|
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 23 2018 06:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
This argument is as circular as they come. Why you fight the good fight Jock, I'll never know. You will not reach these people in any way with reason.
I think i might be being guided around in circles by careful guides.
|
On May 23 2018 06:18 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 06:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
This argument is as circular as they come. Why you fight the good fight Jock, I'll never know. You will not reach these people in any way with reason. I think i might be being guided around in circles by careful guides.
The burden of proof has been placed upon you to argue why gun control and all of the solutions and methods of implementation are the necessary and only logical way forward. They cannot provide any real statistics that owning a gun has any measurable positive affect on society. They don't know why they need to have these weapons, they just know they need them.
This reminds me of the video game debates of the 90s. Except reversed.
|
On May 23 2018 06:10 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 05:18 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2018 04:39 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2018 03:44 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2018 03:23 superstartran wrote:On May 23 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 01:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:
Mental illness is an overused term in theses cases as well. Committing violent acts alone does not automatically make someone meet the requirements of what the medial world would consider treatable mental illness. Anyone can have a mental health crisis at any time. You don't need to have been diagnosed with a mental illness. That's why easy, quick availability of guns for whoever wants to buy one is a recipe for disaster in a society where we are becoming more aware of how ubiquitous mental health issues are. X could lose it tomorrow and decide he wants to go and kill a bunch of people. X could try and knife people but its far riskier and less effective. X could try and build a bomb but its difficult and probably wouldn't work. If x can walk into a store and have a gun in *however much time it takes to get a gun in America* and walk straight out and shoot away that's obviously what he would go for. 3 days later he might have got help and no longer want to kill anyone. This is the nature of mental health crises. There's an easy way to prevent this. I might have mentioned it one or two times on the previous page. Although I agree with you in most of this, I was attempting to point out that mental illness is not the cause of these shootings in every case. Or most gun violence. Mental illness is often used as a short hand to attempt to explain an explainable part of human behavior, like a mass shooting. It is also used as an excuse to avoid tightening up background checks or other loopholes. That somehow, if enough mental health services were available, the shooter might have gone to one of those services rather than shoot a whole lot of people. But I am with you that effective gun laws that prevent instant access to guns are a good idea. There is proven data that just closing the gaps in background checks has a noticeable impact on all gun violence in a state. And there's proven data that shows that reducing poverty has a much bigger impact on reducing gun violence in general more than anything else. I don't see the media clamoring for the reduction of poverty every time a mass shooting occurs though, nor does the media ever talk about how the vast majority of gun violence comes from inter city gang violence. Until there are assurances that the 2nd Amendment won't be taken away, most gun owners are not going to budge on things like registration, expanded background checks, waiting periods, etc; The biggest issue is that most people here are masquerading 'gun control' as an extra step towards eventually a society without guns. That's the dreaded/feared ratchet effect. A ratcheting tool only increases the torque/pressure in one direction and won't relax it. What if your gun law fails in it's desired effect and has no impact whatsoever? It won't be repealed. It will still possess psychological power in the minds of gun control advocates. "At least we did something!" "The writers couldn't know it would fail in its aims, and it was written with the best intentions on an issue that still needs resolving." And that's only if they actually engage in conversation on results-testing. Most of the time, the conversation remains at more, more, more to prevent gun violence and mass shootings. I really think this is recognized deep within debaters. They're remarkably honest on trading liberty for security. If tomorrow, the right to buy a gun in the US was revoked, and the only outcome was just one less school shooting a year (of course they hope for more), they'd still count it an overall success and progress. I would absolutely class that as a success. It shocks me that anyone would think its worth the lives of kids for them to be able to buy more guns (or in the case of the NRA, sell more guns), which is the implication here. Trade-offs between liberty and security have always happened. You aren't free to go around murdering people, and we are more secure because of it. There is nothing inherent in the right to own a gun which connects it to liberty any more than the right to kill someone. I live a life that is as free as I will ever need it to be and I don't own a gun. The right to own a gun is redundant liberty. ps I'm not intending to compare gun owners to