|
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 04:38 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2018 03:37 superstartran wrote: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_AmericaIt 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.
Considering someone earlier in this thread stated that I had the ""blood of children" on my hands because I argued for gun rights, probably should speak volumes.
And it is true that liberals refuse to support reasonable gun controls. At bare minimum it's politicians, at a national level it's the ridiculous notion that an assault weapons ban will do anything (along with all sorts of other ignorant bullshit). You yourself I guarantee have absolutely no clue about how firearms work, firearm safety, etc. but yet you expect experts on firearms to bow down to your emotional agenda? Rofl.
Good example, you probably wouldn't know the ballistic differences between a 5.56 or a .308, and why the 5.56 is actually a better home defense round than the .308, and yet in most cases people want to ban essentially all "5.56 assault style weapons" despite the fact that a .308 round would be able to put a gaping hole through your chest depending on the range fired from.
Put it to you another way :
You are an absolute expert in your field, you understand the rules, safety protocols, pretty much everything there is to know about your field. Suddenly the general public and some politicians who have never even so much as dabbled in your field suddenly want to regulate it. They are in general highly ignorant about your field, have no clue about how anything works, do not know any of the laws in regards to your field, nor the general basic knowledge necessary to perform adequately in it. You think you wouldn't be pissed? Why do you think so many firearm owners in general are so stand offish? 99.9% of the time it's because the same people who are calling for gun control legislation are completely ignorant about firearms, have no clue how to even operate one to even fire properly (let alone load their own ammunition, disassembly of your firearm for cleaning, etc.), or pretty much anything about firearms in general.
Then, gun owners themselves are called demons, murderers, etc. because they argue for a constitutionally guaranteed right. And people then wonder why the NRA has such massive sway over politicians. It's because the NRA represents a hell of alot more than 5 million people, it represents pretty much every gun owner out there who is being trampled out there because they simply exercise their 2nd amendment right.
|
Yup.
That's why they let the executioners decide capital punishment law.
No-one else is an expert on beheading people, right?
Some things are about more than technical details. Sure there's technical aspects that you have to get right, but there's a wider point about how guns make gun violence more likely, and it needs to be addressed. You don't need to be an expert to see that, you just need some semblance of common sense that hasn't been beaten out of you by years of 'But muh second amendment'.
America is a warzone because of your guns. I don't have to live there, but I do feel sorry for the kids who desperately trying to tell adults that they are terrified to go school only to be ignored and then shot a few months later in school.
Enjoy your second amendment.
|
On May 21 2018 00:16 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2018 04:38 Kyadytim wrote:On May 20 2018 03:37 superstartran wrote: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_AmericaIt 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. Considering someone earlier in this thread stated that I had the ""blood of children" on my hands because I argued for gun rights, probably should speak volumes.
What speaks volumes is that people are more concerned with gun rights than children's rights. This year, there have been more students and teachers killed at school than active-duty soldiers killed in the military. The fact that this year it's been more life-threatening to be in school than to be in the military is a staggering realization.
And it is true that liberals refuse to support reasonable gun controls. At bare minimum it's politicians, at a national level it's the ridiculous notion that an assault weapons ban will do anything (along with all sorts of other ignorant bullshit). You yourself I guarantee have absolutely no clue about how firearms work, firearm safety, etc. but yet you expect experts on firearms to bow down to your emotional agenda? Rofl.
That's crap, especially when you attempt to delegitimize a response to the needless death of children as simply having an "emotional agenda". It should make people emotional. That doesn't mean that the reaction is necessarily irrational, especially considering most Americans, most conservatives, and even most NRA members are for the reasonable gun regulations that have been offered many times over, which have been presented to you time and time again. For years now, the vast majority of gun control advocates, proponents of additional gun violence research, and proposed gun regulations have been extremely sensible. We've been showing you examples of these for literally months now, yet you ignore them and just cherry pick the occasional absurd or extremist proposal and act as if that's the norm.
|
United States24579 Posts
Jockmcplop the rhetoric isn't helping you. If the US is a warzone then why haven't I seen any war? If you wanted to describe certain low-income neighborhoods with gang activity as war zones I'd still dislike the word choice but I wouldn't object to it.
You don't seem to be addressing superstartran's point head on (whether his point is accurate or not). He is saying most of the people actively calling for sweeping changes don't understand even basic technical underlying details. You are saying people making decisions need to know more than just the technical details since it's an interdisciplinary topic... that does not counter what superstartran said despite being true.
