|
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 30 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote:
I've reached a point where I wish y'all would do something.
I understand that the guns/no guns debate is intractable; but I don't understand why the right - and it's definitively the right doing this bit - both shuts down the gun control debate and then proposes nothing in its place.
Even if we accept the American left is unreasonable in its gun control efforts, at least they are trying to do something about the problem. The right pantomimes care until people stop talking about it, and does nothing at all. Remember when Mental Health was to blame and needed looking at?
What happened there, again?
I mean, mental health probably isn't the cause and probably wouldn't help the situation, but mental health provision in America in general is a separate issue that does need improving, so you know what? Screw it. If the school shooters problem doesn't get fixed, but it tangentially fixes another problem, I'm all for it. Let's play whack-a-mole, blame everything for it, and fix the issues one at a time until we get to the heart of it all. But no, it's just another thing to throw out there to diffuse the argument until it fizzles out.
You cannot have a meaningful, productive debate when only one side wants to help. And no, the excuse 'but muh guns' doesn't work. There is no magical force stopping Conservatives from saying 'guns aren't the issue here, why don't we attend to this other problem that we think is probably to blame, and here's how we think we should do it'?
I'll even (while laughing) listen to the traditional family nonsense, if there's an actual action plan to go with it. Never mind that the traditional family died because of Capitalism first and foremost, and can't survive in the current economic environment (says person whose lived it first hand and grew up in a community that can attest to it).
You can approach the problem from many angles at the same time. Let's say some bipartisan influential group of politicians decides that shootings related to mental health are what needs fixing. You address the fact that people with mental health problems have access to guns before you fix anything else, and then you start investing in the mental health system.
Taking away access to guns is a temporary fix, but its an effective one, especially when the wider solutions to these problems are generations away and haven't even been started yet.
Gun rights advocates need to understand that the left also wants to address the deeper issues, but they take a very long time (and huge amounts of investment) to fix, and in the mean time we are left with a system where guns are available to anyone, so some gun control legislation is necessary to make it so people can't get a gun on a whim - or if they have gun they have to be responsible for any crime committed with it. No more parents leaving their guns around where their teenage kids can steal it and go kill pupils. The parents should be responsible for their weapons and be able to prove that they kept them locked away somewhere safe. (I'll admit I don't know too much about where legislation regarding gun responsibility is in the US but I'm assuming its lacking.)
|
On May 30 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote:
I've reached a point where I wish y'all would do something.
I understand that the guns/no guns debate is intractable; but I don't understand why the right - and it's definitively the right doing this bit - both shuts down the gun control debate and then proposes nothing in its place.
Even if we accept the American left is unreasonable in its gun control efforts, at least they are trying to do something about the problem. The right pantomimes care until people stop talking about it, and does nothing at all. Remember when Mental Health was to blame and needed looking at?
What happened there, again?
I mean, mental health probably isn't the cause and probably wouldn't help the situation, but mental health provision in America in general is a separate issue that does need improving, so you know what? Screw it. If the school shooters problem doesn't get fixed, but it tangentially fixes another problem, I'm all for it. Let's play whack-a-mole, blame everything for it, and fix the issues one at a time until we get to the heart of it all. But no, it's just another thing to throw out there to diffuse the argument until it fizzles out.
You cannot have a meaningful, productive debate when only one side wants to help. And no, the excuse 'but muh guns' doesn't work. There is no magical force stopping Conservatives from saying 'guns aren't the issue here, why don't we attend to this other problem that we think is probably to blame, and here's how we think we should do it'?
I'll even (while laughing) listen to the traditional family nonsense, if there's an actual action plan to go with it. Never mind that the traditional family died because of Capitalism first and foremost, and can't survive in the current economic environment (says person whose lived it first hand and grew up in a community that can attest to it).
You’re doing enough preemptive pooh-poohing of ideas to make me think you’re very dishonest here. I’ll play two different reels of iamthedave and have them argue at each other.
Do something! Even mental health!
>“It probably won’t help the situation”
Just do something. Traditional family values!
>””The traditional family does because of Capitalism first and foremost, and can’t suevive in the current economic environment”
Ok let’s look at Arizona for instance. Oh look, Ducey got a bill that does something. Wow.
The Senate Committee on Public Safety voted 4-3 to advance the bill, along partisan lines with Republicans in support. The bill now faces a rules review before a vote in the full Senate.
SB 1519 calls for about 100 more police officers in schools; a new type of restraining order to keep guns out of unstable people's hands; more mental-health counseling in schools; and a school-safety tip hotline
Okay.
Democrats and gun-control advocates, however, said the NRA's blessing underscores their concern that Ducey's proposal is meaningless because it doesn't include universal background checks.
SB 1519 does not address the "gun show loophole" that allows people to buy a gun without background checks in some circumstances.
"Mr. Chair, you've just sucked everything out of me that even made me a possible positive 'yes' vote on this bill with that statement," Sen. Catherine Miranda, D-Phoenix, said of the NRA's backing.
Ducey, a Republican who is seeking re-election this year, has found himself in the center of a polarizing debate over gun control.
He has faced blistering criticism from both parties since his proposal was unveiled last month: Democrats, who say it doesn't go far enough; and Republican lawmakers, who worry it could violate constitutional liberties.
Oh wait. Criticism. Bill gets shelved. New shooting. Calls for Ducey to agitate for a bill. ...
Does iamthedave think this is laudable “do something” work stopped by mendacious opposition, or exactly the kind of “do nothing” response you criticize?
Can criticism be used to stop do something bills that would at least do something, or are the criticizers part of do nothing?
If the next one doesn’t go far enough in protecting constitutional rights from GOP and doesn’t go far enough in gun control from the left, so they just drop criticism and pass it because it “does something”?
The story
I think the real problem is you’re not exposed to enough stories on legislative fights at the state level.
+ Show Spoiler +But maybe only national efforts count as "do something." Only if your national representatives do stuff that forces every state to comply, then you can do something. HR 4909: STOP School Violence Act of 2018Is this do something? Is it too small? Too focused on seeding ideas into states via federalism? It passed the house 407 in favor, 10 opposed. Are these congressmen/women to be cheered for doing something? It has 35 bipartisan Senate cosponsors. Are these Senators to be cheered for doing something? It's in the judiciary committee for hearings. Did you hear about this bill before this moment? Does this change any of your views about do something?
|
On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:
You’re doing enough preemptive pooh-poohing of ideas to make me think you’re very dishonest here. I’ll play two different reels of iamthedave and have them argue at each other.
Do something! Even mental health!
>“It probably won’t help the situation”
Just do something. Traditional family values!
>””The traditional family does because of Capitalism first and foremost, and can’t suevive in the current economic environment”
No, that's 'Danglars can't read properly' vs iamthedave. Try again. If you just read a little further, and look at the actual words in the actual post, you can see where my thought process was going there.
On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:Ok let’s look at Arizona for instance. Oh look, Ducey got a bill that does something. Wow. Show nested quote +The Senate Committee on Public Safety voted 4-3 to advance the bill, along partisan lines with Republicans in support. The bill now faces a rules review before a vote in the full Senate.
SB 1519 calls for about 100 more police officers in schools; a new type of restraining order to keep guns out of unstable people's hands; more mental-health counseling in schools; and a school-safety tip hotline Okay.
Quite.
On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +Democrats and gun-control advocates, however, said the NRA's blessing underscores their concern that Ducey's proposal is meaningless because it doesn't include universal background checks.
SB 1519 does not address the "gun show loophole" that allows people to buy a gun without background checks in some circumstances.
"Mr. Chair, you've just sucked everything out of me that even made me a possible positive 'yes' vote on this bill with that statement," Sen. Catherine Miranda, D-Phoenix, said of the NRA's backing.
Ducey, a Republican who is seeking re-election this year, has found himself in the center of a polarizing debate over gun control.
He has faced blistering criticism from both parties since his proposal was unveiled last month: Democrats, who say it doesn't go far enough; and Republican lawmakers, who worry it could violate constitutional liberties. Oh wait. Criticism. Bill gets shelved. New shooting. Calls for Ducey to agitate for a bill. ... Does iamthedave think this is laudable “do something” work stopped by mendacious opposition, or exactly the kind of “do nothing” response you criticize?
Could be a lot of different things. Could be a well-meaning governor stepping on a land mine, could be legislation deliberately designed to fail.
Sounds fundamentally laudable though.
On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:Can criticism be used to stop do something bills that would at least do something, or are the criticizers part of do nothing?
Both can be true in different scenarios. Obviously.
On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:If the next one doesn’t go far enough in protecting constitutional rights from GOP and doesn’t go far enough in gun control from the left, so they just drop criticism and pass it because it “does something”? The storyI think the real problem is you’re not exposed to enough stories on legislative fights at the state level.
Or, just as an alternative, maybe both sides actually talk to each other instead of screaming from megaphones from their armoured bunkers surrounded by landmines, as they so often do.
I read a fair few of those stories, but by definition the ones I hear about are limited to those particularly stupid, funny, or egregious.
On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
But maybe only national efforts count as "do something." Only if your national representatives do stuff that forces every state to comply, then you can do something.
I don't know if that's even practical with how diverse gun control legislation already is.
