|
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 July 02 2018 13:27 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +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. Well I'll posit to you something. That the debate over gun control is really the debate over peoples lives vs peoples convince. And that people are okay with that tradeoff. We already make it everyday, Look at the amount of people that die from vehicle related accidents. How many of those lives would be saved every year if we lowered the speed limit just ten miles an hour or even five? But we won't do that because we've accepted that we'd rather be able to get to where we want to get going more then saving those lives. If you want to get even lower then that how many lives would be saved by banning peanuts from public restaurants? Or shit lets just ban cigarettes already beacuse for fucks sake we know they kill tons of people.
I see what you're getting at, and yes if I'm a hardliner for saving lives I'd recommend people live in bubbles, stay inside forever and make every decision to minimize risk. It is a matter of people's lives vs. convenience, but the difference between your examples and the US gun violence problem is that we can compare it to other countries and find a significant difference, which implies there is an underlying issue unique to the US that should be addressed. Based off your logic, I would be swayed to your line of reasoning if you could...
1) Show me that auto-related/peanut-related/smoking-related death ratio is significantly worse in the US than other comparable countries.
Or...
2) Show me that the gun-related death ratio is not significantly worse in the US than other comparable countries.
Or...
3) Show me a reason why it should be acceptable for the US to have a significantly worse gun-related death ratio than other comparable countries.
To further address your analogy, you'll notice that in every one of your examples there have been limits placed on the freedoms of those experiences in the interest of saving lives. People are now required to wear seat belts. Restaurants are now obligated to follow food allergy laws. Smoking is no longer permitted in many of the places that it used to be. For each of these, there have been people complaining about the restrictions on their freedoms, but by and large they were ignored and the loss of freedom was deemed acceptable for the good of society. If anything, they prove my point more.
|
On July 02 2018 05:11 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2018 01:36 evilfatsh1t wrote:On July 02 2018 00:58 superstartran wrote:On July 02 2018 00:44 Excludos wrote:On July 02 2018 00:25 superstartran wrote:On July 02 2018 00:19 Excludos wrote:On July 01 2018 23:54 superstartran wrote:On July 01 2018 20:50 evilfatsh1t wrote:On July 01 2018 17:47 superstartran wrote:On June 18 2018 16:30 evilfatsh1t wrote:
yeah sadly for people like danglar or sst, it would take an actual family member to be a victim of completely random gun violence. only then (i hope), would they see that a person dying for absolutely no reason other than the government letting people wield lethal weapons for "muh rights", is absolutely ludicrous.
if it aint a loved one then "its not my problem. its fine if other people die because itll never happen to me, but dont take away my rights" I told myself that I wouldn't respond to this nonsensical thread anymore, but since you posted something so absolutely inflammatory directly at me, I am going to with a very simple post. The fact that you even mentioning some sort of physical harm to anyone's personal family members at all is an absolutely disgusting, abhorrent, and extremely insensitive post. The fact that you are mentioning it in a political context makes you a complete jackass of epic proportions. Not once have I, Danglers, or any other guns rights supporters have ever posted anything like this. We merely defend our points whether we believe in them or not, and whether you believe our arguments to be strong enough is your opinion. Never in a million years would I ever emotional grandstand and try and even mention the personal safety of someone's family for any kind of political reason, internet or not. It's common sense to debate the points of an argument. It's human decency not to mention the safety of someone's personal family into an argument, especially in the way you put it, as though you were wishing death upon one of our family members to get us to change our political views. It is disgusting, insulting, and absolutely unacceptable for anyone to post in this kind of manner. You can kindly go and piss off. Disagreeing with me, calling me an idiot, etc. Is one thing. Essentially wishing death on someone's personal family is a completely different story. 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 Your post insinuates harm on someone's personal family. Why else would you mention our personal families?. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 Again, choosing to bring someone's personal family into a hypothetical situation is uncalled for, inappropriate, and not ok. The fact that you feel it's fine to do so just to "prove" your point shows how much of a indecent human being you are. Again, your post has zero content, no factual evidence backing it, and is highly inappropriate. Claiming your words as "the truth" and claiming that our laws are "stupid" is really only demonstrating that your original statement was made from a standpoint of pure malice, or at very minimum, you made that statement as a means to piss people off, not as a way to get others to understand your point of view. You had zero reason to bring this argument down to such a personal level. Not one gun rights person did it in this entire thread at least based on what I read through. The fact that you somehow still think that what you did was ok shows what kind of character you actually have. Like I said, you can disagree with me, call me an idiot, whatever you want, but even mentioning someone's personal family in such a manner is highly inappropriate and uncalled for no matter how you put it or spin it.
