If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On July 01 2018 20:10 itsnotevenbutter wrote:
Superstartran, I have read every page of this thread, as well as a few other threads on here relating to politics. They are very long, but fascinating.

Every time someone tells you, or danglars (see page 741), or anyone else that you guys don't care when people die... Whether they insinuate it, or just flat-out say it, it hurts me to imagine what it's like for ya'll.

I understand completely why u don't post in this thread anymore.


To other posters, I will simply say: You are not saving any lives by making enemies of your "opposition," who are in reality members of our own online community. Nor are you changing any minds. It is much better, although much more difficult, to grit your teeth and make friends out of them. It's also much more cunning.

I know ya'll are hurting over the lives that have already been lost; do it for the ones that could be saved.

On July 01 2018 20:50 evilfatsh1t wrote:

your post is pretty much all the evidence anyone in this thread needs to realise you dont know wtf youre talking about lol.
not once did i wish anything onto anyone. i said for people like you, an event like what i described would be what it takes for you to see the idiocy of your own opinions. believe it or not i am debating the points of your arguments.
you guys believe that your rights to own firearms take precedence over others' right to safety (cutting through the crap). you can try and sugarcoat your arguments and present them so that it appears these rights dont infringe on each other much but there are many who would disagree with you, especially those that have already been victim to senseless firearm casualties. me stating that it seems such an event would be what it takes for you to realise the nonsense in your own arguments does not insinuate that i wish death upon any of your family members. not even close lol

On July 01 2018 21:32 zlefin wrote:

that is indeed more effective; but it also requires pretending that people that did a bad thing didn't do a bad thing; it requires not calling out misbehavior. which carries consequences of its own.
I wish you luck in your stratagem, and your sympathy looks like it may be very effective, but it's not one I can follow.

we didn't "make" them enemies, they chose to be that all on their own.

startran not posting wouldn't be a loss to the thread, he didn't add value to it anyways. I can understand him not wanting to post; but it's a result of him making bad posts in the first place and getting called out on them.

On July 01 2018 23:54 superstartran wrote:



Your post insinuates harm on someone's personal family. Why else would you mention our personal families?.

On July 02 2018 00:19 Excludos wrote:


No it doesn't. Stop pretending it does. Stating that it would unfortunately require a family member to be hurt for someone to understand is not the same as wishing a family member to be hurt.

On July 02 2018 00:25 superstartran wrote:


What other reason is there to mention someone's personal family in an internet argument? There's no business dragging someone's personal family into an internet argument, period.

The equivalent would me be saying that you wouldn't understand personal defense with a firearm is a real thing until a personal family member like your mother or sister is kidnapped, raped, and left for dead. The firearm could have been the difference between life and death, as ultimately it is the great equalizer between size. I never mentioned that though because

1) It's common decency to leave out personal family members in a political argument

2) It's purely hypothetical and not factual based


Now imagine me saying that earlier and imagine the response I would have gotten. I literally said the same thing as evilfatsh1t did, just on the opposite end of the spectrum. I'd imagine a bunch of people would have been pissed off, and justifiably so.

On July 02 2018 00:25 superstartran wrote:


What other reason is there to mention someone's personal family in an internet argument? There's no business dragging someone's personal family into an internet argument, period.

On July 02 2018 00:29 Dan HH wrote:
Don't lump them together just because they're on the same "side". The two are very different posters, I disagree with Danglars on many things but I see where he's coming from, I don't find his opinions disingenuous. On the other hand Super makes a whole lot of intentionally faulty arguments that aren't even polished enough to pass for sophism, then when called out pretends not to understand what is happening and responds as if the objection was something entirely different.

On July 02 2018 00:44 Excludos wrote:


If a woman who has lost her newborn baby tells you that "You can't possibly understand if it hasn't happened to you", does that mean she wishes that your next child is stillborn? No? Thank you. Now stop being pedantic over something which has been thoroughly explained to you by now.

On July 02 2018 00:58 superstartran wrote:




That is not the same message though; evilfatsh1t's message was directed towards both me and Dangler's stating that we would never understand the opposing's sides point of view unless one of our own personal family members were a victim of firearm violence.


1) It's very likely evilfatsh1t has never experienced personal loss at the hands of firearms

2) I have


Not just that, it's easy to see he would consider it poetic justice based on his tone from his original post and his response.

On July 02 2018 00:53 zlefin wrote:

who're you responding to? it's not clear from context; and while several people have expressed similar sentiments, I don' tsee anything in the previous 3-5 posts.

also, note that people may not be lumping them together just because they're on the same side; they may believe that Danglars is doing the same/similar things as you describe Super doing. so it may be a result of differing assessments.

On July 02 2018 00:58 superstartran wrote:




That is not the same message though; evilfatsh1t's message was directed towards both me and Dangler's stating that we would never understand the opposing's sides point of view unless one of our own personal family members were a victim of firearm violence.