Finally, when you characterize opponents of some sweeping changes by quoting them with 'but muh second amendment' you disparage the people you disagree with, destroying the remainder of your credibility, especially as someone who doesn't live here.
|
On May 21 2018 00:37 micronesia wrote:
Jockmcplop the rhetoric isn't helping you. If the US is a warzone then why haven't I seen any war? If you wanted to describe certain low-income neighborhoods with gang activity as war zones I'd still dislike the word choice but I wouldn't object to it.
You don't seem to be addressing superstartran's point head on (whether his point is accurate or not). He is saying most of the people actively calling for sweeping changes don't understand even basic technical underlying details. You are saying people making decisions need to know more than just the technical details since it's an interdisciplinary topic... that does not counter what superstartran said despite being true.
Finally, when you characterize opponents of some sweeping changes by quoting them with 'but muh second amendment' you disparage the people you disagree with, destroying the remainder of your credibility, especially as someone who doesn't live here.
So, making stupid assumptions about other people in the thread is a-okay. What "technical underlying details"? Not knowing what U.S. law does or used to deem an "assault rifle", for example? I'd say the gun-control proponents are the only ones discussing the technical underlying details, and those details are always dismissed.
But if you call the U.S. a warzone (like I don't know, "Chiraq") then we need to have a semantics discussion to clear the air. Because otherwise people might get confused.
Okay. So Spike Lee has "no cred", but you all want to say the AR-15 is not an assault-rifle, despite the precedent of law, rather because you heard from a "gun guy" that it isn't.
I look forward to getting banned by this stupid thread again. What a stupid fucking thread. What a fucking relief it is you're here to cool the rhetoric and make things "fair", lest some stupid kid call the U.S. a warzone.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 19 2018 02:06 Plansix wrote:
This is what 20 years of doing nothing gets us. Kids who tell us that it is only matter of time before someone tries kill them while they go to school.
Not a war-zone. I don't see a war-zone. Just kids predicting their own violent deaths. Nothing war-zone like about that, no sir. How dare a British person say such things.
You're such a little turd, micronesia.
|
On May 21 2018 00:37 micronesia wrote:
Jockmcplop the rhetoric isn't helping you. If the US is a warzone then why haven't I seen any war? If you wanted to describe certain low-income neighborhoods with gang activity as war zones I'd still dislike the word choice but I wouldn't object to it.
You don't seem to be addressing superstartran's point head on (whether his point is accurate or not). He is saying most of the people actively calling for sweeping changes don't understand even basic technical underlying details. You are saying people making decisions need to know more than just the technical details since it's an interdisciplinary topic... that does not counter what superstartran said despite being true.
Finally, when you characterize opponents of some sweeping changes by quoting them with 'but muh second amendment' you disparage the people you disagree with, destroying the remainder of your credibility, especially as someone who doesn't live here.
The rhetoric was for ironic purposes. Donald Trump said the same thing about London in a recent meeting with the NRA before a bunch of kids got shot to death in his own back yard again..
What I'm saying with regards to superstartran's point is that if someone is proposing an actual law,with details of how that would be enacted, they need to know details. The people who are putting pressure on for change don't, necessarily, as long as they don't have veto on any changes that are made. Everyone (sensible) can see that there is the need for lots of changes to be made. Most of the pressure is coming from people who just want to see some progress on those changes. The rest is up to politicians, the NRA and experts, and they are the people who have been freezing up for years.
Finally, 'but muh second amendment' is always the start and end of this discussion. Irrelevant of where I come from, that is the stupidest thing about this argument. A guy years ago living in a different age with different weaponry available in a society that was completely different in every way said I should be guaranteed the right to have a gun, so I'm gonna have that gun.
|
United States24579 Posts
On May 21 2018 01:26 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 00:37 micronesia wrote:
Jockmcplop the rhetoric isn't helping you. If the US is a warzone then why haven't I seen any war? If you wanted to describe certain low-income neighborhoods with gang activity as war zones I'd still dislike the word choice but I wouldn't object to it.
You don't seem to be addressing superstartran's point head on (whether his point is accurate or not). He is saying most of the people actively calling for sweeping changes don't understand even basic technical underlying details. You are saying people making decisions need to know more than just the technical details since it's an interdisciplinary topic... that does not counter what superstartran said despite being true.
Finally, when you characterize opponents of some sweeping changes by quoting them with 'but muh second amendment' you disparage the people you disagree with, destroying the remainder of your credibility, especially as someone who doesn't live here. The rhetoric was for ironic purposes. Donald Trump said the same thing about London in a recent meeting with the NRA before a bunch of kids got shot to death in his own back yard again.. Ah, I see. I get concerned though when people who don't live in the USA think you can't walk down the street without body armor or something. Most people I know, including myself, have not been the victim of or in the proximity of crime involving guns or other weapons commonly used in war. If that was not what you were envisioning then all right.