murderers its just an example. I'm not troubled by your shock, this is after all a very emotional topic. I am a little troubled that you think "you aren't free to go around murdering people, and we are more secure because of it." (the behavior, not whether or not it's against the law and makes you subject to arrest). You aren't free to stop them yourself, because security makes you disarmed, so they are in fact free to go around murdering people, because you're waiting for a police response, or him to run out of bullets or desire. But you're willing to allow that to happen in the hopes that greater security means it occurs on a diminished basis. Your right to own a gun inherently means you're more at liberty to stop crimes on your person and act in your self defense. Your hopes in a high-security frame is that you're less likely to be subject to the need to defend yourself, and that's to your safety. I'd rather have a society possessing the rights (with few restrictions) to buy a gun for their own self defense, or other lawful actions like dissuading armed robbery. To pay for one less school shooting a year with a disarmed population down the line is absolutely a bad trade-off. School children gain a little temporary safety at the cost of great insecurity and oppression as they become adults. I'm with you if all violent crime by citizens or noncitizens stopped, and a deity guaranteed the government would not become tyrannical, would administer justice fairly, and would protect it against armed invasion. Everything short of that is not worth a surrender on the second amendment. Not even close. I would not want to tell the hundreds or thousands of victims of violent crime that they deserved to die so that another 18 kids might live each year. That's my perspective. I understand your perspective, I genuinely do (I'm still shocked). I don't think we can go too much further on this except to say that we have different perspectives on liberty and when it is necessary to sacrifice that. Absolute liberty is a very American ideal, with all the pros and cons that come with that. I'm glad I grew up safe in a country with no guns. That said, I never had the choice to have a gun so its completely redundant for me to even think about whether or not I would be more secure or less oppressed if i was armed. I certainly don't feel more oppressed or less secure, but I don't live in America. I think its a problem of value systems more than any tangible oppression or security to be honest.
On May 23 2018 06:18 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 06:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
This argument is as circular as they come. Why you fight the good fight Jock, I'll never know. You will not reach these people in any way with reason. I think i might be being guided around in circles by careful guides.
Now don't get all mopey. This isn't some exercise in perverse enjoyment for me, despite what some posters allege. Value systems don't generally reconcile in debates, and following values to policy isn't circular in the least. And we picked a good place to end it, asked and answered.
On May 23 2018 06:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 06:18 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2018 06:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
This argument is as circular as they come. Why you fight the good fight Jock, I'll never know. You will not reach these people in any way with reason. I think i might be being guided around in circles by careful guides. The burden of proof has been placed upon you to argue why gun control and all of the solutions and methods of implementation are the necessary and only logical way forward. They cannot provide any real statistics that owning a gun has any measurable positive affect on society. They don't know why they need to have these weapons, they just know they need them. This reminds me of the video game debates of the 90s. Except reversed.
This is a very strange perspective given that neither of us demanded statistics, solutions, and methods of implementation. You're tilting at windmills quite hard.
|
doublethink your way out of it all you want Danglers.
|
On May 23 2018 06:44 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
doublethink your way out of it all you want Danglers.
It was a *valuable* values discussion. I don't see any sense in pretending I dumped a bunch of burden of proof on him. Why do you?
I understand you generally think gun rights activists falsely put the burden of proof on gun control activists, but that's no reason to close your eyes and assume that's what's happening in every argument. I'd say that strategy is positively Trumpian.
|
I have plenty of reasonable discussions with people who own fire arms about better gun laws, coming from a rural town in the US. From my experience, good argument from pro-gun folks don’t appear on this site that often. And there an overarching effort to paint anyone who wants better gun laws as unreasonable, uninformed or asking for all guns to be banned.
|
I didn't mention you specifically and neither did Jock. But if you want, I can answer. The past few pages (5-6?), there have been links upon links of stats from around the world on their gun statistics. Those were all summarily dismissed because the 'culture' of 'gun worship' in the USA is fundamentally different. It cannot be compared to Australia, UK, Japan, etc. It can't even be compared to Brazil or Mexico. For this reason, asking for common sense controls are not going to happen because we are "guaranteed" to have guns per the constitution. (there's a lot of dead black and brown people who would like to speak to you about those "rights" but that's a different thread.)