you do realise the entire basis of this thread is discussing hypothetical and actual scenarios in which families' lives are ruined by senseless shootings. just because i directed the scenario directly at you doesnt make it inappropriate, or very personal for that matter.
again, you show a lack of ability to demonstrate basic reading comprehension skills. i literally put in parenthesis that the "truth" i was referring to was my word; that my original post wasnt an attempt to wish death onto your family or whatever retarded thing youre accusing me of. if you choose not to interpret what i said according to what my intention was, thats your problem, not mine. dont blame me for your own dumb interpretations when youre the one with embarrassing comprehension skills. not sure how you thought the "truth" i was referring to was USA's stupid gun laws...but ok bro.
not sure why i bother with you tbh. the way you misinterpret pretty much every post in this thread that you consider to be in disagreement to yours, or the way you skew your arguments and thereby miss the point others are trying to make has done you no favours. i suggest you go back and restart your english education from primary level because i can say with 100% certainty there are 10 year olds that would have understood my posts better than you did.
|
On July 02 2018 13:27 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +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. Well I'll posit to you something. That the debate over gun control is really the debate over peoples lives vs peoples convince. And that people are okay with that tradeoff. We already make it everyday, Look at the amount of people that die from vehicle related accidents. How many of those lives would be saved every year if we lowered the speed limit just ten miles an hour or even five? But we won't do that because we've accepted that we'd rather be able to get to where we want to get going more then saving those lives. If you want to get even lower then that how many lives would be saved by banning peanuts from public restaurants? Or shit lets just ban cigarettes already beacuse for fucks sake we know they kill tons of people.
This is a comparison which has been debunked so many times now. Guns != Vehicles. First off, vehicles have a purpose other than entertainment, which the vast majority of the population uses it for. Guns can have a purpose, mainly hunting, but often does not (And regulations to require hunting licenses for buying guns are not on the table). Secondly vehicles are being scrutinized every day to make sure they are safer, including strict regulations. You can't just go to a dealer ship and buy a car, you need to take tests and exams first. Thirdly any attempt at regulating cars further doesn't immediately get shut down with "It's mah right!", even if vehicles are inherently many times more useful and necessary than guns, in fact it happens regularly.
If you look at the two in a vacuum, then guns should be more regulated, not less. The only real difference is that one is in the constitution and one is not, which is just dumb. If your country is funded on the rights to kill each other, then maybe it's time to look at those fundamentals and change them.
|
I was gonna say, comparing an everyday appliance to a gun is a little bit.. moronic.
Especially considering that A: cars are already heavily regulated (driving license, speed limits, laws for behaviour, traffic rules, safety inspections, insurance and more) and B: they're not designed purely to kill things.
Though i suppose it's good that this argument doesn't die out, it makes it easy to spot people who'd lie through their teeth to justify owning guns with little to no regulation.
As a brief sidenote, in regards to cars, nascars/indy cars are not street legal. In many states, assault rifles/military style rifles are. Hell, "equipment" like bump stocks or drum mags are still entirely legal and fine to obtain.