On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:HR 4909: STOP School Violence Act of 2018Is this do something? Is it too small? Too focused on seeding ideas into states via federalism? It passed the house 407 in favor, 10 opposed. Are these congressmen/women to be cheered for doing something? It has 35 bipartisan Senate cosponsors. Are these Senators to be cheered for doing something? It's in the judiciary committee for hearings. Did you hear about this bill before this moment? Does this change any of your views about do something?
It's a do something, yes. But it's a band aid solution to the current state that will likely do nothing about the fundamental problem. And before you snark, this isn't the same as doing some work on mental health (an issue that needs addressing but won't have impact on the issue it's technically intended to address in this instance). It's legislation that 100% addresses the current issue, but doesn't get to the root cause. I file that under 'bare minimum that should have been done ages ago, thank [insert divine entity here] that they can at least get this much done without someone torpedoing it for stupid reasons'. Unless someone's secretly put in a clause that attacks child credit or some other dumb bullshit that they do when they want something to fail.
It's a hopeful sign that they can seemingly work together on doing something so basic and simple. Hopefully they can demonstrate the same willingness while tackling tougher and thornier issues.
|
On May 30 2018 19:44 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote:
I've reached a point where I wish y'all would do something.
I understand that the guns/no guns debate is intractable; but I don't understand why the right - and it's definitively the right doing this bit - both shuts down the gun control debate and then proposes nothing in its place.
Even if we accept the American left is unreasonable in its gun control efforts, at least they are trying to do something about the problem. The right pantomimes care until people stop talking about it, and does nothing at all. Remember when Mental Health was to blame and needed looking at?
What happened there, again?
I mean, mental health probably isn't the cause and probably wouldn't help the situation, but mental health provision in America in general is a separate issue that does need improving, so you know what? Screw it. If the school shooters problem doesn't get fixed, but it tangentially fixes another problem, I'm all for it. Let's play whack-a-mole, blame everything for it, and fix the issues one at a time until we get to the heart of it all. But no, it's just another thing to throw out there to diffuse the argument until it fizzles out.
You cannot have a meaningful, productive debate when only one side wants to help. And no, the excuse 'but muh guns' doesn't work. There is no magical force stopping Conservatives from saying 'guns aren't the issue here, why don't we attend to this other problem that we think is probably to blame, and here's how we think we should do it'?
I'll even (while laughing) listen to the traditional family nonsense, if there's an actual action plan to go with it. Never mind that the traditional family died because of Capitalism first and foremost, and can't survive in the current economic environment (says person whose lived it first hand and grew up in a community that can attest to it). You can approach the problem from many angles at the same time. Let's say some bipartisan influential group of politicians decides that shootings related to mental health are what needs fixing. You address the fact that people with mental health problems have access to guns before you fix anything else, and then you start investing in the mental health system. Taking away access to guns is a temporary fix, but its an effective one, especially when the wider solutions to these problems are generations away and haven't even been started yet. Gun rights advocates need to understand that the left also wants to address the deeper issues, but they take a very long time (and huge amounts of investment) to fix, and in the mean time we are left with a system where guns are available to anyone, so some gun control legislation is necessary to make it so people can't get a gun on a whim - or if they have gun they have to be responsible for any crime committed with it. No more parents leaving their guns around where their teenage kids can steal it and go kill pupils. The parents should be responsible for their weapons and be able to prove that they kept them locked away somewhere safe. (I'll admit I don't know too much about where legislation regarding gun responsibility is in the US but I'm assuming its lacking.)
Actually I think it's quite broad, just people ignore it a lot. There's definitely states where you're required to have all legally purchased guns in a secure location in the house at all times. Of course, anything the parent can access, one day the kids can too. I don't think legislation on gun responsibility is the issue.
But yes, like I said, by all means, I'm for the US legislature going ham on trying to fix this problem, and whack-a-moling every societal issue that might even faintly be related until they've created utopia. But I'm sick of people actively trying to just not talk about the issue until people forget, until the next cycle.
And referencing the prior post, the legislation Danglars linked is a start, but at best it's that. If that's the sum total response, it's not the beginnings of being near enough.
|
I'm not opposed to some level of "do something" and that legislation doesn't sound too bad. I would say that more cops in schools is about half a step better of an idea than arming teachers (against their will) though.
As an only loosely related point, being a school cop is basically the bottom of the policing barrel, you get the worst/creepiest cops.
|
On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote:
I've reached a point where I wish y'all would do something.
I understand that the guns/no guns debate is intractable; but I don't understand why the right - and it's definitively the right doing this bit - both shuts down the gun control debate and then proposes nothing in its place.
Even if we accept the American left is unreasonable in its gun control efforts, at least they are trying to do something about the problem. The right pantomimes care until people stop talking about it, and does nothing at all. Remember when Mental Health was to blame and needed looking at?
What happened there, again?
I mean, mental health probably isn't the cause and probably wouldn't help the situation, but mental health provision in America in general is a separate issue that does need improving, so you know what? Screw it. If the school shooters problem doesn't get fixed, but it tangentially fixes another problem, I'm all for it. Let's play whack-a-mole, blame everything for it, and fix the issues one at a time until we get to the heart of it all. But no, it's just another thing to throw out there to diffuse the argument until it fizzles out.
You cannot have a meaningful, productive debate when only one side wants to help. And no, the excuse 'but muh guns' doesn't work. There is no magical force stopping Conservatives from saying 'guns aren't the issue here, why don't we attend to this other problem that we think is probably to blame, and here's how we think we should do it'?
I'll even (while laughing) listen to the traditional family nonsense, if there's an actual action plan to go with it. Never mind that the traditional family died because of Capitalism first and foremost, and can't survive in the current economic environment (says person whose lived it first hand and grew up in a community that can attest to it). You’re doing enough preemptive pooh-poohing of ideas to make me think you’re very dishonest here. I’ll play two different reels of iamthedave and have them argue at each other. Do something! Even mental health! >“It probably won’t help the situation” Just do something. Traditional family values! >””The traditional family does because of Capitalism first and foremost, and can’t suevive in the current economic environment” Ok let’s look at Arizona for instance. Oh look, Ducey got a bill that does something. Wow. Show nested quote +The Senate Committee on Public Safety voted 4-3 to advance the bill, along partisan lines with Republicans in support. The bill now faces a rules review before a vote in the full Senate.
SB 1519 calls for about 100 more police officers in schools; a new type of restraining order to keep guns out of unstable people's hands; more mental-health counseling in schools; and a school-safety tip hotline Okay. Show nested quote +Democrats and gun-control advocates, however, said the NRA's blessing underscores their concern that Ducey's proposal is meaningless because it doesn't include universal background checks.
SB 1519 does not address the "gun show loophole" that allows people to buy a gun without background checks in some circumstances.
"Mr. Chair, you've just sucked everything out of me that even made me a possible positive 'yes' vote on this bill with that statement," Sen. Catherine Miranda, D-Phoenix, said of the NRA's backing.
Ducey, a Republican who is seeking re-election this year, has found himself in the center of a polarizing debate over gun control.
He has faced blistering criticism from both parties since his proposal was unveiled last month: Democrats, who say it doesn't go far enough; and Republican lawmakers, who worry it could violate constitutional liberties. Oh wait. Criticism. Bill gets shelved. New shooting. Calls for Ducey to agitate for a bill. ... Does iamthedave think this is laudable “do something” work stopped by mendacious opposition, or exactly the kind of “do nothing” response you criticize? Can criticism be used to stop do something bills that would at least do something, or are the criticizers part of do nothing? If the next one doesn’t go far enough in protecting constitutional rights from GOP and doesn’t go far enough in gun control from the left, so they just drop criticism and pass it because it “does something”? The storyI think the real problem is you’re not exposed to enough stories on legislative fights at the state level. + Show Spoiler +But maybe only national efforts count as "do something." Only if your national representatives do stuff that forces every state to comply, then you can do something. HR 4909: STOP School Violence Act of 2018Is this do something? Is it too small? Too focused on seeding ideas into states via federalism? It passed the house 407 in favor, 10 opposed. Are these congressmen/women to be cheered for doing something? It has 35 bipartisan Senate cosponsors. Are these Senators to be cheered for doing something? It's in the judiciary committee for hearings. Did you hear about this bill before this moment? Does this change any of your views about do something?
So what do you propose? What is your solution to the problem? Or do you really think the proposed bill you mentioned does enough or even the right things at all?
All you do is use a lot of words to say next to nothing, other than the implication of your opponent being naive, uneducated or worse. You try to put everyone arguing against you into a basket with your lefty nutjobs at colleges. Trust me, I have a good laugh whenever YouTube directs me to university debates in the US. Thing is, you're actually the one coming closest to what you believe is your greatest enemy, never challenging your own view on things and always relying on the same rhetoric, making you sound like the typical US college snowflake just with the opposing view.
Again, present your own solution to the problem instead of constantly naysaying others. Put your real self out there instead of reiterating propaganda, let's see what you got. Though my personal experience with these kind of debates is, you are not gonna say a word of what you truly think, because you're afraid to get challenged. So rather run with what is popular among your peers or family or whatever, you can always claim to just have followed an ideology after, right? Reminds me of something.
|
On May 30 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote:
I've reached a point where I wish y'all would do something.
I understand that the guns/no guns debate is intractable; but I don't understand why the right - and it's definitively the right doing this bit - both shuts down the gun control debate and then proposes nothing in its place.