What I'm saying with regards to superstartran's point is that if someone is proposing an actual law,with details of how that would be enacted, they need to know details. The people who are putting pressure on for change don't, necessarily, as long as they don't have veto on any changes that are made. Everyone (sensible) can see that there is the need for lots of changes to be made. Most of the pressure is coming from people who just want to see some progress on those changes. The rest is up to politicians, the NRA and experts, and they are the people who have been freezing up for years. Yeah, I too support restoring some level of sanity to this process and actually making progress. Status quo is not okay. I was just pointing out that logically your response didn't make sense given what superstartran had said.
Finally, 'but muh second amendment' is always the start and end of this discussion. Irrelevant of where I come from, that is the stupidest thing about this argument. A guy years ago living in a different age with different weaponry available in a society that was completely different in every way said I should be guaranteed the right to have a gun, so I'm gonna have that gun. My problem isn't with you criticizing people for thinking the second amendment will dictate what our society will do for all time. I just don't like the way you wrap up people who generally support the second amendment with people who illogically defer to the second amendment in all cases and people who can't even speak properly.
|
On May 21 2018 00:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 00:16 superstartran wrote:On May 20 2018 04:38 Kyadytim wrote:On May 20 2018 03:37 superstartran wrote: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_AmericaIt 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. Considering someone earlier in this thread stated that I had the ""blood of children" on my hands because I argued for gun rights, probably should speak volumes. What speaks volumes is that people are more concerned with gun rights than children's rights. This year, there have been more students and teachers killed at school than active-duty soldiers killed in the military. The fact that this year it's been more life-threatening to be in school than to be in the military is a staggering realization. Show nested quote +And it is true that liberals refuse to support reasonable gun controls. At bare minimum it's politicians, at a national level it's the ridiculous notion that an assault weapons ban will do anything (along with all sorts of other ignorant bullshit). You yourself I guarantee have absolutely no clue about how firearms work, firearm safety, etc. but yet you expect experts on firearms to bow down to your emotional agenda? Rofl. That's crap, especially when you attempt to delegitimize a response to the needless death of children as simply having an "emotional agenda". It should make people emotional. That doesn't mean that the reaction is necessarily irrational, especially considering most Americans, most conservatives, and even most NRA members are for the reasonable gun regulations that have been offered many times over, which have been presented to you time and time again. For years now, the vast majority of gun control advocates, proponents of additional gun violence research, and proposed gun regulations have been extremely sensible. We've been showing you examples of these for literally months now, yet you ignore them and just cherry pick the occasional absurd or extremist proposal and act as if that's the norm.
What reasonable gun control regulations? Because I'm pretty sure that it was the Democrats who shot down the bump fire stock regulation that the vast majority of Republicans were on board with.
I have already outlined my beliefs on what gun regulations should be on multiple times :
1) Ban bumpfire stocks / trigger altering mechanisms
2) Federal Registration of Firearms to better track firearms in general
3) Better screening / wait times on semi-automatic weapons, age 21 or up
I'd like to add
4) More stringent requirements on the storage and transportation of firearms
5) Higher requirements in order to obtain things such as silencers/concealed carry/high capacity magazines
These are all fairly moderate desires. But passage of such things would require liberals to stop harping on things like the AR-15 and 'military style rifles.'
And yes, people are concerned about their gun rights because this kid obviously had serious mental issues and they were ever present, and yet somehow it was all missed. But all people like you want to do is talk about guns and not about the other underlying issues that led to this.
|
Superstartran can you see that for many people, guns are the major underlying issue here? You can always look at a shooting and find a bunch of different causal factors. In every single shooting there is one thing in common, and that's what people want to address because it addresses every shooting.
With regards your ideas for legislation I agree wholeheartedly with every single one of those ideas, but I'm still confused as to why these things haven't happened. Everyone except the NRA (not including the people it represents, but the core organization itself) seems to agree that this stuff should be happening. If it isn't, surely whoever is stopping it from happening needs to be fired from their job - whether they are republican or democrat.
Unless their job is to make sure that more guns get sold, in which case they need a big ol' bonus.
|
On May 21 2018 01:45 Jockmcplop wrote:
Superstartran can you see that for many people, guns are the major underlying issue here. You can always look at a shooting and find a bunch of different causal factors. In every single shooting there is one thing in common, and that's what people want to address because it addresses every shooting.
With regards your ideas for legislation I agree wholeheartedly with every single one of those ideas, but I'm still confused as to why these things haven't happened. Everyone except the NRA (not including the people it represents, but the core organization itself) seems to agree that this stuff should be happening. If it isn't, surely whoever is stopping it from happening needs to be fired from their job.