When they mentioned that control should be implemented, they were met with "demands" of how they would work (federal gun registry, reducing poverty, improving health/mental care, etc), without offering any suggestions on how these could be implemented as to assuage both sides of the argument. At the same time, the gun rights folks provided mostly nothing that helped them make the case that an armed populace contributed positively to society. And they also are willing to allow, even if they don't say it aloud, that the 25+ kids killed in 2 months are acceptable sacrifices to allow them their "toys."
Also, when pushed, they resorted to a discussion on technology. Which has no place in the discussion because it is wholly irrelevant. I can kill you with my cell phone, should the casing or glass be banned?
|
On May 23 2018 07:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I didn't mention you specifically and neither did Jock. But if you want, I can answer. The past few pages (5-6?), there have been links upon links of stats from around the world on their gun statistics. Those were all summarily dismissed because the 'culture' of 'gun worship' in the USA is fundamentally different. It cannot be compared to Australia, UK, Japan, etc. It can't even be compared to Brazil or Mexico. For this reason, asking for common sense controls are not going to happen because we are "guaranteed" to have guns per the constitution. (there's a lot of dead black and brown people who would like to speak to you about those "rights" but that's a different thread.)
When they mentioned that control should be implemented, they were met with "demands" of how they would work (federal gun registry, reducing poverty, improving health/mental care, etc), without offering any suggestions on how these could be implemented as to assuage both sides of the argument. At the same time, the gun rights folks provided mostly nothing that helped them make the case that an armed populace contributed positively to society. And they also are willing to allow, even if they don't say it aloud, that the 25+ kids killed in 2 months are acceptable sacrifices to allow them their "toys."
Also, when pushed, they resorted to a discussion on technology. Which has no place in the discussion because it is wholly irrelevant. I can kill you with my cell phone, should the casing or glass be banned?
I went on three back and forths with Jock and you posted:
On May 23 2018 06:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
This argument is as circular as they come. Why you fight the good fight Jock, I'll never know. You will not reach these people in any way with reason.
Who are you trying to convince me that you were referring to? Why persist in this fiction?
|
On May 23 2018 07:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 07:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I didn't mention you specifically and neither did Jock. But if you want, I can answer. The past few pages (5-6?), there have been links upon links of stats from around the world on their gun statistics. Those were all summarily dismissed because the 'culture' of 'gun worship' in the USA is fundamentally different. It cannot be compared to Australia, UK, Japan, etc. It can't even be compared to Brazil or Mexico. For this reason, asking for common sense controls are not going to happen because we are "guaranteed" to have guns per the constitution. (there's a lot of dead black and brown people who would like to speak to you about those "rights" but that's a different thread.)
When they mentioned that control should be implemented, they were met with "demands" of how they would work (federal gun registry, reducing poverty, improving health/mental care, etc), without offering any suggestions on how these could be implemented as to assuage both sides of the argument. At the same time, the gun rights folks provided mostly nothing that helped them make the case that an armed populace contributed positively to society. And they also are willing to allow, even if they don't say it aloud, that the 25+ kids killed in 2 months are acceptable sacrifices to allow them their "toys."
Also, when pushed, they resorted to a discussion on technology. Which has no place in the discussion because it is wholly irrelevant. I can kill you with my cell phone, should the casing or glass be banned? I went on three back and forths with Jock and you posted: Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 06:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
This argument is as circular as they come. Why you fight the good fight Jock, I'll never know. You will not reach these people in any way with reason. Who are you trying to convince me that you were referring to? Why persist in this fiction?
Because I literally just told you? Serm and Super posted as well as a few others. You just so happened to be the last to post.
|
On May 23 2018 07:06 Plansix wrote:
I have plenty of reasonable discussions with people who own fire arms about better gun laws, coming from a rural town in the US. From my experience, good argument from pro-gun folks don’t appear on this site that often. And there an overarching effort to paint anyone who wants better gun laws as unreasonable, uninformed or asking for all guns to be banned.
I have noticed one or two gun rights advocates on here are guilty of one particular misstep, which is to assume that because someone has said that they would prefer for all guns to be banned, nothing that they say is useful any more.
It makes a mockery of the idea of compromise. I approach the discussion from the pov of someone who wants all guns to be banned. Regardless of that, I am perfectly able to have a conversation about more realistic and surgical gun legislation to approach solving specific problems, but anything I say about this gets ignored because I have already said that I want all guns to be banned.