Even if we accept the American left is unreasonable in its gun control efforts, at least they are trying to do something about the problem. The right pantomimes care until people stop talking about it, and does nothing at all. Remember when Mental Health was to blame and needed looking at?
What happened there, again?
I mean, mental health probably isn't the cause and probably wouldn't help the situation, but mental health provision in America in general is a separate issue that does need improving, so you know what? Screw it. If the school shooters problem doesn't get fixed, but it tangentially fixes another problem, I'm all for it. Let's play whack-a-mole, blame everything for it, and fix the issues one at a time until we get to the heart of it all. But no, it's just another thing to throw out there to diffuse the argument until it fizzles out.
You cannot have a meaningful, productive debate when only one side wants to help. And no, the excuse 'but muh guns' doesn't work. There is no magical force stopping Conservatives from saying 'guns aren't the issue here, why don't we attend to this other problem that we think is probably to blame, and here's how we think we should do it'?
I'll even (while laughing) listen to the traditional family nonsense, if there's an actual action plan to go with it. Never mind that the traditional family died because of Capitalism first and foremost, and can't survive in the current economic environment (says person whose lived it first hand and grew up in a community that can attest to it).
the right shuts down the gun control debate because there's a faction of them that's very powerfully against any restrictions on guns at all. That faction votes in primaries heavily on the issue. other factions don't care enough about the issue to strongly vote one way or the other, at least not by anywhere near as much. So if they try to do something they're likely to lose in the primary to someone else, and thus not get elected.
There are also many districts where, in practice, the Republican WILL win the general election; so winning the primary amounts to whether or not you win the election. Because of that they worry more about losing their seats to a more extreme primary challenger than the general election, so they veer rightward and toward more extreme policies.
As to why they don't shift to some other solution path; there isn't one, at least not one they want to do anything about [they're not fond of healthcare spending, especially mental healthcare, which still has quite a stigma in some places]. It's politically easier to let an issue die than try to solve it. When you try to solve something you're responsible for failing, if you don't try, there's less political risk. there's a general bias toward inaction from all politicians.
|
+ Show Spoiler [long quote] +On May 30 2018 21:01 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:
You’re doing enough preemptive pooh-poohing of ideas to make me think you’re very dishonest here. I’ll play two different reels of iamthedave and have them argue at each other.
Do something! Even mental health!
>“It probably won’t help the situation”
Just do something. Traditional family values!
>””The traditional family does because of Capitalism first and foremost, and can’t suevive in the current economic environment” No, that's 'Danglars can't read properly' vs iamthedave. Try again. If you just read a little further, and look at the actual words in the actual post, you can see where my thought process was going there. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:Ok let’s look at Arizona for instance. Oh look, Ducey got a bill that does something. Wow. The Senate Committee on Public Safety voted 4-3 to advance the bill, along partisan lines with Republicans in support. The bill now faces a rules review before a vote in the full Senate.
SB 1519 calls for about 100 more police officers in schools; a new type of restraining order to keep guns out of unstable people's hands; more mental-health counseling in schools; and a school-safety tip hotline Okay. Quite. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:Democrats and gun-control advocates, however, said the NRA's blessing underscores their concern that Ducey's proposal is meaningless because it doesn't include universal background checks.
SB 1519 does not address the "gun show loophole" that allows people to buy a gun without background checks in some circumstances.
"Mr. Chair, you've just sucked everything out of me that even made me a possible positive 'yes' vote on this bill with that statement," Sen. Catherine Miranda, D-Phoenix, said of the NRA's backing.
Ducey, a Republican who is seeking re-election this year, has found himself in the center of a polarizing debate over gun control.
He has faced blistering criticism from both parties since his proposal was unveiled last month: Democrats, who say it doesn't go far enough; and Republican lawmakers, who worry it could violate constitutional liberties. Oh wait. Criticism. Bill gets shelved. New shooting. Calls for Ducey to agitate for a bill. ... Does iamthedave think this is laudable “do something” work stopped by mendacious opposition, or exactly the kind of “do nothing” response you criticize? Could be a lot of different things. Could be a well-meaning governor stepping on a land mine, could be legislation deliberately designed to fail. Sounds fundamentally laudable though. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:Can criticism be used to stop do something bills that would at least do something, or are the criticizers part of do nothing? Both can be true in different scenarios. Obviously. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:If the next one doesn’t go far enough in protecting constitutional rights from GOP and doesn’t go far enough in gun control from the left, so they just drop criticism and pass it because it “does something”? The storyI think the real problem is you’re not exposed to enough stories on legislative fights at the state level. Or, just as an alternative, maybe both sides actually talk to each other instead of screaming from megaphones from their armoured bunkers surrounded by landmines, as they so often do. I read a fair few of those stories, but by definition the ones I hear about are limited to those particularly stupid, funny, or egregious. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
But maybe only national efforts count as "do something." Only if your national representatives do stuff that forces every state to comply, then you can do something.
I don't know if that's even practical with how diverse gun control legislation already is. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:HR 4909: STOP School Violence Act of 2018Is this do something? Is it too small? Too focused on seeding ideas into states via federalism? It passed the house 407 in favor, 10 opposed. Are these congressmen/women to be cheered for doing something? It has 35 bipartisan Senate cosponsors. Are these Senators to be cheered for doing something? It's in the judiciary committee for hearings. Did you hear about this bill before this moment? Does this change any of your views about do something? It's a do something, yes. But it's a band aid solution to the current state that will likely do nothing about the fundamental problem. And before you snark, this isn't the same as doing some work on mental health (an issue that needs addressing but won't have impact on the issue it's technically intended to address in this instance). It's legislation that 100% addresses the current issue, but doesn't get to the root cause. I file that under 'bare minimum that should have been done ages ago, thank [insert divine entity here] that they can at least get this much done without someone torpedoing it for stupid reasons'. Unless someone's secretly put in a clause that attacks child credit or some other dumb bullshit that they do when they want something to fail. It's a hopeful sign that they can seemingly work together on doing something so basic and simple. Hopefully they can demonstrate the same willingness while tackling tougher and thornier issues.
That's the point I'm arriving at and you're helping usher in. You assert
I've reached a point where I wish y'all would do something.
I understand that the guns/no guns debate is intractable; but I don't understand why the right - and it's definitively the right doing this bit - both shuts down the gun control debate and then proposes nothing in its place. I have brought up a GOP Governor that introduced legislation, I brought up a GOP Congress that introduced something, maybe flawed, maybe not, maybe too little, maybe not up your alley, but that you wind up guessing is
On May 30 2018 21:01 iamthedave wrote:
Sounds fundamentally laudable though. It's a do something, yes. But it's a band aid solution to the current state that will likely do nothing about the fundamental problem. And before you snark, this isn't the same as doing some work on mental health (an issue that needs addressing but won't have impact on the issue it's technically intended to address in this instance). It's legislation that 100% addresses the current issue, but doesn't get to the root cause.
So really, the only true aim you have is the power to call legislation efforts either do something or "it's a band aid solution" based on your own subjective analyses. That's been my view of it since I studied the arguments on both sides of gun control, long before school shootings came into the public spotlight (the decade-long trend is less school shootings year over year since the 90s). The people that allege one side is fundamentally opposed to "do something" are playing semantic games that should be ignored. And I'm serious, that picking and choosing and classification games is exactly the kind of activity that hurts progress towards legislative outcomes--it's my view that you've introduced yourself as part of the problem by doing this.
I file that under 'bare minimum that should have been done ages ago, thank [insert divine entity here] that they can at least get this much done without someone torpedoing it for stupid reasons'. Unless someone's secretly put in a clause that attacks child credit or some other dumb bullshit that they do when they want something to fail.
It's a hopeful sign that they can seemingly work together on doing something so basic and simple. Hopefully they can demonstrate the same willingness while tackling tougher and thornier issues.
This is the proper approach. Scrap calling a side or sides as a do-nothing side. To put this closer to something you said, don't be the guy that comes to a fight between megaphones with your own saying "YOU'VE DONE NOTHING DO SOMETHING." That's just a third megaphone.
There's thorny and complex issues all around. Must gun control be part of any bill that addresses the issue? Conservatives will get prickly if it looks like a law change on temporary gun restrictions is too arbitrary, open to abuse, or far-reaching. Maybe 500 million is the right number for the federal government to help the process with the states, maybe it's $10 billion. Maybe liberals torpedo the national effort because they think it's do nothing! Maybe they have a point at stalling it because they can get gun control going with the colleagues. Does federalism dictate that it should be addressed state by state? Maybe interstate commerce and the black market (think illegal drug trade between states after import) mean the federal government has a role.
I think a "do something" approach dodges all the important discussions of the complexity of a response. It works towards nothing happening because it tends towards demonization of sides and not compromise, or finding the lines of possible compromise. Maybe I'm the one instead of you appointed king of what's band aids and whats do something, that would be grand. Liberals are do nothing, that one's a band aid and that one's legislation deliberately designed to fail! I would prefer to drop all that and get to arguing police presence, funding, mental health, student education, temporary restraining orders along with waiting periods for guns and securing guns in the home. And that is all not helped when I can show you bill progress in states and nationally-GOP efforts-- but "it's definitely the right doing this" bad thing and "at least [the American left] are trying to do something about the problem." Yes, I think you're the problem.
|
On May 30 2018 21:42 Danglars wrote:
So really, the only true aim you have is the power to call legislation efforts either do something or "it's a band aid solution" based on your own subjective analyses. That's been my view of it since I studied the arguments on both sides of gun control, long before school shootings came into the public spotlight (the decade-long trend is less school shootings year over year since the 90s).
