not to publicly declare their status, just like how Donald Trump ended up winning in a land slide despite all the polls showing Clinton at an advantage. So yes, you need to win those people over. Trump didn't win in a landslide nor were the polls wrong as they were accurate within margin of error with regards to popular vote. Trump won states that a conventional Republican candidate probably wouldn't have a prayer of winning. He also won 307 electoral votes to 227. It was a beat down and an embarrassment to the Democratic party, especially considering how much of a shit show he was on the campaign trail (and currently). So yes, keep living in some weird reality where Trump didn't stomp Clinton, but he did. He shouldn't have had a prayer of winning. But he did. Simultaneously, the crazy electoral result looks like more of a smackdown than it really was. Take four big swing states that were too close to call for ages after polls closed, WI MI PA and FL. The margins were 0.7% 0.3% 0.7% and 1.2%. Those margins gave Trump 75 EC votes to 0 EC for Clinton, which more than covers the final difference between the two. The fact that Dems shouldn't have been struggling in more than a couple is true, but doesn't make for a true blowout. It was a blow out in the sense that the Democrats should have never lost WI MI or PA, and it was considered a massive upset. You can't take 'popular' votes or 'number of votes' as the only factors here, you have to take into consideration that the three states that he flipped have been historically Democratic for quite sometime now. Again, alot of this is in relation to the idea that there are far more Trump supporters than one would actually believe. Similarly to the NRA, just because the NRA's official membership is about 5 million, if you really think about it, the NRA probably actually represents a much larger population then that. It's just that many of them don't actually register with the NRA for fear of being tagged as a 'gun nut.' The actual number of people the NRA represents is probably something closer to 10 million+, otherwise there's no way they would have so much political clout. Their ability to mobilize such a large number of gun owners is phenomenal, it's pretty much unprecedented in modern political history. People keep harping on about NRA leadership, etc. but at it's core, the NRA is a grass roots movement of gun owners. You have to convince those grass roots people that there's a problem (which I think your generic run of the mill NRA member would agree to), and you need to get them on your side in order to come up with realistic solutions. That being said, you could also just say that all gun supporters are demons and call it a day. That's what the liberal left does.
I'm pretty sure calling the other side demons is what the conservative right does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic:_How_the_Liberal_Mob_Is_Endangering_America
It looks to me like you really, really want the narrative that liberals are calling all gun supporters demons to be true, because the ideas that liberals are demonizing conservatives and that liberals won't talk about reasonable gun control are necessary to support your complete refusal to engage in serious dialogue.
|
On May 20 2018 02:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2018 01:41 ShoCkeyy wrote:
So this shooting happened yesterday, yet a good chunk of people in the U.S already forgot about the shooting because the royal wedding happened. I mean, I guess you want something refreshing, but thats all I hear about for today, "Omg the royal wedding". Uh yea, but yesterday we just had ANOTHER mass shooting. Show nested quote +On May 20 2018 01:47 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I just think it's disgusting how people are going out of their way to watch this wedding, while they can't be bothered about school shootings, so they send "thoughts & prayers"... When you know just how poisonous the debate will be in the wake of a tragedy, I see absolutely no harm in fangirling over a wedding if you're into that stuff. The bride was an American after all. You don't have a strong argument here at all. Who wants to tune in and see their sincere condolences mocked as a pathetic excuse to not take action (as is the spin from many gun control advocates)? You instead make a strong argument to ignore the base invective for a period, because they're doing a great disservice to their cause in their flashes of anger immediately afterwards.
I'm just personally ashamed at how this country perceives anything lately. My argument may not be strong, but it's my opinion, I don't think I'm trying to ignore anything, I'm just stating how it's easy to switch the conversation within a day, and how many people easily follow it.
On May 20 2018 01:53 Plansix wrote:
I am going to a wedding today and I won't be bringing up the subject of the shooting because its a wedding. That does not mean I don't care.
I'm not saying to discuss the shooting during a wedding, definitely not. I'm just saying how the US media controls the conversation within the US.
|
On May 20 2018 04:51 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2018 02:35 Danglars wrote:On May 20 2018 01:41 ShoCkeyy wrote:
So this shooting happened yesterday, yet a good chunk of people in the U.S already forgot about the shooting because the royal wedding happened. I mean, I guess you want something refreshing, but thats all I hear about for today, "Omg the royal wedding". Uh yea, but yesterday we just had ANOTHER mass shooting. On May 20 2018 01:47 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I just think it's disgusting how people are going out of their way to watch this wedding, while they can't be bothered about school shootings, so they send "thoughts & prayers"... When you know just how poisonous the debate will be in the wake of a tragedy, I see absolutely no harm in fangirling over a wedding if you're into that stuff. The bride was an American after all. You don't have a strong argument here at all. Who wants to tune in and see their sincere condolences mocked as a pathetic excuse to not take action (as is the spin from many gun control advocates)? You instead make a strong argument to ignore the base invective for a period, because they're doing a great disservice to their cause in their flashes of anger immediately afterwards. I'm just personally ashamed at how this country perceives anything lately. My argument may not be strong, but it's my opinion, I don't think I'm trying to ignore anything, I'm just stating how it's easy to switch the conversation within a day, and how many people easily follow it. Show nested quote +On May 20 2018 01:53 Plansix wrote:
I am going to a wedding today and I won't be bringing up the subject of the shooting because its a wedding. That does not mean I don't care. I'm not saying to discuss the shooting during a wedding, definitely not. I'm just saying how the US media controls the conversation within the US.
I'm pretty sure the story of the last half-decade is that the media does not, in fact, control any conversation in the US. Consumers are constantly looking for something new to catch their attention, and they don't need to rely on a single avenue to find it.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On May 19 2018 11:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 10:23 Blazinghand wrote: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.
Well, we may disagree entirely on gun control, but at least we're in agreement that the current set of laws being passed in our state of California are a combination of "useless" and "incredibly annoying/bad" -- the worst of both worlds, basically.
|
To be honest, i am pretty sure that the American Society will not dig itself out of this. The American political system seems to be absolutely unable to heal it self, it slips deeper and deeper into partisanship and gridlock. Gun control is together with soccial security the most showing example. But it's not limited to that. In order to leave that spiral you would have to, in my opinion, get rid of money in politics, get rid of gerrymendering, get rid of your winner takes it all political model, reduce the allowed political campaign length by several months and stop having career politicians in so many positions in the executive. Then you would have teach your people to participate in the process, be a bit more politically intelligent and rewrite your whole constitution to represent todays society.
But none of this will happen, so you will have to keep living with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