This isn't how conversation should work. I'm willing to bend my pov to the context, and if the context is talking about gun legislation that would mitigate the damage done by people in a mental crisis, I'll talk about that from that point of view. If its about more general gun crime, I would talk about it from that point of view. I want all guns to be banned, but I don't necessarily have to always be trying to get all guns banned.
Sometimes I think I'm getting the runaround because I step back from the ban all guns talk and talk specifics and then get told I'm being unreasonable for the thing I previously said about banning all guns.
|
On May 23 2018 07:14 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 07:06 Plansix wrote:
I have plenty of reasonable discussions with people who own fire arms about better gun laws, coming from a rural town in the US. From my experience, good argument from pro-gun folks don’t appear on this site that often. And there an overarching effort to paint anyone who wants better gun laws as unreasonable, uninformed or asking for all guns to be banned. I have noticed one or two gun rights advocates on here are guilty of one particular misstep, which is to assume that because someone has said that they would prefer for all guns to be banned, nothing that they say is useful any more. It makes a mockery of the idea of compromise. I approach the discussion from the pov of someone who wants all guns to be banned. Regardless of that, I am perfectly able to have a conversation about more realistic and surgical gun legislation to approach solving specific problems, but anything I say about this gets ignored because I have already said that I want all guns to be banned. This isn't how conversation should work. I'm willing to bend my pov to the context, and if the context is talking about gun legislation that would mitigate the damage done by people in a mental crisis, I'll talk about that from that point of view. If its about more general gun crime, I would talk about it from that point of view. I want all guns to be banned, but I don't necessarily have to always be trying to get all guns banned. Sometimes I think I'm getting the runaround because I step back from the ban all guns talk and talk specifics and then get told I'm being unreasonable for the thing I previously said about banning all guns.
There is a rush to dismiss the person making the argument, or at least force them into a corner. I remembered the seeing the same thing on TV during the discussion after the Florida shooting. Both sides were empty their talking points and then the teens would ask them "Well what can you do? Because we need you to do something? Anything?" You could see the confusion and discomfort.
The public facing debate on this subject is dead. There is no point to it any more. Its about advocacy and making changes when possible. The debate over an assault rifle ban is just a way for people to run for election, rather than a real policy. Best leave it behind and tighten up background checks on the down low when the NRA isn't looking.
|
On May 23 2018 07:13 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 07:11 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2018 07:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I didn't mention you specifically and neither did Jock. But if you want, I can answer. The past few pages (5-6?), there have been links upon links of stats from around the world on their gun statistics. Those were all summarily dismissed because the 'culture' of 'gun worship' in the USA is fundamentally different. It cannot be compared to Australia, UK, Japan, etc. It can't even be compared to Brazil or Mexico. For this reason, asking for common sense controls are not going to happen because we are "guaranteed" to have guns per the constitution. (there's a lot of dead black and brown people who would like to speak to you about those "rights" but that's a different thread.)
When they mentioned that control should be implemented, they were met with "demands" of how they would work (federal gun registry, reducing poverty, improving health/mental care, etc), without offering any suggestions on how these could be implemented as to assuage both sides of the argument. At the same time, the gun rights folks provided mostly nothing that helped them make the case that an armed populace contributed positively to society. And they also are willing to allow, even if they don't say it aloud, that the 25+ kids killed in 2 months are acceptable sacrifices to allow them their "toys."
Also, when pushed, they resorted to a discussion on technology. Which has no place in the discussion because it is wholly irrelevant. I can kill you with my cell phone, should the casing or glass be banned? I went on three back and forths with Jock and you posted: On May 23 2018 06:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
This argument is as circular as they come. Why you fight the good fight Jock, I'll never know. You will not reach these people in any way with reason. Who are you trying to convince me that you were referring to? Why persist in this fiction? Because I literally just told you? Serm and Super posted as well as a few others. You just so happened to be the last to post.