1) It's very likely evilfatsh1t has never experienced personal loss at the hands of firearms

2) I have


Not just that, it's easy to see he would consider it poetic justice based on his tone from his original post and his response. It's not a stretch to really see what his intentions were behind his posts. Regardless of your interpretation of what he said, it is absolutely uncouth and inappropriate to ever bring someone's personal family members into an argument, period. Just because you, me, or anyone disagrees doesn't mean we should ever mention personal harm on anyone's family, either directly or indirectly.

On July 02 2018 01:36 evilfatsh1t wrote:

so were allowed to talk about the families and deaths of all these victims but the moment we hypothesise about what would happen if we were in their position its a "personal attack"?
dont make me laugh. youre being overly sensitive to a post that wasnt an attack in any form whatsoever. you can interpret it whatever way you want, it doesnt change the fact that youre choosing to ignore the truth (my word) to suit your argument. then again, youve been doing that the entire thread so i guess theres nothing new there.

also, yes i havent lost anyone to gun violence thank god. however, i dont need to have had to to understand how furious others might be who have. i had hoped maybe you would see the stupidity of your own laws if you were in the same position; its a real shame that you dont see our take on that even after experiencing it yourself. i officially have no hope for you

On July 02 2018 00:25 superstartran wrote:
The firearm could have been the difference between life and death, as ultimately it is the great equalizer between size.

On July 02 2018 11:54 Ryzel wrote:
the least a decent human being could do is tolerate a few extra hoops for gun use with the intent of bringing deaths to gun violence to a comparable level to other first world countries.

On July 02 2018 12:35 reincremate wrote:
If you accept the sound premise that gun ownership is a fundamental, inalienable freedom/right, then any "extra hoops" are blatant restrictions on a fundamental, inalienable freedom/right. How does one go about arguing in good faith with those who wish to restrict basic human rights? It would be like giving concessions to those advocating free speech censorship, religious persecution, ethnic cleansing, etc.

There thus is not even a debate to be had unless one wants to make the absurd argument that ordinary civilians having easy access to highly effective killing tools is not a fundamental human right (as recognized by the sagacity of America's founding fathers, who were obviously much more informed about our world than anyone alive today).

I don't know, but maybe sometimes absurdity is sanity in disguise and it is actually the premises on which we stand that are absurd.

On July 02 2018 12:00 micronesia wrote:

While I generally agree with the sentiment of your post, you need to recognize the history as well. There are many examples of very counterproductive gun laws being implemented in the name of preventing unneeded deaths. There have also been laws proposed that make perfect sense and never get passed for purely political reasons. It's not just a simple matter of one side wants to implement solutions and the other side doesn't want to implement solutions. Some folks, like NRA leadership, do not discuss the issue in good faith, but that doesn't mean all people cautioning against just 'trying stuff' with regards to additional gun restrictions are being selfish or are misguided.

On July 02 2018 11:54 Ryzel wrote:
Having read practically zero other pages in this thread, and knowing the possibility of starting a shitstorm, I’m gonna throw in my two cents.

The issue with gun violence is that from a personal standpoint, it seems like you’re either not affected by it at all or it’s traumatically life changing. If you’re not affected by it at all, but own guns, it’s understandable to be annoyed at the thought of jumping through more hoops to use your guns when you didn’t even do anything wrong. However it also seems incredibly disrespectful, selfish, and callous to those who’ve lost an immediate family member. Please prove me wrong by posting a link to someone advocating for gun rights who has lost an immediate family member to gun violence and I will take their views very seriously.

Otherwise I’m going to assume that gun rights advocates who haven’t lost an immediate family member are just in it for their own selfish purposes, unless they otherwise demonstrate compassion and understanding for victims of gun violence. Given what I believe are clear statistics demonstrating gun violence is a problem in the US compared to other first world countries, the least a decent human being could do is tolerate a few extra hoops for gun use with the intent of bringing deaths to gun violence to a comparable level to other first world countries.

And for responses of “well we don’t know if X/Y/Z idea will work so we can’t just try it”, try telling that to the face of someone who lost a loved one to gun violence. “Yeah I mean technically there’s a chance it could have worked and saved your loved one, but we really didn’t know that and it was too big of a risk to inconvenience millions of gun owners unnecessarily, you understand right?”

For the “guns aren’t the problem, people are!” response, great. Provide some solid solutions to the “people problem” that are comparable in practically to gun control solutions to the “gun problem”, and I’m all ears. Until then, people are dying unnecessarily and it’s unethical to pursue any theoretical best solution until we can implement some kind of practical solution that slows the blood flow NOW. I work with developmentally disabled children for a living, and when they engage in injurious behavior to themselves or others, I am ethically obligated to prevent self-harm in the most direct means necessary (e.g. grabbing their hands) until more observations are conducted to determine the optimal intervention method. This is incredibly restrictive and is in 99% of situations the wrong/unethical choice if better solutions are possible, but when bodily harm is involved I have no other choice. Hopefully you can see how the moral logic can be applied to the gun violence issue.