Intellectual dishonesty. You call others factually incorrect while only spreading lies. 2018: 22 shootings so far. 1990-2000: 65 shootings. Are you fucking kidding me? And where are your solutions? Still waiting for them. It's not a solution to say "some GOP dude proposed stationing police officers inside schools SEE WE CARE". It just shows how narrow-minded you are when the best you can come up with is the idiocy of putting police into schools. Which you didn't even come up with by yourself, of course. Read my last post you never bothered responding to, or don't read it. I'll just tell you again about how afraid you are to present your own opinions and hide behind ideology.
|
On May 30 2018 21:42 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler [long quote] +On May 30 2018 21:01 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:
You’re doing enough preemptive pooh-poohing of ideas to make me think you’re very dishonest here. I’ll play two different reels of iamthedave and have them argue at each other.
Do something! Even mental health!
>“It probably won’t help the situation”
Just do something. Traditional family values!
>””The traditional family does because of Capitalism first and foremost, and can’t suevive in the current economic environment” No, that's 'Danglars can't read properly' vs iamthedave. Try again. If you just read a little further, and look at the actual words in the actual post, you can see where my thought process was going there. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:Ok let’s look at Arizona for instance. Oh look, Ducey got a bill that does something. Wow. The Senate Committee on Public Safety voted 4-3 to advance the bill, along partisan lines with Republicans in support. The bill now faces a rules review before a vote in the full Senate.
SB 1519 calls for about 100 more police officers in schools; a new type of restraining order to keep guns out of unstable people's hands; more mental-health counseling in schools; and a school-safety tip hotline Okay. Quite. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:Democrats and gun-control advocates, however, said the NRA's blessing underscores their concern that Ducey's proposal is meaningless because it doesn't include universal background checks.
SB 1519 does not address the "gun show loophole" that allows people to buy a gun without background checks in some circumstances.
"Mr. Chair, you've just sucked everything out of me that even made me a possible positive 'yes' vote on this bill with that statement," Sen. Catherine Miranda, D-Phoenix, said of the NRA's backing.
Ducey, a Republican who is seeking re-election this year, has found himself in the center of a polarizing debate over gun control.
He has faced blistering criticism from both parties since his proposal was unveiled last month: Democrats, who say it doesn't go far enough; and Republican lawmakers, who worry it could violate constitutional liberties. Oh wait. Criticism. Bill gets shelved. New shooting. Calls for Ducey to agitate for a bill. ... Does iamthedave think this is laudable “do something” work stopped by mendacious opposition, or exactly the kind of “do nothing” response you criticize? Could be a lot of different things. Could be a well-meaning governor stepping on a land mine, could be legislation deliberately designed to fail. Sounds fundamentally laudable though. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:Can criticism be used to stop do something bills that would at least do something, or are the criticizers part of do nothing? Both can be true in different scenarios. Obviously. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:If the next one doesn’t go far enough in protecting constitutional rights from GOP and doesn’t go far enough in gun control from the left, so they just drop criticism and pass it because it “does something”? The storyI think the real problem is you’re not exposed to enough stories on legislative fights at the state level. Or, just as an alternative, maybe both sides actually talk to each other instead of screaming from megaphones from their armoured bunkers surrounded by landmines, as they so often do. I read a fair few of those stories, but by definition the ones I hear about are limited to those particularly stupid, funny, or egregious. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
But maybe only national efforts count as "do something." Only if your national representatives do stuff that forces every state to comply, then you can do something.
I don't know if that's even practical with how diverse gun control legislation already is. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:HR 4909: STOP School Violence Act of 2018Is this do something? Is it too small? Too focused on seeding ideas into states via federalism? It passed the house 407 in favor, 10 opposed. Are these congressmen/women to be cheered for doing something? It has 35 bipartisan Senate cosponsors. Are these Senators to be cheered for doing something? It's in the judiciary committee for hearings. Did you hear about this bill before this moment? Does this change any of your views about do something? It's a do something, yes. But it's a band aid solution to the current state that will likely do nothing about the fundamental problem. And before you snark, this isn't the same as doing some work on mental health (an issue that needs addressing but won't have impact on the issue it's technically intended to address in this instance). It's legislation that 100% addresses the current issue, but doesn't get to the root cause. I file that under 'bare minimum that should have been done ages ago, thank [insert divine entity here] that they can at least get this much done without someone torpedoing it for stupid reasons'. Unless someone's secretly put in a clause that attacks child credit or some other dumb bullshit that they do when they want something to fail. It's a hopeful sign that they can seemingly work together on doing something so basic and simple. Hopefully they can demonstrate the same willingness while tackling tougher and thornier issues. That's the point I'm arriving at and you're helping usher in. You assert Show nested quote +I've reached a point where I wish y'all would do something.
I understand that the guns/no guns debate is intractable; but I don't understand why the right - and it's definitively the right doing this bit - both shuts down the gun control debate and then proposes nothing in its place. I have brought up a GOP Governor that introduced legislation, I brought up a GOP Congress that introduced something, maybe flawed, maybe not, maybe too little, maybe not up your alley, but that you wind up guessing is Show nested quote +It's a do something, yes. But it's a band aid solution to the current state that will likely do nothing about the fundamental problem. And before you snark, this isn't the same as doing some work on mental health (an issue that needs addressing but won't have impact on the issue it's technically intended to address in this instance). It's legislation that 100% addresses the current issue, but doesn't get to the root cause. So really, the only true aim you have is the power to call legislation efforts either do something or "it's a band aid solution" based on your own subjective analyses. That's been my view of it since I studied the arguments on both sides of gun control, long before school shootings came into the public spotlight (the decade-long trend is less school shootings year over year since the 90s). The people that allege one side is fundamentally opposed to "do something" are playing semantic games that should be ignored. And I'm serious, that picking and choosing and classification games is exactly the kind of activity that hurts progress towards legislative outcomes--it's my view that you've introduced yourself as part of the problem by doing this. Show nested quote +I file that under 'bare minimum that should have been done ages ago, thank [insert divine entity here] that they can at least get this much done without someone torpedoing it for stupid reasons'. Unless someone's secretly put in a clause that attacks child credit or some other dumb bullshit that they do when they want something to fail.
It's a hopeful sign that they can seemingly work together on doing something so basic and simple. Hopefully they can demonstrate the same willingness while tackling tougher and thornier issues. This is the proper approach. Scrap calling a side or sides as a do-nothing side. To put this closer to something you said, don't be the guy that comes to a fight between megaphones with your own saying "YOU'VE DONE NOTHING DO SOMETHING." That's just a third megaphone. There's thorny and complex issues all around. Must gun control be part of any bill that addresses the issue? Conservatives will get prickly if it looks like a law change on temporary gun restrictions is too arbitrary, open to abuse, or far-reaching. Maybe 500 million is the right number for the federal government to help the process with the states, maybe it's $10 billion. Maybe liberals torpedo the national effort because they think it's do nothing! Maybe they have a point at stalling it because they can get gun control going with the colleagues. Does federalism dictate that it should be addressed state by state? Maybe interstate commerce and the black market (think illegal drug trade between states after import) mean the federal government has a role. I think a "do something" approach dodges all the important discussions of the complexity of a response. It works towards nothing happening because it tends towards demonization of sides and not compromise, or finding the lines of possible compromise. Maybe I'm the one instead of you appointed king of what's band aids and whats do something, that would be grand. Liberals are do nothing, that one's a band aid and that one's legislation deliberately designed to fail! I would prefer to drop all that and get to arguing police presence, funding, mental health, student education, temporary restraining orders along with waiting periods for guns and securing guns in the home. And that is all not helped when I can show you bill progress in states and nationally-GOP efforts-- but "it's definitely the right doing this" bad thing and "at least [the American left] are trying to do something about the problem." Yes, I think you're the problem.
You'd prefer to drop all that and get to talking about the meat of the issue? Fucking do it then. Instead of producing another typically smug post where you pat yourself on the back about proving TEH LIBRULS ARE TEH PROBLIM like you always do.
You've had pages and pages and pages to talk about all those things, with an audience that'd love to. When did you even introduce the idea?
|
On May 30 2018 22:32 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 21:42 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler [long quote] +On May 30 2018 21:01 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:
You’re doing enough preemptive pooh-poohing of ideas to make me think you’re very dishonest here. I’ll play two different reels of iamthedave and have them argue at each other.
Do something! Even mental health!
>“It probably won’t help the situation”
Just do something. Traditional family values!
>””The traditional family does because of Capitalism first and foremost, and can’t suevive in the current economic environment” No, that's 'Danglars can't read properly' vs iamthedave. Try again. If you just read a little further, and look at the actual words in the actual post, you can see where my thought process was going there. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:Ok let’s look at Arizona for instance. Oh look, Ducey got a bill that does something. Wow. The Senate Committee on Public Safety voted 4-3 to advance the bill, along partisan lines with Republicans in support. The bill now faces a rules review before a vote in the full Senate.