I find it a little fantastic that I've been the only one discoursing with Jock for the last six hours, and when you mention that an argument is circular and Jock is fighting the good fight, you mean something other than the previous exchange he was in. But now that I know what your game is, we're all fine.
|
On May 23 2018 07:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 07:13 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 23 2018 07:11 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2018 07:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I didn't mention you specifically and neither did Jock. But if you want, I can answer. The past few pages (5-6?), there have been links upon links of stats from around the world on their gun statistics. Those were all summarily dismissed because the 'culture' of 'gun worship' in the USA is fundamentally different. It cannot be compared to Australia, UK, Japan, etc. It can't even be compared to Brazil or Mexico. For this reason, asking for common sense controls are not going to happen because we are "guaranteed" to have guns per the constitution. (there's a lot of dead black and brown people who would like to speak to you about those "rights" but that's a different thread.)
When they mentioned that control should be implemented, they were met with "demands" of how they would work (federal gun registry, reducing poverty, improving health/mental care, etc), without offering any suggestions on how these could be implemented as to assuage both sides of the argument. At the same time, the gun rights folks provided mostly nothing that helped them make the case that an armed populace contributed positively to society. And they also are willing to allow, even if they don't say it aloud, that the 25+ kids killed in 2 months are acceptable sacrifices to allow them their "toys."
Also, when pushed, they resorted to a discussion on technology. Which has no place in the discussion because it is wholly irrelevant. I can kill you with my cell phone, should the casing or glass be banned? I went on three back and forths with Jock and you posted: On May 23 2018 06:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
This argument is as circular as they come. Why you fight the good fight Jock, I'll never know. You will not reach these people in any way with reason. Who are you trying to convince me that you were referring to? Why persist in this fiction? Because I literally just told you? Serm and Super posted as well as a few others. You just so happened to be the last to post. I find it a little fantastic that I've been the only one discoursing with Jock for the last six hours, and when you mention that an argument is circular and Jock is fighting the good fight, you mean something other than the previous exchange he was in. But now that I know what your game is, we're all fine.
You're not special. I've been watching this over the past few weeks. I just had to commend him on the efforts he was putting forward.
|
On May 23 2018 07:06 Plansix wrote:
I have plenty of reasonable discussions with people who own fire arms about better gun laws, coming from a rural town in the US. From my experience, good argument from pro-gun folks don’t appear on this site that often. And there an overarching effort to paint anyone who wants better gun laws as unreasonable, uninformed or asking for all guns to be banned.
so is it that you find offline discussions are generally much better for this topic? or was it just a random effect of who you happened to talk to?
if different, do you think it's simply due to the differences in how people behave online/offline, or is due to selection effects tending to cause the crazies to speak up more/be noticed more online? whereas offline it's more a random distribution of people, and is thus more likely to get typical people?
|
On May 23 2018 05:25 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 04:19 superstartran wrote:On May 23 2018 03:49 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 03:23 superstartran wrote:On May 23 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 01:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:
Mental illness is an overused term in theses cases as well. Committing violent acts alone does not automatically make someone meet the requirements of what the medial world would consider treatable mental illness. Anyone can have a mental health crisis at any time. You don't need to have been diagnosed with a mental illness. That's why easy, quick availability of guns for whoever wants to buy one is a recipe for disaster in a society where we are becoming more aware of how ubiquitous mental health issues are. X could lose it tomorrow and decide he wants to go and kill a bunch of people. X could try and knife people but its far riskier and less effective. X could try and build a bomb but its difficult and probably wouldn't work. If x can walk into a store and have a gun in *however much time it takes to get a gun in America* and walk straight out and shoot away that's obviously what he would go for. 3 days later he might have got help and no longer want to kill anyone. This is the nature of mental health crises. There's an easy way to prevent this. I might have mentioned it one or two times on the previous page. Although I agree with you in most of this, I was attempting to point out that mental illness is not the cause of these shootings in every case. Or most gun violence. Mental illness is often used as a short hand to attempt to explain an explainable part of human behavior, like a mass shooting. It is also used as an excuse to avoid tightening up background checks or other loopholes. That somehow, if enough mental health services were available, the shooter might have gone to one of those services rather than shoot a whole lot of people. But I am with you that effective gun laws that prevent instant access to guns are a good idea. There is proven data that just closing the gaps in background checks has a noticeable impact on all gun violence in a state. And there's proven data that shows that reducing poverty has a much bigger impact on reducing gun violence in general more than anything else. I don't see the media clamoring for the reduction of poverty every time a mass shooting occurs though, nor does the media ever talk about how the vast majority of gun violence comes from inter city gang violence. Until there are assurances that the 2nd Amendment won't be taken away, most gun owners are not going to budge on things like registration, expanded background checks, waiting periods, etc; The biggest issue is that most people here are masquerading 'gun control' as an extra step towards eventually a society without guns. Gun owners represent an extremely small and shrinking section of the US population, so folks looking for gun control don’t really need them to budge. We can pass the reasonable gun laws without them and not have to worry about the hysterical cries that guns are going to be taken away. Gun owners represent about 1/4 of the U.S. population, far more than any other ethnic minority. Categorically false. Depending on the polls it can be 25% to 41% depending on how things are measured. This idea that gun owners are an extremely 'small' subset of the population is exactly why you guys keep losing year after year on almost every major gun issue, mostly because you piss them off by deeming them non-important. Greatly enjoying the implication of this post that gun owners are an ethnic minority hahaha
Not implying that; I'm merely stating that even when you are comparing gun owners to major ethnic groups they vastly outnumber them. Which would mean that it would be impossible for said group to be 'extremely' small as Plainsix stated.