|
On July 02 2018 15:24 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2018 13:27 Sermokala wrote: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. Well I'll posit to you something. That the debate over gun control is really the debate over peoples lives vs peoples convince. And that people are okay with that tradeoff. We already make it everyday, Look at the amount of people that die from vehicle related accidents. How many of those lives would be saved every year if we lowered the speed limit just ten miles an hour or even five? But we won't do that because we've accepted that we'd rather be able to get to where we want to get going more then saving those lives. If you want to get even lower then that how many lives would be saved by banning peanuts from public restaurants? Or shit lets just ban cigarettes already beacuse for fucks sake we know they kill tons of people. This is a comparison which has been debunked so many times now. Guns != Vehicles. First off, vehicles have a purpose other than entertainment, which the vast majority of the population uses it for. Guns can have a purpose, mainly hunting, but often does not (And regulations to require hunting licenses for buying guns are not on the table). Secondly vehicles are being scrutinized every day to make sure they are safer, including strict regulations. You can't just go to a dealer ship and buy a car, you need to take tests and exams first. Thirdly any attempt at regulating cars further doesn't immediately get shut down with "It's mah right!", even if vehicles are inherently many times more useful and necessary than guns, in fact it happens regularly. If you look at the two in a vacuum, then guns should be more regulated, not less. The only real difference is that one is in the constitution and one is not, which is just dumb. If your country is funded on the rights to kill each other, then maybe it's time to look at those fundamentals and change them.
The 2nd Amendment is based on an interpretation of the original text. The spirit of the constitution according to D.C. vs Heller is that owning a firearm is a fundamental right based on the premise that the founding fathers did use personal firearms for their defense during the Revolutionary War, exploration of the American frontier, and even years forward during the Westward expansion.
Many other countries also have firearms guaranteed according to their constitution, Mexico, Switzerland, and many others have guarantee firearms as a fundamental right. This idea that somehow America is the only country that is 'unique' in that it guarantees the right to use firearms is asinine. What is true is that America does have a fundamental issue with firearm violence in general, however it has been trending downwards for decades now. I'd also argue that America also has an issue with mass shooters in general, which can only be contributed somewhat to lax firearm laws, although I'd argue is uniquely only in America.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
Shows that there's been an downward trend of firearm violence in general in the United States, so it's not a massive epidemic that lots of people like to make it out to be. I will concede that in 2016 and on, there has been an upward tick in firearm related violence along with mass shootings. Again, I'd also like to point out that many other countries also carry a significant amount of guns per capita but still don't have the same issues as the United States. I think most of that is contributed to other social and economic factors rather than firearm laws, although if you'd argue that people would feel safer because of extra firearm regulations so be it. What people need to stop pretending though is as though that their 'concession' is real. Most people posting in this thread against guns in general have already stated that they would rather ban all firearms, but because they feel it isn't 'realistic' they'd have to settle for some regulation. That's not really a good way to convince anyone from the opposing side that you actually understand the opposing side's argument.
What I would like to see happen? Something similar to auto regulations. It's silly that you are able to buy a firearm without being forced to take a safety course. It's one of the many reasons why I have always recommended people that are interested in purchasing one to take a basic course with certified NRA instructors (who are quite pro-gun safety). It's funny because if you look at many of the 'strictest' states in terms of gun laws, they are the same ones with some of the dumbest laws when it comes to concealed carry.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/02/live-fire-training-not-mandatory-concealed-carry-permits/
And before someone goes on and shits on my source, please do realize that is the most anti-firearm source possible. Out of those 26 states that allow concealed carry, they do not require you to take any kind of live firearm training. Think of how dumb that actually is. It would be akin to me handing you the keys to a car after a basic introductory course without you ever having driven a car.
A mandatory state registration would also work, but it would have to be done under the premise that it was meant for public safety and that the opposing side needs to demonstrate that it's not going to be small step to either stricter firearm laws, or towards an outright firearm ban. Despite what people like to say, most underlying intentions are not revealed publicly. We can easily see that with the amount of secret Donald Trump supporters there were that came out and voted in the previous U.S. election, who were likely afraid to be criticized. If a mandatory state by state registration was to take place, those laws would need to be passed in good faith, and they only way you'd do that is you'd convince the other side that this is good policy, and not a partisan attempt to get rid of firearms.
Most reasonable gun owners can be convinced of these things, however it is extremely easily to alienate the 25-30 million firearm owners across the nation when you say things like "the blood of children are on your hands" to them. Despite the fact that the NRA leadership is actually batshit crazy at times, they have an easy stance to stand by, which is that they refuse any kind of legislation because they believe that any kind of legislation is only the liberal left's attempt to push forward with the intention to get to a full out firearm ban. And would they actually be wrong? Not entirely, considering half this thread's gun control advocates have full on already stated their opinion that they would rather see firearms entirely banned more than anything, but due to surrounding circumstances they have to accept a smaller step instead.
|
On July 02 2018 22:05 superstartran wrote:
Most people posting in this thread against guns in general have already stated that they would rather ban all firearms, but because they feel it isn't 'realistic' they'd have to settle for some regulation. That's not really a good way to convince anyone from the opposing side that you actually understand the opposing side's argument.