SB 1519 calls for about 100 more police officers in schools; a new type of restraining order to keep guns out of unstable people's hands; more mental-health counseling in schools; and a school-safety tip hotline Okay. Quite. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:Democrats and gun-control advocates, however, said the NRA's blessing underscores their concern that Ducey's proposal is meaningless because it doesn't include universal background checks.
SB 1519 does not address the "gun show loophole" that allows people to buy a gun without background checks in some circumstances.
"Mr. Chair, you've just sucked everything out of me that even made me a possible positive 'yes' vote on this bill with that statement," Sen. Catherine Miranda, D-Phoenix, said of the NRA's backing.
Ducey, a Republican who is seeking re-election this year, has found himself in the center of a polarizing debate over gun control.
He has faced blistering criticism from both parties since his proposal was unveiled last month: Democrats, who say it doesn't go far enough; and Republican lawmakers, who worry it could violate constitutional liberties. Oh wait. Criticism. Bill gets shelved. New shooting. Calls for Ducey to agitate for a bill. ... Does iamthedave think this is laudable “do something” work stopped by mendacious opposition, or exactly the kind of “do nothing” response you criticize? Could be a lot of different things. Could be a well-meaning governor stepping on a land mine, could be legislation deliberately designed to fail. Sounds fundamentally laudable though. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:Can criticism be used to stop do something bills that would at least do something, or are the criticizers part of do nothing? Both can be true in different scenarios. Obviously. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:If the next one doesn’t go far enough in protecting constitutional rights from GOP and doesn’t go far enough in gun control from the left, so they just drop criticism and pass it because it “does something”? The storyI think the real problem is you’re not exposed to enough stories on legislative fights at the state level. Or, just as an alternative, maybe both sides actually talk to each other instead of screaming from megaphones from their armoured bunkers surrounded by landmines, as they so often do. I read a fair few of those stories, but by definition the ones I hear about are limited to those particularly stupid, funny, or egregious. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
But maybe only national efforts count as "do something." Only if your national representatives do stuff that forces every state to comply, then you can do something.
I don't know if that's even practical with how diverse gun control legislation already is. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:HR 4909: STOP School Violence Act of 2018Is this do something? Is it too small? Too focused on seeding ideas into states via federalism? It passed the house 407 in favor, 10 opposed. Are these congressmen/women to be cheered for doing something? It has 35 bipartisan Senate cosponsors. Are these Senators to be cheered for doing something? It's in the judiciary committee for hearings. Did you hear about this bill before this moment? Does this change any of your views about do something? It's a do something, yes. But it's a band aid solution to the current state that will likely do nothing about the fundamental problem. And before you snark, this isn't the same as doing some work on mental health (an issue that needs addressing but won't have impact on the issue it's technically intended to address in this instance). It's legislation that 100% addresses the current issue, but doesn't get to the root cause. I file that under 'bare minimum that should have been done ages ago, thank [insert divine entity here] that they can at least get this much done without someone torpedoing it for stupid reasons'. Unless someone's secretly put in a clause that attacks child credit or some other dumb bullshit that they do when they want something to fail. It's a hopeful sign that they can seemingly work together on doing something so basic and simple. Hopefully they can demonstrate the same willingness while tackling tougher and thornier issues. That's the point I'm arriving at and you're helping usher in. You assert I've reached a point where I wish y'all would do something.
I understand that the guns/no guns debate is intractable; but I don't understand why the right - and it's definitively the right doing this bit - both shuts down the gun control debate and then proposes nothing in its place. I have brought up a GOP Governor that introduced legislation, I brought up a GOP Congress that introduced something, maybe flawed, maybe not, maybe too little, maybe not up your alley, but that you wind up guessing is On May 30 2018 21:01 iamthedave wrote:
Sounds fundamentally laudable though. It's a do something, yes. But it's a band aid solution to the current state that will likely do nothing about the fundamental problem. And before you snark, this isn't the same as doing some work on mental health (an issue that needs addressing but won't have impact on the issue it's technically intended to address in this instance). It's legislation that 100% addresses the current issue, but doesn't get to the root cause. So really, the only true aim you have is the power to call legislation efforts either do something or "it's a band aid solution" based on your own subjective analyses. That's been my view of it since I studied the arguments on both sides of gun control, long before school shootings came into the public spotlight (the decade-long trend is less school shootings year over year since the 90s). The people that allege one side is fundamentally opposed to "do something" are playing semantic games that should be ignored. And I'm serious, that picking and choosing and classification games is exactly the kind of activity that hurts progress towards legislative outcomes--it's my view that you've introduced yourself as part of the problem by doing this. I file that under 'bare minimum that should have been done ages ago, thank [insert divine entity here] that they can at least get this much done without someone torpedoing it for stupid reasons'. Unless someone's secretly put in a clause that attacks child credit or some other dumb bullshit that they do when they want something to fail.
It's a hopeful sign that they can seemingly work together on doing something so basic and simple. Hopefully they can demonstrate the same willingness while tackling tougher and thornier issues. This is the proper approach. Scrap calling a side or sides as a do-nothing side. To put this closer to something you said, don't be the guy that comes to a fight between megaphones with your own saying "YOU'VE DONE NOTHING DO SOMETHING." That's just a third megaphone. There's thorny and complex issues all around. Must gun control be part of any bill that addresses the issue? Conservatives will get prickly if it looks like a law change on temporary gun restrictions is too arbitrary, open to abuse, or far-reaching. Maybe 500 million is the right number for the federal government to help the process with the states, maybe it's $10 billion. Maybe liberals torpedo the national effort because they think it's do nothing! Maybe they have a point at stalling it because they can get gun control going with the colleagues. Does federalism dictate that it should be addressed state by state? Maybe interstate commerce and the black market (think illegal drug trade between states after import) mean the federal government has a role. I think a "do something" approach dodges all the important discussions of the complexity of a response. It works towards nothing happening because it tends towards demonization of sides and not compromise, or finding the lines of possible compromise. Maybe I'm the one instead of you appointed king of what's band aids and whats do something, that would be grand. Liberals are do nothing, that one's a band aid and that one's legislation deliberately designed to fail! I would prefer to drop all that and get to arguing police presence, funding, mental health, student education, temporary restraining orders along with waiting periods for guns and securing guns in the home. And that is all not helped when I can show you bill progress in states and nationally-GOP efforts-- but "it's definitely the right doing this" bad thing and "at least [the American left] are trying to do something about the problem." Yes, I think you're the problem. You'd prefer to drop all that and get to talking about the meat of the issue? Fucking do it then. Instead of producing another typically smug post where you pat yourself on the back about proving TEH LIBRULS ARE TEH PROBLIM like you always do. You've had pages and pages and pages to talk about all those things, with an audience that'd love to. When did you even introduce the idea?
Yes. I've been in this thread since 2012. This was six years before you made your inaugural post alleging "the problem with the debate is that humans are an irrelevant concern." Slow down.
I'm in favor of a version of temporary restraining orders with law enforcement and judges, since these shooters extremely frequently show warning signs to family and friends. I want to address justice system incompetence following up on the Parkland shooter. I support waiting periods for young purchasers of a weapon. I think few entrances and many exits will help on school campuses. I want the local school boards to decide if trained teachers can carry guns, or secure gun lockers on campus with a trained response, if the teachers can be expected to only use them in defense of their students. I'm supportive of bans on bump stocks. I want existing laws on securing the gun within the home enforced, as was Texas law at the time of the Texas shooting. Those are my basic compromise positions.
Now, do you actually have a response? I endeavored to show you just how much subjective argument and mean-spirited, destructive attacks you incorporated, and why you stand against progress if you persist in your false allegations. I really think you're aiding the politicization that you pretend or wish to stand against.
|
On May 30 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote:
I've reached a point where I wish y'all would do something.
I understand that the guns/no guns debate is intractable; but I don't understand why the right - and it's definitively the right doing this bit - both shuts down the gun control debate and then proposes nothing in its place.
Even if we accept the American left is unreasonable in its gun control efforts, at least they are trying to do something about the problem. The right pantomimes care until people stop talking about it, and does nothing at all. Remember when Mental Health was to blame and needed looking at?
What happened there, again?
I mean, mental health probably isn't the cause and probably wouldn't help the situation, but mental health provision in America in general is a separate issue that does need improving, so you know what? Screw it. If the school shooters problem doesn't get fixed, but it tangentially fixes another problem, I'm all for it. Let's play whack-a-mole, blame everything for it, and fix the issues one at a time until we get to the heart of it all. But no, it's just another thing to throw out there to diffuse the argument until it fizzles out.
You cannot have a meaningful, productive debate when only one side wants to help. And no, the excuse 'but muh guns' doesn't work. There is no magical force stopping Conservatives from saying 'guns aren't the issue here, why don't we attend to this other problem that we think is probably to blame, and here's how we think we should do it'?
I'll even (while laughing) listen to the traditional family nonsense, if there's an actual action plan to go with it. Never mind that the traditional family died because of Capitalism first and foremost, and can't survive in the current economic environment (says person whose lived it first hand and grew up in a community that can attest to it).
You got a lot of really shitty responses to this post, but I am right with you. It baffles me that we can't seem to try anything whatsoever
|
On May 30 2018 22:58 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote:
I've reached a point where I wish y'all would do something.
I understand that the guns/no guns debate is intractable; but I don't understand why the right - and it's definitively the right doing this bit - both shuts down the gun control debate and then proposes nothing in its place.