|
On May 23 2018 09:24 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 05:25 kollin wrote:On May 23 2018 04:19 superstartran wrote:On May 23 2018 03:49 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 03:23 superstartran wrote:On May 23 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 01:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:
Mental illness is an overused term in theses cases as well. Committing violent acts alone does not automatically make someone meet the requirements of what the medial world would consider treatable mental illness. Anyone can have a mental health crisis at any time. You don't need to have been diagnosed with a mental illness. That's why easy, quick availability of guns for whoever wants to buy one is a recipe for disaster in a society where we are becoming more aware of how ubiquitous mental health issues are. X could lose it tomorrow and decide he wants to go and kill a bunch of people. X could try and knife people but its far riskier and less effective. X could try and build a bomb but its difficult and probably wouldn't work. If x can walk into a store and have a gun in *however much time it takes to get a gun in America* and walk straight out and shoot away that's obviously what he would go for. 3 days later he might have got help and no longer want to kill anyone. This is the nature of mental health crises. There's an easy way to prevent this. I might have mentioned it one or two times on the previous page. Although I agree with you in most of this, I was attempting to point out that mental illness is not the cause of these shootings in every case. Or most gun violence. Mental illness is often used as a short hand to attempt to explain an explainable part of human behavior, like a mass shooting. It is also used as an excuse to avoid tightening up background checks or other loopholes. That somehow, if enough mental health services were available, the shooter might have gone to one of those services rather than shoot a whole lot of people. But I am with you that effective gun laws that prevent instant access to guns are a good idea. There is proven data that just closing the gaps in background checks has a noticeable impact on all gun violence in a state. And there's proven data that shows that reducing poverty has a much bigger impact on reducing gun violence in general more than anything else. I don't see the media clamoring for the reduction of poverty every time a mass shooting occurs though, nor does the media ever talk about how the vast majority of gun violence comes from inter city gang violence. Until there are assurances that the 2nd Amendment won't be taken away, most gun owners are not going to budge on things like registration, expanded background checks, waiting periods, etc; The biggest issue is that most people here are masquerading 'gun control' as an extra step towards eventually a society without guns. Gun owners represent an extremely small and shrinking section of the US population, so folks looking for gun control don’t really need them to budge. We can pass the reasonable gun laws without them and not have to worry about the hysterical cries that guns are going to be taken away. Gun owners represent about 1/4 of the U.S. population, far more than any other ethnic minority. Categorically false. Depending on the polls it can be 25% to 41% depending on how things are measured. This idea that gun owners are an extremely 'small' subset of the population is exactly why you guys keep losing year after year on almost every major gun issue, mostly because you piss them off by deeming them non-important. Greatly enjoying the implication of this post that gun owners are an ethnic minority hahaha Not implying that; I'm merely stating that even when you are comparing gun owners to major ethnic groups they vastly outnumber them. Which would mean that it would be impossible for said group to be 'extremely' small as Plainsix stated.