You know would get a lot farther with our discussions if you stopped making these overly broad generalizations. It seems to be some misguided effort to push everyone into one corner so they can be collectively dismissed.
|
On July 02 2018 22:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2018 22:05 superstartran wrote:
Most people posting in this thread against guns in general have already stated that they would rather ban all firearms, but because they feel it isn't 'realistic' they'd have to settle for some regulation. That's not really a good way to convince anyone from the opposing side that you actually understand the opposing side's argument.
You know would get a lot farther with our discussions if you stopped making these overly broad generalizations. It seems to be some misguided effort to push everyone into one corner so they can be collectively dismissed.
You mean like.......... almost everyone that has argued as a gun control advocate in this thread? Pretty much all of them believe the 2nd Amendment to be stupid and that if possible, their utopia would be to ban all firearms. This isn't a generalization, this is an actual fact, or do you actually want me to comb through this entire thread and give you examples?
|
On July 02 2018 22:25 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2018 22:13 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2018 22:05 superstartran wrote:
Most people posting in this thread against guns in general have already stated that they would rather ban all firearms, but because they feel it isn't 'realistic' they'd have to settle for some regulation. That's not really a good way to convince anyone from the opposing side that you actually understand the opposing side's argument.
You know would get a lot farther with our discussions if you stopped making these overly broad generalizations. It seems to be some misguided effort to push everyone into one corner so they can be collectively dismissed. You mean like.......... almost everyone that has argued as a gun control advocate in this thread? Pretty much all of them believe the 2nd Amendment to be stupid and that if possible, their utopia would be to ban all firearms. This isn't a generalization, this is an actual fact, or do you actually want me to comb through this entire thread and give you examples?
You do understand the nature of compromise, right?
People start with different views and try to come up with a solution that meets in the middle somewhere.
You can't just say "They want something that I don't want them to have so I'm never going to listen to anything they say about the subject."
You're whole point here is that because someone would prefer for there to be no guns, you can't even discuss gun control with them.
|
No. That is not the case. If you spent the time to discuss people’s positions to get a better understanding, you would know that isn’t true. Rather than performance of faux outrage about how put upon gun owners are.
|
On July 02 2018 22:32 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2018 22:25 superstartran wrote:On July 02 2018 22:13 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2018 22:05 superstartran wrote:
Most people posting in this thread against guns in general have already stated that they would rather ban all firearms, but because they feel it isn't 'realistic' they'd have to settle for some regulation. That's not really a good way to convince anyone from the opposing side that you actually understand the opposing side's argument.
You know would get a lot farther with our discussions if you stopped making these overly broad generalizations. It seems to be some misguided effort to push everyone into one corner so they can be collectively dismissed. You mean like.......... almost everyone that has argued as a gun control advocate in this thread? Pretty much all of them believe the 2nd Amendment to be stupid and that if possible, their utopia would be to ban all firearms. This isn't a generalization, this is an actual fact, or do you actually want me to comb through this entire thread and give you examples? You do understand the nature of compromise, right? People start with different views and try to come up with a solution that meets in the middle somewhere. You can't just say "They want something that I don't want them to have so I'm never going to listen to anything they say about the subject." You're whole point here is that because someone would prefer for there to be no guns, you can't even discuss gun control with them.
Let me give you an example. Just because the KKK makes some concessions not to be openly racist doesn't mean they are making any real concessions, they are merely adapting because of circumstances and not because they are making a concession in good faith.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
There isn't a single democratic country in the world that ban all firearms. Even if there was no rural areas, usually there are gun clubs and the like, because safe shooting for fun is allowed. Gun control does not equal ban all firearms. Your position is just made up.
|
The compromise position between "no guns" and "guns" is "some guns".
The compromise position between "some guns" and "guns" is "slightly less guns".