Unless their job is to make sure that more guns get sold, in which case they need a big ol' bonus.
Because the crux of the issue is that this kid could have easily just set off the pressure cookers and pipe bombs and killed far more people. But people here want to solely concentrate on guns. Notice how the media didn't go into a 'gun control' frenzy? Why? Because it wasn't a big bad 'ar-15'. It was a shotgun and a pistol, both weapons that generally the media doesn't go out of their way to demonize.
The reason why is because you have too many liberal left assholes who have an actual agenda of wanting to ban firearms but just don't want to say it out loud. That's why the NRA has such a stranglehold even over most moderate firearm owners.
|
liberal left assholes trying to take your guns, eh?
No point in arguing that one I suppose.
You've broken rule number one. If it sounds like Alex Jones would say it, don't say it.
|
On May 21 2018 01:47 superstartran wrote:
Because the crux of the issue is that this kid could have easily just set off the pressure cookers and pipe bombs and killed far more people.
HAHAHAHA really? Is this where your line of though takes you? That pressure cookers and explosive devices are as deadly and easy to obtain as guns? Bullshit. If guns were as regulated as explosive devices most of those children killed in schools would be alive today. Others killed in mass shooting? Probably the same.
|
Could he, though?
Building Pipebombs is a lot harder than grabbing your fathers gun from the desk. Also, not something that has been propagandized in the media as much. Most people wouldn't even know where to start at if they wanted to build a bomb, and there is a pretty high chance that they blow either themselves or no one at all up if they just freestyle the bomb building.
And killing people with pressure cookers is not as easy as you think either. Sure, you can blow one up, and spray hot liquids all over people. You ruin the room, and a bunch of people get burns. Maybe someone loses an eye, too. All pretty bad things, which is why you need to be careful around pressure cookers to not do that accidentally. But not a good way to murder mass amounts of people if that is your goal. Guns are made for killing people, and they are very good at making that easy.
And i don't buy your reason for one second. It's a slippery slope argument. If most people agree with these regulations, do them. Then later on when the evil liberal who want to take all your guns come to get them, you can fight them at the point that you actually disagree with them at, not at a point where you both agree.
|
On May 21 2018 00:16 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2018 04:38 Kyadytim wrote:On May 20 2018 03:37 superstartran wrote: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_AmericaIt 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. Considering someone earlier in this thread stated that I had the ""blood of children" on my hands because I argued for gun rights, probably should speak volumes. And it is true that liberals refuse to support reasonable gun controls. At bare minimum it's politicians, at a national level it's the ridiculous notion that an assault weapons ban will do anything (along with all sorts of other ignorant bullshit). You yourself I guarantee have absolutely no clue about how firearms work, firearm safety, etc. but yet you expect experts on firearms to bow down to your emotional agenda? Rofl. Good example, you probably wouldn't know the ballistic differences between a 5.56 or a .308, and why the 5.56 is actually a better home defense round than the .308, and yet in most cases people want to ban essentially all "5.56 assault style weapons" despite the fact that a .308 round would be able to put a gaping hole through your chest depending on the range fired from. Put it to you another way : You are an absolute expert in your field, you understand the rules, safety protocols, pretty much everything there is to know about your field. Suddenly the general public and some politicians who have never even so much as dabbled in your field suddenly want to regulate it. They are in general highly ignorant about your field, have no clue about how anything works, do not know any of the laws in regards to your field, nor the general basic knowledge necessary to perform adequately in it. You think you wouldn't be pissed? Why do you think so many firearm owners in general are so stand offish? 99.9% of the time it's because the same people who are calling for gun control legislation are completely ignorant about firearms, have no clue how to even operate one to even fire properly (let alone load their own ammunition, disassembly of your firearm for cleaning, etc.), or pretty much anything about firearms in general. Then, gun owners themselves are called demons, murderers, etc. because they argue for a constitutionally guaranteed right. And people then wonder why the NRA has such massive sway over politicians. It's because the NRA represents a hell of alot more than 5 million people, it represents pretty much every gun owner out there who is being trampled out there because they simply exercise their 2nd amendment right.
Ad hom, ad hom, ad hom, ad hom, ad hom.
Make your points based on the merits of the arguments, not on the people making them. You're probably the most prolific poster in this thread, but beyond occasionally posting your positions are, you don't contribute anything. You claim to know a lot about guns, but instead of using that knowledge to contribute to working out details of what good changes might be, you spend hundreds of words explaining how there's no point in listening to anyone who disagrees with you.
|
School shootings suck but if people want to cause harm on a mass scale, changing gun laws isn't going to stop that from happening. Anyone can google how to make a bomb and purchase the required materials. It's just as easy as purchasing a gun and using it, assuming you are competent enough to follow instructions.