Even if we accept the American left is unreasonable in its gun control efforts, at least they are trying to do something about the problem. The right pantomimes care until people stop talking about it, and does nothing at all. Remember when Mental Health was to blame and needed looking at?
What happened there, again?
I mean, mental health probably isn't the cause and probably wouldn't help the situation, but mental health provision in America in general is a separate issue that does need improving, so you know what? Screw it. If the school shooters problem doesn't get fixed, but it tangentially fixes another problem, I'm all for it. Let's play whack-a-mole, blame everything for it, and fix the issues one at a time until we get to the heart of it all. But no, it's just another thing to throw out there to diffuse the argument until it fizzles out.
You cannot have a meaningful, productive debate when only one side wants to help. And no, the excuse 'but muh guns' doesn't work. There is no magical force stopping Conservatives from saying 'guns aren't the issue here, why don't we attend to this other problem that we think is probably to blame, and here's how we think we should do it'?
I'll even (while laughing) listen to the traditional family nonsense, if there's an actual action plan to go with it. Never mind that the traditional family died because of Capitalism first and foremost, and can't survive in the current economic environment (says person whose lived it first hand and grew up in a community that can attest to it). You got a lot of really shitty responses to this post, but I am right with you. It baffles me that we can't seem to try anything whatsoever
I answered some of the whyfores on stuff not getting done a bit ago; but I can go over my understanding of the more overarching causes of stuff not getting if you'd like. since stuff not getting addressed adequately is hardly unique to the gun issue, but far more widespread and affects many topics.
|
The gun debate in US is to me an example of a "post-hoc" problem of modern societies.
Chinese writing system is an example of this. Their system is very complex and takes years of focused training to learn, and separates the phonetic language and writing system into two pieces. Still you have to learn pinyin (~Chinese with Latin letters), which also makes the system largely redundant. The written language also leaves more room for interpretation, making it less suitable for scientific writing for instance. This is also likely to "hold Chinese back" and prevent it from becoming a true global language.
Still very few people in China would support leaving this system. The written and spoken language have co-evolved over millennia and are deeply connected. It is part of their poetry, their literature and art. There is an argument to be made that Chinese poetry for instance have more depth because the intrinsic complexity and vagueness of their writing system. Their characters are related to their names and their families. Even their history.
That being said, no country world today would ever consider exchanging their current writing system for the Chinese.
American gun laws is no different. It only exist because it existed in the past.
And although I find the Chinese writing system inefficient, I can see why they would want to keep it. As for the american gun laws... well I guess Americans like their guns... and that is pretty much the end of the logic for me ^.^
|
On May 30 2018 23:36 267 wrote:
The gun debate in US is to me an example of a "post-hoc" problem of modern societies.
Chinese writing system is an example of this. Their system is very complex and takes years of focused training to learn, and separates the phonetic language and writing system into two pieces. Still you have to learn pinyin (~Chinese with Latin letters), which also makes the system largely redundant. The written language also leaves more room for interpretation, making it less suitable for scientific writing for instance. This is also likely to "hold Chinese back" and prevent it from becoming a true global language.
Still very few people in China would support leaving this system. The written and spoken language have co-evolved over millennia and are deeply connected. It is part of their poetry, their literature and art. There is an argument to be made that Chinese poetry for instance have more depth because the intrinsic complexity and vagueness of their writing system. Their characters are related to their names and their families. Even their history.
That being said, no country world today would ever consider exchanging their current writing system for the Chinese.
American gun laws is no different. It only exist because it existed in the past.
And although I find the Chinese writing system inefficient, I can see why they would want to keep it. As for the american gun laws... well I guess Americans like their guns... and that is pretty much the end of the logic for me ^.^
Enough Americans like their right to defend themselves (and family and property) lethally with a weapon to discourage a repeal of the second amendment. Some portion of that bunch also likes the right to own guns as a deterrent to tyrannical governance.
That can be our form of people still liking the old Chinese character system.
|
On May 30 2018 22:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 22:32 iamthedave wrote:On May 30 2018 21:42 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler [long quote] +On May 30 2018 21:01 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:
You’re doing enough preemptive pooh-poohing of ideas to make me think you’re very dishonest here. I’ll play two different reels of iamthedave and have them argue at each other.
Do something! Even mental health!
>“It probably won’t help the situation”
Just do something. Traditional family values!
>””The traditional family does because of Capitalism first and foremost, and can’t suevive in the current economic environment” No, that's 'Danglars can't read properly' vs iamthedave. Try again. If you just read a little further, and look at the actual words in the actual post, you can see where my thought process was going there. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:Ok let’s look at Arizona for instance. Oh look, Ducey got a bill that does something. Wow. The Senate Committee on Public Safety voted 4-3 to advance the bill, along partisan lines with Republicans in support. The bill now faces a rules review before a vote in the full Senate.
SB 1519 calls for about 100 more police officers in schools; a new type of restraining order to keep guns out of unstable people's hands; more mental-health counseling in schools; and a school-safety tip hotline Okay. Quite. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:Democrats and gun-control advocates, however, said the NRA's blessing underscores their concern that Ducey's proposal is meaningless because it doesn't include universal background checks.
SB 1519 does not address the "gun show loophole" that allows people to buy a gun without background checks in some circumstances.
"Mr. Chair, you've just sucked everything out of me that even made me a possible positive 'yes' vote on this bill with that statement," Sen. Catherine Miranda, D-Phoenix, said of the NRA's backing.
Ducey, a Republican who is seeking re-election this year, has found himself in the center of a polarizing debate over gun control.
He has faced blistering criticism from both parties since his proposal was unveiled last month: Democrats, who say it doesn't go far enough; and Republican lawmakers, who worry it could violate constitutional liberties. Oh wait. Criticism. Bill gets shelved. New shooting. Calls for Ducey to agitate for a bill. ... Does iamthedave think this is laudable “do something” work stopped by mendacious opposition, or exactly the kind of “do nothing” response you criticize? Could be a lot of different things. Could be a well-meaning governor stepping on a land mine, could be legislation deliberately designed to fail. Sounds fundamentally laudable though. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:Can criticism be used to stop do something bills that would at least do something, or are the criticizers part of do nothing? Both can be true in different scenarios. Obviously. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:If the next one doesn’t go far enough in protecting constitutional rights from GOP and doesn’t go far enough in gun control from the left, so they just drop criticism and pass it because it “does something”? The storyI think the real problem is you’re not exposed to enough stories on legislative fights at the state level. Or, just as an alternative, maybe both sides actually talk to each other instead of screaming from megaphones from their armoured bunkers surrounded by landmines, as they so often do. I read a fair few of those stories, but by definition the ones I hear about are limited to those particularly stupid, funny, or egregious. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
But maybe only national efforts count as "do something." Only if your national representatives do stuff that forces every state to comply, then you can do something.
I don't know if that's even practical with how diverse gun control legislation already is. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:HR 4909: STOP School Violence Act of 2018Is this do something? Is it too small? Too focused on seeding ideas into states via federalism? It passed the house 407 in favor, 10 opposed. Are these congressmen/women to be cheered for doing something? It has 35 bipartisan Senate cosponsors. Are these Senators to be cheered for doing something? It's in the judiciary committee for hearings. Did you hear about this bill before this moment? Does this change any of your views about do something? It's a do something, yes. But it's a band aid solution to the current state that will likely do nothing about the fundamental problem. And before you snark, this isn't the same as doing some work on mental health (an issue that needs addressing but won't have impact on the issue it's technically intended to address in this instance). It's legislation that 100% addresses the current issue, but doesn't get to the root cause. I file that under 'bare minimum that should have been done ages ago, thank [insert divine entity here] that they can at least get this much done without someone torpedoing it for stupid reasons'. Unless someone's secretly put in a clause that attacks child credit or some other dumb bullshit that they do when they want something to fail. It's a hopeful sign that they can seemingly work together on doing something so basic and simple. Hopefully they can demonstrate the same willingness while tackling tougher and thornier issues. That's the point I'm arriving at and you're helping usher in. You assert I've reached a point where I wish y'all would do something.
I understand that the guns/no guns debate is intractable; but I don't understand why the right - and it's definitively the right doing this bit - both shuts down the gun control debate and then proposes nothing in its place. I have brought up a GOP Governor that introduced legislation, I brought up a GOP Congress that introduced something, maybe flawed, maybe not, maybe too little, maybe not up your alley, but that you wind up guessing is On May 30 2018 21:01 iamthedave wrote:
Sounds fundamentally laudable though. It's a do something, yes. But it's a band aid solution to the current state that will likely do nothing about the fundamental problem. And before you snark, this isn't the same as doing some work on mental health (an issue that needs addressing but won't have impact on the issue it's technically intended to address in this instance). It's legislation that 100% addresses the current issue, but doesn't get to the root cause. So really, the only true aim you have is the power to call legislation efforts either do something or "it's a band aid solution" based on your own subjective analyses. That's been my view of it since I studied the arguments on both sides of gun control, long before school shootings came into the public spotlight (the decade-long trend is less school shootings year over year since the 90s). The people that allege one side is fundamentally opposed to "do something" are playing semantic games that should be ignored. And I'm serious, that picking and choosing and classification games is exactly the kind of activity that hurts progress towards legislative outcomes--it's my view that you've introduced yourself as part of the problem by doing this. I file that under 'bare minimum that should have been done ages ago, thank [insert divine entity here] that they can at least get this much done without someone torpedoing it for stupid reasons'. Unless someone's secretly put in a clause that attacks child credit or some other dumb bullshit that they do when they want something to fail.