Which is actually why super takes this position, not because he's terrified that people are coming for his guns eventually. By refusing to even consider a position that is opposed to his and forcing you to start from the compromise position, he strengthens his position in the debate. His next move won't be to move slightly toward you because you've started to compromise, his next move will be to demand that you compromise some more.
|
On July 02 2018 22:42 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2018 22:32 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 02 2018 22:25 superstartran wrote:On July 02 2018 22:13 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2018 22:05 superstartran wrote:
Most people posting in this thread against guns in general have already stated that they would rather ban all firearms, but because they feel it isn't 'realistic' they'd have to settle for some regulation. That's not really a good way to convince anyone from the opposing side that you actually understand the opposing side's argument.
You know would get a lot farther with our discussions if you stopped making these overly broad generalizations. It seems to be some misguided effort to push everyone into one corner so they can be collectively dismissed. You mean like.......... almost everyone that has argued as a gun control advocate in this thread? Pretty much all of them believe the 2nd Amendment to be stupid and that if possible, their utopia would be to ban all firearms. This isn't a generalization, this is an actual fact, or do you actually want me to comb through this entire thread and give you examples? You do understand the nature of compromise, right? People start with different views and try to come up with a solution that meets in the middle somewhere. You can't just say "They want something that I don't want them to have so I'm never going to listen to anything they say about the subject." You're whole point here is that because someone would prefer for there to be no guns, you can't even discuss gun control with them. Let me give you an example. Just because the KKK makes some concessions not to be openly racist doesn't mean they are making any real concessions, they are merely adapting because of circumstances and not because they are making a concession in good faith.
Did you just compare the gun control advocates in this thread to the KKK in an effort to argue those posters are not acting in good faith?
|
On July 02 2018 22:46 Nebuchad wrote:
The compromise position between "no guns" and "guns" is "some guns".
The compromise position between "some guns" and "guns" is "slightly less guns".
Which is actually why super takes this position, not because he's terrified that people are coming for his guns eventually.
My position is more in line with
"I'd rather not be hassled with thousands of restrictions that were thought up by some idiot who couldn't even operate a firearm."
On July 02 2018 22:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2018 22:42 superstartran wrote:On July 02 2018 22:32 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 02 2018 22:25 superstartran wrote:On July 02 2018 22:13 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2018 22:05 superstartran wrote:
Most people posting in this thread against guns in general have already stated that they would rather ban all firearms, but because they feel it isn't 'realistic' they'd have to settle for some regulation. That's not really a good way to convince anyone from the opposing side that you actually understand the opposing side's argument.
You know would get a lot farther with our discussions if you stopped making these overly broad generalizations. It seems to be some misguided effort to push everyone into one corner so they can be collectively dismissed. You mean like.......... almost everyone that has argued as a gun control advocate in this thread? Pretty much all of them believe the 2nd Amendment to be stupid and that if possible, their utopia would be to ban all firearms. This isn't a generalization, this is an actual fact, or do you actually want me to comb through this entire thread and give you examples? You do understand the nature of compromise, right? People start with different views and try to come up with a solution that meets in the middle somewhere. You can't just say "They want something that I don't want them to have so I'm never going to listen to anything they say about the subject." You're whole point here is that because someone would prefer for there to be no guns, you can't even discuss gun control with them. Let me give you an example. Just because the KKK makes some concessions not to be openly racist doesn't mean they are making any real concessions, they are merely adapting because of circumstances and not because they are making a concession in good faith. Did you just compare the gun control advocates in this thread to the KKK in an effort to argue those posters are not acting in good faith?
It's an extreme example to demonstrate a point. Just because one makes 'concessions' does not mean they are making concessions in 'good faith.' Gun owners want the other side to understand that firearms are a fundamental right. You want regulation along with the other side. If we're to come to some middle ground, you (not you specifically, but the other side) need to concede in good faith, because most past firearm legislation has led to much stricter legislation that has all but virtually banned most forms of firearms.
|
It's not really clear if there is any reasoning behind superstartstrain, so it is pointless conjecture, but his position is to have no change to American gun control laws, under the reasoning that to have any change is undesirable for him.
|
On July 02 2018 22:48 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2018 22:46 Nebuchad wrote:
The compromise position between "no guns" and "guns" is "some guns".
