|
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 September 08 2018 22:18 Jumperer wrote:
The elites want to take guns away from the population so in the future(50-200 years) when they pull a 1984 no one would be able to resist. Now, guns are a problem but since there are way too many guns right now illegally and legally in the US it's difficult to simply restrict guns. Furthermore, Gun violence happens all the time in gun-free zones and gun-free countries.
Lastly, the root cause of gun violence stems from mental illness. You don't ban cars or driving just because some idiots killed someone via drunk driving. You solve that problem by preventing drunk people from driving. You can go one level deeper and attempt to reduce drinking rates. Same with these mass shootings, improve society and implement social policy that deal with people with mental illness better. If you want to cut a tree and stop it from growing, we need to identify and cut the root rather than cut the leafs repeatedly and hope the tree stop growing.
However, if I were to start a new country I would probably ban guns.
This must be one of the most prototypical pro-gun posts.
Even if we ignore the conspiracy nonsense, the remainder is still all simply untrue and incredibly superficial analysis of a situation.
Gun violence stems from mental illness:
Okay, two things:
A) "wanting to shoot someone" is not enough of a symptom to diagnose mental illness. This is a very superficial take on mental illnesses, and
B) So how is that dealing with mental illnesses going? Do you have any systems in place that allows anyone to be diagnosed and treated for mental illnesses, even poor people? Are there any plans on doing anything like that?
Drunk driving comparison:
A) Cars actually fill a function in society which at this point seems to be impossible to fill through any other means, and which is essential to the functioning of a modern country. Guns do not.
B) There are a lot of checks to make sure people are at least superficially competent when they drive a car. What do you think about having to take a test if you want to own a gun? A gun-drivers-license of some sort? And maybe force gun owners to get insurance for the damage their guns may cause to others? Strict laws against drunk gunning?
Gun violence in gun free zones and countries:
Untrue: If there is a reasonable barrier in place, countries with less guns have less gun violence. If you can just drive 50 miles and get a gun without the regulations, of course that regulation does not have any real effect. Sure, it does not completely stop to exist even in countries with reasonable gun laws. But it occurs a lot less often.
Trees: If you cut off the leaves of a tree repeatedly all the time, it will eventually die. You don't have to do anything to the roots of a tree to stop it from growing.
Mass shootings:
If you want people to stop shooting up random people, there are multiple approaches that are valid. Making people not want to do that is one of them, and should definitively be pursued. But making people not able to do that is also a reasonable approach. Making guns harder to get makes it harder for someone that wants to shoot up random people to get one, and makes it more likely that they trip off the police at some point. If i wanted to get a gun to shoot up some place in Germany, i have literally no idea where to start. I guess i could join a shooting club and be a sports shooter for a few years. Or talk to random people in shady bars hoping they are hells angels?
|
I wonder what is the objection against having a gun license similar to a car license with training + exams?
In the Netherlands you can't get a gun license (handguns and hunting rifles) before having been a member of a gun sports club for a year, (or be a certified hunter).
Maybe a year membership is too much for America, but wouldnt some kind of mandatory training + exam for a license to own a deadly weapon be a good idea?
Danglars, Id like to hear your thoughts.
|
I can tell you the response:
2nd Amendment says it's a right, and if the government gets to decide who can own a gun or under which circumstances, then it is not a right, and that means that you are a subject and not a citizen.
|
It also really annoys me when people default to guns being a "mental illness" issue in this country. To start with, we barely give a shit about our mentally ill. And I don't think they appreciate being made a scapegoat for a massively, extremely problematic issue, that really, by and large, has nothing to do with mentally ill people. The pro-gun argument likes to talk about the mentally ill as if they're not even human beings, they're just a garbage bin you can toss all the pro-regulation arguments into.
|
On September 08 2018 22:18 Jumperer wrote:
The elites want to take guns away from the population so in the future(50-200 years) when they pull a 1984 no one would be able to resist. Now, guns are a problem but since there are way too many guns right now illegally and legally in the US it's difficult to simply restrict guns. Furthermore, Gun violence happens all the time in gun-free zones and gun-free countries.
Lastly, the root cause of gun violence stems from mental illness. You don't ban cars or driving just because some idiots killed someone via drunk driving. You solve that problem by preventing drunk people from driving. You can go one level deeper and attempt to reduce drinking rates. Same with these mass shootings, improve society and implement social policy that deal with people with mental illness better. If you want to cut a tree and stop it from growing, we need to identify and cut the root rather than cut the leafs repeatedly and hope the tree stop growing.
However, if I were to start a new country I would probably ban guns.
I really hate the comparison between a car and a gun. One is for transportation, the other one is to kill.
|
On September 08 2018 22:18 Jumperer wrote:
However, if I were to start a new country I would probably ban guns.