It's a hopeful sign that they can seemingly work together on doing something so basic and simple. Hopefully they can demonstrate the same willingness while tackling tougher and thornier issues. This is the proper approach. Scrap calling a side or sides as a do-nothing side. To put this closer to something you said, don't be the guy that comes to a fight between megaphones with your own saying "YOU'VE DONE NOTHING DO SOMETHING." That's just a third megaphone. There's thorny and complex issues all around. Must gun control be part of any bill that addresses the issue? Conservatives will get prickly if it looks like a law change on temporary gun restrictions is too arbitrary, open to abuse, or far-reaching. Maybe 500 million is the right number for the federal government to help the process with the states, maybe it's $10 billion. Maybe liberals torpedo the national effort because they think it's do nothing! Maybe they have a point at stalling it because they can get gun control going with the colleagues. Does federalism dictate that it should be addressed state by state? Maybe interstate commerce and the black market (think illegal drug trade between states after import) mean the federal government has a role. I think a "do something" approach dodges all the important discussions of the complexity of a response. It works towards nothing happening because it tends towards demonization of sides and not compromise, or finding the lines of possible compromise. Maybe I'm the one instead of you appointed king of what's band aids and whats do something, that would be grand. Liberals are do nothing, that one's a band aid and that one's legislation deliberately designed to fail! I would prefer to drop all that and get to arguing police presence, funding, mental health, student education, temporary restraining orders along with waiting periods for guns and securing guns in the home. And that is all not helped when I can show you bill progress in states and nationally-GOP efforts-- but "it's definitely the right doing this" bad thing and "at least [the American left] are trying to do something about the problem." Yes, I think you're the problem. You'd prefer to drop all that and get to talking about the meat of the issue? Fucking do it then. Instead of producing another typically smug post where you pat yourself on the back about proving TEH LIBRULS ARE TEH PROBLIM like you always do. You've had pages and pages and pages to talk about all those things, with an audience that'd love to. When did you even introduce the idea? Yes. I've been in this thread since 2012. This was six years before you made your inaugural post alleging "the problem with the debate is that humans are an irrelevant concern." Slow down. I'm in favor of a version of temporary restraining orders with law enforcement and judges, since these shooters extremely frequently show warning signs to family and friends. I want to address justice system incompetence following up on the Parkland shooter. I support waiting periods for young purchasers of a weapon. I think few entrances and many exits will help on school campuses. I want the local school boards to decide if trained teachers can carry guns, or secure gun lockers on campus with a trained response, if the teachers can be expected to only use them in defense of their students. I'm supportive of bans on bump stocks. I want existing laws on securing the gun within the home enforced, as was Texas law at the time of the Texas shooting. Those are my basic compromise positions. Now, do you actually have a response? I endeavored to show you just how much subjective argument and mean-spirited, destructive attacks you incorporated, and why you stand against progress if you persist in your false allegations. I really think you're aiding the politicization that you pretend or wish to stand against.
Let's compromise and admit we both maybe don't aid the cause as much as we'd like to at times. My intention is pure even if my aim is, at times, askew.
I resist militarisation of schools for a number of reasons, not least that I think it's immensely psychologically destructive for the children. In this regard the only thing I'm really supportive of is more campus police. Your side of the aisle believes in good guys with a gun; sure, let's put that into practice and see how it pans out, instead of hoping for the lone ranger to pop in.
Armed teachers is insanity. Secure gun lockers on campus to support a trained response? That I can potentially be okay with. I can see how it could go horribly, spectacularly wrong, but as a meet-in-the-middle venture, sure, that might be worth pursuing.
Your gun law reforms seem to be common sense. I think lots of Republicans are okay with those ideas. So yes, I too am okay with those ideas. And obviously, maintaining and strengthening the existing laws seems obligatory.
So that's your basic compromise position. What are the advanced compromise positions? My assumption being that this would be the point where you expect something in return.
Though as a final point, I do not think my allegations are half as false as you claim. The current administration is Republican, with complete control of both houses. There is no excuse for no movement on the positions you yourself have advocated. None. There wasn't when Obama pushed them, either. Yes, you've proved that a Republican has put forward some legislation that's good. Unless you're willing to demonstrate how Republicans have been unfairly demonised over this topic for over a decade, you're putting the goose before the gander. When the Democrats had the power and did nothing, that's on them. When the Republicans have the power and do nothing, that's on them. And your guys have the power now. Trump was literally proposing some of the suggestions you just made, and then overnight took them off the table because... someone told him not to.
I admit I don't know who. I don't think it was a Democrat though. Do you?
And yes, I know gun rights are a major issue, electorally speaking, and plenty of gun rights activists go insane at the merest hint of legislation, and that these things could hurt Republicans. But that still puts the onus on them for not doing anything or, indeed, actively blocking attempts to do something in order to look tough for their voters.
Unless you're going to argue persuasively that never happens, of course, and I'm unfairly demonising Republicans again?
|
On May 31 2018 07:19 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 22:57 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2018 22:32 iamthedave wrote:On May 30 2018 21:42 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler [long quote] +On May 30 2018 21:01 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:
You’re doing enough preemptive pooh-poohing of ideas to make me think you’re very dishonest here. I’ll play two different reels of iamthedave and have them argue at each other.
Do something! Even mental health!
>“It probably won’t help the situation”
Just do something. Traditional family values!
>””The traditional family does because of Capitalism first and foremost, and can’t suevive in the current economic environment” No, that's 'Danglars can't read properly' vs iamthedave. Try again. If you just read a little further, and look at the actual words in the actual post, you can see where my thought process was going there. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:Ok let’s look at Arizona for instance. Oh look, Ducey got a bill that does something. Wow. The Senate Committee on Public Safety voted 4-3 to advance the bill, along partisan lines with Republicans in support. The bill now faces a rules review before a vote in the full Senate.
SB 1519 calls for about 100 more police officers in schools; a new type of restraining order to keep guns out of unstable people's hands; more mental-health counseling in schools; and a school-safety tip hotline Okay. Quite. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:Democrats and gun-control advocates, however, said the NRA's blessing underscores their concern that Ducey's proposal is meaningless because it doesn't include universal background checks.
SB 1519 does not address the "gun show loophole" that allows people to buy a gun without background checks in some circumstances.
"Mr. Chair, you've just sucked everything out of me that even made me a possible positive 'yes' vote on this bill with that statement," Sen. Catherine Miranda, D-Phoenix, said of the NRA's backing.
Ducey, a Republican who is seeking re-election this year, has found himself in the center of a polarizing debate over gun control.
He has faced blistering criticism from both parties since his proposal was unveiled last month: Democrats, who say it doesn't go far enough; and Republican lawmakers, who worry it could violate constitutional liberties. Oh wait. Criticism. Bill gets shelved. New shooting. Calls for Ducey to agitate for a bill. ... Does iamthedave think this is laudable “do something” work stopped by mendacious opposition, or exactly the kind of “do nothing” response you criticize? Could be a lot of different things. Could be a well-meaning governor stepping on a land mine, could be legislation deliberately designed to fail. Sounds fundamentally laudable though. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:Can criticism be used to stop do something bills that would at least do something, or are the criticizers part of do nothing? Both can be true in different scenarios. Obviously. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:If the next one doesn’t go far enough in protecting constitutional rights from GOP and doesn’t go far enough in gun control from the left, so they just drop criticism and pass it because it “does something”? The storyI think the real problem is you’re not exposed to enough stories on legislative fights at the state level. Or, just as an alternative, maybe both sides actually talk to each other instead of screaming from megaphones from their armoured bunkers surrounded by landmines, as they so often do. I read a fair few of those stories, but by definition the ones I hear about are limited to those particularly stupid, funny, or egregious. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
But maybe only national efforts count as "do something." Only if your national representatives do stuff that forces every state to comply, then you can do something.
I don't know if that's even practical with how diverse gun control legislation already is. Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 20:11 Danglars wrote:HR 4909: STOP School Violence Act of 2018Is this do something? Is it too small? Too focused on seeding ideas into states via federalism? It passed the house 407 in favor, 10 opposed. Are these congressmen/women to be cheered for doing something? It has 35 bipartisan Senate cosponsors. Are these Senators to be cheered for doing something? It's in the judiciary committee for hearings. Did you hear about this bill before this moment? Does this change any of your views about do something? It's a do something, yes. But it's a band aid solution to the current state that will likely do nothing about the fundamental problem. And before you snark, this isn't the same as doing some work on mental health (an issue that needs addressing but won't have impact on the issue it's technically intended to address in this instance). It's legislation that 100% addresses the current issue, but doesn't get to the root cause. I file that under 'bare minimum that should have been done ages ago, thank [insert divine entity here] that they can at least get this much done without someone torpedoing it for stupid reasons'. Unless someone's secretly put in a clause that attacks child credit or some other dumb bullshit that they do when they want something to fail. It's a hopeful sign that they can seemingly work together on doing something so basic and simple. Hopefully they can demonstrate the same willingness while tackling tougher and thornier issues. That's the point I'm arriving at and you're helping usher in. You assert I've reached a point where I wish y'all would do something.