The compromise position between "some guns" and "guns" is "slightly less guns".
Which is actually why super takes this position, not because he's terrified that people are coming for his guns eventually. My position is more in line with "I'd rather not be hassled with thousands of restrictions that were thought up by some idiot who couldn't even operate a firearm."
That isn't true. Nothing in that stated position requires you not to consider what anti-gun advocates would say.
|
On July 02 2018 22:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2018 22:42 superstartran wrote:On July 02 2018 22:32 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 02 2018 22:25 superstartran wrote:On July 02 2018 22:13 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2018 22:05 superstartran wrote:
Most people posting in this thread against guns in general have already stated that they would rather ban all firearms, but because they feel it isn't 'realistic' they'd have to settle for some regulation. That's not really a good way to convince anyone from the opposing side that you actually understand the opposing side's argument.
You know would get a lot farther with our discussions if you stopped making these overly broad generalizations. It seems to be some misguided effort to push everyone into one corner so they can be collectively dismissed. You mean like.......... almost everyone that has argued as a gun control advocate in this thread? Pretty much all of them believe the 2nd Amendment to be stupid and that if possible, their utopia would be to ban all firearms. This isn't a generalization, this is an actual fact, or do you actually want me to comb through this entire thread and give you examples? You do understand the nature of compromise, right? People start with different views and try to come up with a solution that meets in the middle somewhere. You can't just say "They want something that I don't want them to have so I'm never going to listen to anything they say about the subject." You're whole point here is that because someone would prefer for there to be no guns, you can't even discuss gun control with them. Let me give you an example. Just because the KKK makes some concessions not to be openly racist doesn't mean they are making any real concessions, they are merely adapting because of circumstances and not because they are making a concession in good faith. Did you just compare the gun control advocates in this thread to the KKK in an effort to argue those posters are not acting in good faith?
This pretty much renders further discussion with him moot. No-one can discuss anything on these terms.
|
On July 02 2018 22:48 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2018 22:46 Nebuchad wrote:
The compromise position between "no guns" and "guns" is "some guns".
The compromise position between "some guns" and "guns" is "slightly less guns".
Which is actually why super takes this position, not because he's terrified that people are coming for his guns eventually. My position is more in line with "I'd rather not be hassled with thousands of restrictions that were thought up by some idiot who couldn't even operate a firearm."
Who is this idiot you keep refering to? Is it somebody you have invented for the sake of your made up argument?
|
On July 02 2018 22:49 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2018 22:48 superstartran wrote:On July 02 2018 22:46 Nebuchad wrote:
The compromise position between "no guns" and "guns" is "some guns".
The compromise position between "some guns" and "guns" is "slightly less guns".
Which is actually why super takes this position, not because he's terrified that people are coming for his guns eventually. My position is more in line with "I'd rather not be hassled with thousands of restrictions that were thought up by some idiot who couldn't even operate a firearm." That isn't true. Nothing in that stated position requires you not to consider what anti-gun advocates would say.
I think my above post has quite reasonable regulations. For a gun registration to get passed though on a state by state nation wide basis, you'd need to convince the gun owners/lobbyists that you want gun registration in good faith. This would require the left to stop saying things like 'ban assault style weapons.'
|
On July 02 2018 22:53 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2018 22:49 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2018 22:48 superstartran wrote:On July 02 2018 22:46 Nebuchad wrote:
The compromise position between "no guns" and "guns" is "some guns".
The compromise position between "some guns" and "guns" is "slightly less guns".
Which is actually why super takes this position, not because he's terrified that people are coming for his guns eventually. My position is more in line with "I'd rather not be hassled with thousands of restrictions that were thought up by some idiot who couldn't even operate a firearm." That isn't true. Nothing in that stated position requires you not to consider what anti-gun advocates would say. I think my above post has quite reasonable regulations. For a gun registration to get passed though on a state by state nation wide basis, you'd need to convince the gun owners/lobbyists that you want gun registration in good faith. This would require the left to stop saying things like 'ban assault style weapons.'
Why? You know the left doesn’t have universal control over everyone who can speak publicly on the matter. If you want to negotiate in good faith, you should do so without unrealistic pre-conditions you know can’t be met.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