[edit]Nevermind you did say that to Plansix too, thought that was our conversation
|
I was expecting less 20%, so I’m admit I was wrong on that front. I stand by my statement that convincing gun owners updating gun laws is unnecessary and a waste of political capital. That other 75% is the real prize.
|
On May 23 2018 07:14 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 07:06 Plansix wrote:
I have plenty of reasonable discussions with people who own fire arms about better gun laws, coming from a rural town in the US. From my experience, good argument from pro-gun folks don’t appear on this site that often. And there an overarching effort to paint anyone who wants better gun laws as unreasonable, uninformed or asking for all guns to be banned. I have noticed one or two gun rights advocates on here are guilty of one particular misstep, which is to assume that because someone has said that they would prefer for all guns to be banned, nothing that they say is useful any more. It makes a mockery of the idea of compromise. I approach the discussion from the pov of someone who wants all guns to be banned. Regardless of that, I am perfectly able to have a conversation about more realistic and surgical gun legislation to approach solving specific problems, but anything I say about this gets ignored because I have already said that I want all guns to be banned. This isn't how conversation should work. I'm willing to bend my pov to the context, and if the context is talking about gun legislation that would mitigate the damage done by people in a mental crisis, I'll talk about that from that point of view. If its about more general gun crime, I would talk about it from that point of view. I want all guns to be banned, but I don't necessarily have to always be trying to get all guns banned. Sometimes I think I'm getting the runaround because I step back from the ban all guns talk and talk specifics and then get told I'm being unreasonable for the thing I previously said about banning all guns.
I empathize entirely. I feel like these conversations all generally take the same course.
As a principled view you might say that okay civilians don't need guys, look at all these other countries that are getting along fine.
The response will be but the USA is special.
Then you go, well okay then let's talk about an assault rifle ban.
The response will be that it is too expensive, impractical, unconstitutional, or that it will let Bad Guys have guns not good guys.
Then you go, well okay let's have a registration requirement.
The response will be that it is too expensive, impractical, unconstitutional, or that it will let Bad Guys have guns not good guys.
The you go, well okay let's have better background checks.
The response will be that it is too expensive, impractical, unconstitutional, or that it will let Bad Guys have guns not good guys.
And so you go through all the options from a total ban to increasingly lighter touch measures... until you finally ask "okay fine so what do you think should be done"
To which you will get some variation of "should not do something for the sake of doing" and/or "we must study the issue more carefully".
And then some weeks go by, another shooting happens, and you can start at the top of this list again.
|
I find the "waiting period" question interesting, but I could not really find data to support/undermine it. Does anyone have a statistics of "days gun purchased before shooting" for mass shootings? If indeed having a non-avoidable month-wait period would seem useful, what are even the downsides? Is anyone really put in a real problem by not having the gun today?
I think in general such questions such be asked before "culture" comes as an excuse for everything.
|
There are no statistics for that because analyzing those statistics might show a problem with people buying guns. I can also tell you the two probable replies to this specific problem.
1) Mass shootings are only a small fraction of gun deaths , why even make legislature for that. It will just inconvenient lawful gun buyers.
2) What if i need to defend myself today? What if i fear for my live now and i can't have my gun now?
On top of that, and this is me speaking now, i really, really doubt that a waiting period would stop this specific kind of incident. The ones i am aware of were all well planned in advance, not something snapping in them. The waiting period would be more helpful for suicide and emotional murder, like jealousy and stuff like that.
Personally i don't believe there is anything in Germany to stop a determined person to commit an atrocitcy like that and we should not. Our society is strong enough to see these tragic events like something we cannot stop as we made the hurdles in policy for it high enough already. The USA is different though. The unevasive things that were proposed here will mostly not work. I mean we all agree that someone that is diagnosed to be dangerous and unstable should not own a gun, but in how many cases would those teens be diagnosed in that category. At best they were seen before as weird and antisocial. If the police had seen clear signs of plans to commit crimes, yeah, maybe don't sell them guns, but still, their neighbour can sell it to them. The only way to reduce events like that is to make it hard for everyone to get their hands on guns and this will not happen in the US. So you will indeed have to live with it. Danglars said it, he is okay with losing a few victims of mass shootings to feel safe himself. The rest of pro-gun people should do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
3642
580
34
EPT