With that said, I think it's possible the nation has a mental health crisis on its hands.
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that it's all planned-False flag attacks. Problem-reaction-solution. Create a problem to generate the desired reaction from society and then propose a solution to the problem. Why would our own government do this? Because the population out numbers authority by a huge margin and they want to make it impossible for any type of revolt/civil war to happen. Taking guns away from citizens gives all the power to a corrupt government and allows them to enslave the population more than it already is(if you don't think the US gov't is corrupt by now you need to open your eyes).
|
United States24579 Posts
On May 21 2018 02:10 ReachTheSky wrote:
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that it's all planned-False flag attacks. Problem-reaction-solution. Create a problem to generate the desired reaction from society and then propose a solution to the problem. Why would our own government do this? Because the population out numbers authority by a huge margin and they want to make it impossible for any type of revolt/civil war to happen. Taking guns away from citizens gives all the power to a corrupt government and allows them to enslave the population more than it already is(if you don't think the US gov't is corrupt by now you need to open your eyes).
We have seen this clearly in the modern day republican party. They are doing everything in their power to take guns away from the citizens.
|
On May 21 2018 01:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 01:47 superstartran wrote:
Because the crux of the issue is that this kid could have easily just set off the pressure cookers and pipe bombs and killed far more people. HAHAHAHA really? Is this where your line of though takes you? That pressure cookers and explosive devices are as deadly and easy to obtain as guns? Bullshit. If guns were as regulated as explosive devices most of those children killed in schools would be alive today. Others killed in mass shooting? Probably the same.
I hope you realize that this 17 year old kid built such devices and was ready to use them. It's not hard, it's called Google
|
On May 21 2018 02:10 ReachTheSky wrote:
School shootings suck but if people want to cause harm on a mass scale, changing gun laws isn't going to stop that from happening. Anyone can google how to make a bomb and purchase the required materials. It's just as easy as purchasing a gun and using it, assuming you are competent enough to follow instructions.
With that said, I think it's possible the nation has a mental health crisis on its hands.
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that it's all planned-False flag attacks. Problem-reaction-solution. Create a problem to generate the desired reaction from society and then propose a solution to the problem. Why would our own government do this? Because the population out numbers authority by a huge margin and they want to make it impossible for any type of revolt/civil war to happen. Taking guns away from citizens gives all the power to a corrupt government and allows them to enslave the population(if you don't think the US gov't is corrupt by now you need to open your eyes).
This is an excellent post.
Its the three main arguments against regulating guns to avoid school shootings, and they are all so easy to counter:
1: This is untrue on a few different levels. Getting and using a gun is far, far easier than getting the materials to make a bomb and successfully carrying out a bombing. For a start, security services will have a much easier time tracking down bomb makers and bomb making materials. Also, do you remember all those shootings where explosives were also discovered but not used. I'm pretty sure this happens in alot of cases where there is a mass shooting. Why nto just use the explosives?
Because its very, very difficult.
2: There is a mental health crisis, but the only reason anyone in America ever talks about it is to distract from the gun control debate
3: Refer to rule number one a few posts up.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/313472-if-youre-seeing-this-topic-then-another-mass-shooting-happened-and-people-disagree-on-what-to-do?page=707#14132
|
On May 21 2018 01:54 Simberto wrote:
Could he, though?
Building Pipebombs is a lot harder than grabbing your fathers gun from the desk. Also, not something that has been propagandized in the media as much. Most people wouldn't even know where to start at if they wanted to build a bomb, and there is a pretty high chance that they blow either themselves or no one at all up if they just freestyle the bomb building.
And killing people with pressure cookers is not as easy as you think either. Sure, you can blow one up, and spray hot liquids all over people. You ruin the room, and a bunch of people get burns. Maybe someone loses an eye, too. All pretty bad things, which is why you need to be careful around pressure cookers to not do that accidentally. But not a good way to murder mass amounts of people if that is your goal. Guns are made for killing people, and they are very good at making that easy.
And i don't buy your reason for one second. It's a slippery slope argument. If most people agree with these regulations, do them. Then later on when the evil liberal who want to take all your guns come to get them, you can fight them at the point that you actually disagree with them at, not at a point where you both agree.
That had already happened. The bumpfire stock regulation was going to go through as is until the liberals decided to attach some bullshit firearm regulation that wasn't even going to work. That's the sole reason why the bill died. But it's always those damn Republicans and NRA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