I understand that the guns/no guns debate is intractable; but I don't understand why the right - and it's definitively the right doing this bit - both shuts down the gun control debate and then proposes nothing in its place. I have brought up a GOP Governor that introduced legislation, I brought up a GOP Congress that introduced something, maybe flawed, maybe not, maybe too little, maybe not up your alley, but that you wind up guessing is On May 30 2018 21:01 iamthedave wrote:
Sounds fundamentally laudable though. It's a do something, yes. But it's a band aid solution to the current state that will likely do nothing about the fundamental problem. And before you snark, this isn't the same as doing some work on mental health (an issue that needs addressing but won't have impact on the issue it's technically intended to address in this instance). It's legislation that 100% addresses the current issue, but doesn't get to the root cause. So really, the only true aim you have is the power to call legislation efforts either do something or "it's a band aid solution" based on your own subjective analyses. That's been my view of it since I studied the arguments on both sides of gun control, long before school shootings came into the public spotlight (the decade-long trend is less school shootings year over year since the 90s). The people that allege one side is fundamentally opposed to "do something" are playing semantic games that should be ignored. And I'm serious, that picking and choosing and classification games is exactly the kind of activity that hurts progress towards legislative outcomes--it's my view that you've introduced yourself as part of the problem by doing this. I file that under 'bare minimum that should have been done ages ago, thank [insert divine entity here] that they can at least get this much done without someone torpedoing it for stupid reasons'. Unless someone's secretly put in a clause that attacks child credit or some other dumb bullshit that they do when they want something to fail.
It's a hopeful sign that they can seemingly work together on doing something so basic and simple. Hopefully they can demonstrate the same willingness while tackling tougher and thornier issues. This is the proper approach. Scrap calling a side or sides as a do-nothing side. To put this closer to something you said, don't be the guy that comes to a fight between megaphones with your own saying "YOU'VE DONE NOTHING DO SOMETHING." That's just a third megaphone. There's thorny and complex issues all around. Must gun control be part of any bill that addresses the issue? Conservatives will get prickly if it looks like a law change on temporary gun restrictions is too arbitrary, open to abuse, or far-reaching. Maybe 500 million is the right number for the federal government to help the process with the states, maybe it's $10 billion. Maybe liberals torpedo the national effort because they think it's do nothing! Maybe they have a point at stalling it because they can get gun control going with the colleagues. Does federalism dictate that it should be addressed state by state? Maybe interstate commerce and the black market (think illegal drug trade between states after import) mean the federal government has a role. I think a "do something" approach dodges all the important discussions of the complexity of a response. It works towards nothing happening because it tends towards demonization of sides and not compromise, or finding the lines of possible compromise. Maybe I'm the one instead of you appointed king of what's band aids and whats do something, that would be grand. Liberals are do nothing, that one's a band aid and that one's legislation deliberately designed to fail! I would prefer to drop all that and get to arguing police presence, funding, mental health, student education, temporary restraining orders along with waiting periods for guns and securing guns in the home. And that is all not helped when I can show you bill progress in states and nationally-GOP efforts-- but "it's definitely the right doing this" bad thing and "at least [the American left] are trying to do something about the problem." Yes, I think you're the problem. You'd prefer to drop all that and get to talking about the meat of the issue? Fucking do it then. Instead of producing another typically smug post where you pat yourself on the back about proving TEH LIBRULS ARE TEH PROBLIM like you always do. You've had pages and pages and pages to talk about all those things, with an audience that'd love to. When did you even introduce the idea? Yes. I've been in this thread since 2012. This was six years before you made your inaugural post alleging "the problem with the debate is that humans are an irrelevant concern." Slow down. I'm in favor of a version of temporary restraining orders with law enforcement and judges, since these shooters extremely frequently show warning signs to family and friends. I want to address justice system incompetence following up on the Parkland shooter. I support waiting periods for young purchasers of a weapon. I think few entrances and many exits will help on school campuses. I want the local school boards to decide if trained teachers can carry guns, or secure gun lockers on campus with a trained response, if the teachers can be expected to only use them in defense of their students. I'm supportive of bans on bump stocks. I want existing laws on securing the gun within the home enforced, as was Texas law at the time of the Texas shooting. Those are my basic compromise positions. Now, do you actually have a response? I endeavored to show you just how much subjective argument and mean-spirited, destructive attacks you incorporated, and why you stand against progress if you persist in your false allegations. I really think you're aiding the politicization that you pretend or wish to stand against. Let's compromise and admit we both maybe don't aid the cause as much as we'd like to at times. My intention is pure even if my aim is, at times, askew. I resist militarisation of schools for a number of reasons, not least that I think it's immensely psychologically destructive for the children. In this regard the only thing I'm really supportive of is more campus police. Your side of the aisle believes in good guys with a gun; sure, let's put that into practice and see how it pans out, instead of hoping for the lone ranger to pop in. Armed teachers is insanity. Secure gun lockers on campus to support a trained response? That I can potentially be okay with. I can see how it could go horribly, spectacularly wrong, but as a meet-in-the-middle venture, sure, that might be worth pursuing. Your gun law reforms seem to be common sense. I think lots of Republicans are okay with those ideas. So yes, I too am okay with those ideas. And obviously, maintaining and strengthening the existing laws seems obligatory. So that's your basic compromise position. What are the advanced compromise positions? My assumption being that this would be the point where you expect something in return. Though as a final point, I do not think my allegations are half as false as you claim. The current administration is Republican, with complete control of both houses. There is no excuse for no movement on the positions you yourself have advocated. None. There wasn't when Obama pushed them, either. Yes, you've proved that a Republican has put forward some legislation that's good. Unless you're willing to demonstrate how Republicans have been unfairly demonised over this topic for over a decade, you're putting the goose before the gander. When the Democrats had the power and did nothing, that's on them. When the Republicans have the power and do nothing, that's on them. And your guys have the power now. Trump was literally proposing some of the suggestions you just made, and then overnight took them off the table because... someone told him not to. I admit I don't know who. I don't think it was a Democrat though. Do you?
Republicans do not have complete control of both houses. The filibuster rule means the Republicans need to pursuade several democrats to pass anything not in budget reconciliation. So if you don’t have ideas of what Democrats might sign on to, you don’t get it passed, period. Sorry. We’d have massive funding for a wall and a lot more holes in Obamacare had that been the case.
I made my point, so I don’t really want to rehash the lines of logic I delineated. I hope you know that the spirit of compromise is totally lost when your basic tenets are (1) humans are an irrelevant concern to you//dead kids don’t matter and (2) one side stands for doing nothing, their opponents at least press for action. Doubly so when I point out just how partisan you select the lines of what counts, and you flip that it’s somehow blame the liberals again. If you can dish out the partisanship and these accusations, you should be able to take a little flak in return and toughen up a bit. Everybody could stand a bit more of that because it is a cantankerous issue and the political tribalism layer is deeper than most people here realize.
My next focus is on the bill that comes out of the judiciary committee and if Democrats will go gung-ho for gun control to the point of shooting it down. I’m checking stories on state efforts. I know at least two school districts have voted to allow their teachers to concealed carry with permits and shooter response training. I’m a little optimistic on voting Americans seeing actual proposed legislation at the state and local level and having something more ironclad to discuss, rather than poker-friendly support/oppose stricter gun control. Examples of challenges in crafting these (I’m very interested in temporary gun restraining orders) generally teach better than abstract ideological positions.
|
I want to mention that even the idea of police officers constantly in a school for protection sounds really weird to me. And i don't think that it is very good for the educational climate either. Just as an example of how far away the US is from a situation that i would call "normal".
And gun lockers for an armed response? I assume for the teachers, but this still makes me think of some kind of military training camp, not a civilian school. I don't think militarizing your civil society is a good idea for a modern democracy. If you are at a point where you need to arm your teachers to protect your students, something has already gone horribly wrong. You are not at war. Things like that might make sense in a frontier town surrounded by enemies. In a civilian city in the middle of a civilized country this demonstrates an utter failure of the government.
|
On May 31 2018 08:01 Simberto wrote:
I want to mention that even the idea of police officers constantly in a school for protection sounds really weird to me. And i don't think that it is very good for the educational climate either. Just as an example of how far away the US is from a situation that i would call "normal".
And gun lockers for an armed response? I assume for the teachers, but this still makes me think of some kind of military training camp, not a civilian school. I don't think militarizing your civil society is a good idea for a modern democracy. If you are at a point where you need to arm your teachers to protect your students, something has already gone horribly wrong. You are not at war. Things like that might make sense in a frontier town surrounded by enemies. In a civilian city in the middle of a civilized country this demonstrates an utter failure of the government.
No problem for how that makes you feel or if it sounds weird or not. A lot of stuff gun rights Americans are asked to compromise for feels more like being the subject of a foreign nation that doesn’t afford their governed persons individual rights. It’s kind of like a group of elites in a big metro way off on a coast telling you which rights in the bill of rights they’ll let you still keep. I’m all for certain compromises and I’m sure there’s more that I haven’t fully considered, but I would like to see less kids shot at their schools by adolescents even if the added security raises rankles!
|
Why is the appeal to emotion with regards to dead kids acceptable when talking about shit like militarizing your schools, but not acceptable when talking about maybe possibly having some sort of regulations with regards to guns?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