Wait what..? So if you're making a new country you're allowed to learn from another other country and make improvements, but if you're in an existing one you're not allowed to fix your own mistakes? Of all the nonsense you've spouted so far, I think this is the sentence which makes the least sense.
|
|
|
On September 09 2018 00:41 solidbebe wrote:
I wonder what is the objection against having a gun license similar to a car license with training + exams?
In the Netherlands you can't get a gun license (handguns and hunting rifles) before having been a member of a gun sports club for a year, (or be a certified hunter).
Maybe a year membership is too much for America, but wouldnt some kind of mandatory training + exam for a license to own a deadly weapon be a good idea?
Danglars, Id like to hear your thoughts.
I'm okay with short waiting periods. I'm okay with carry licenses, provided they're of the "shall issue." That's for carrying the gun in public outside the house.
Defense of your home & property should continue to not be subject to licensing requirements. It's a constitutional right very core to the right of self-defense, in my view.
|
On September 08 2018 22:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2018 11:58 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 10:09 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2018 09:54 Sermokala wrote:
I mean if your asumptions are fact why am I even in this conversation.
I was making a point about what you posted. You decided to change the conversation instead of discussing what I said. I never said anything about "der gona take our guns" but if you want to assume thats what this conversation is now you can do that on your own. If you are fine with regulation I don't think we have a argument at all. Just when some reasonable proposals are made, accept them. I assumed you were against regulating it, or didn't understand my point since you rolled in calling me a hypocrite. Jesus I've said this over and over again. The issue is that you can't just make a fallacious argument comparing one persons support for gun rights and their support for more regulation on gay marriage and abortion regulations. I see why you don't get it. I wasn't arguing that supporting gun rights and gay marriage and abortion are the same. I was arguing that if the reason you support guns is individual freedom and liberty, than why do you not value individual freedom and liberty on other issues.
Its the same thing. If you support individual freedom on other issues why don't you support it on guns?
|
|
|
United States24753 Posts
On September 09 2018 01:17 JelloKitty wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2018 22:18 Jumperer wrote:
The elites want to take guns away from the population so in the future(50-200 years) when they pull a 1984 no one would be able to resist. Now, guns are a problem but since there are way too many guns right now illegally and legally in the US it's difficult to simply restrict guns. Furthermore, Gun violence happens all the time in gun-free zones and gun-free countries.
Lastly, the root cause of gun violence stems from mental illness. You don't ban cars or driving just because some idiots killed someone via drunk driving. You solve that problem by preventing drunk people from driving. You can go one level deeper and attempt to reduce drinking rates. Same with these mass shootings, improve society and implement social policy that deal with people with mental illness better. If you want to cut a tree and stop it from growing, we need to identify and cut the root rather than cut the leafs repeatedly and hope the tree stop growing.
However, if I were to start a new country I would probably ban guns. I really hate the comparison between a car and a gun. One is for transportation, the other one is to kill.
What matters isn't what you think they are for. What matters is why people, overall, want/need them balanced against the risk they pose. Cars are a very important part of society across the country, despite being dangerous, and so various precautions are taken but most people can still have cars and drive. Private gun ownership is very important to a large portion of society, although a smaller portion than is the case for cars. Guns are also dangerous and so precautions should be taken, including some that are currently not being taken in some/all places of the country. My point is not that the gun situation is A-ok, but that comparisons to cars in principle is fine. A lot of people want guns to be treated like cars in terms of licensing and required training.
|
On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:28 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2018 04:23 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:10 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2018 03:59 Danglars wrote:On September 08 2018 03:11 evilfatsh1t wrote:
umm...do you understand how your political system works? aside from trumps' very questionable appointments, typically individuals that are experts in their certain field are appointed to provide input in relation to their field. the fact that they take the job and they studied that area make them much more suitable and capable than your average barista. i mean...this kind of logic is like "why should we listen to nasa about space travel? what makes them more qualified?" or "why should we listen to doctors about medicine? im pretty sure i know better about vaccines". I stated exactly the problems I had with your characterization of the political system in my last post. It is in fact very different that listening to doctors about medicine. And I don't know about you, but I might trust the average barista more than I trust Trump, understand? So in fact for our differences, I'd discuss the points I raised previously, because nothing has changed here. We both know every disastrous and great legislation both have their starts in someone with the label of "expert in ..." and this is mere restatement of the previous post I responded to. also, name me any single piece of legislation that was discussed by your citizens before it was passed in government. zero.
whether you like it or not, the most influence citizens have outside of actual elections is voicing approval. no government in the world has ever asked the general population to take part in the discussion of the particulars for any implementation of any law. Obamacare. Citizens tossed out all the great majority of politicians that voted for it. Citizens had discussed socialized medicine, subsidies, and various carrot-and-stick models for a very long time before that. See the previous debate over Hillarycare back in the 90s. In fact, legislation passed without prior citizen input is one of those telling signs for a tyrannical government, you know! and since you seem to think a tyrannical government is still a possibility why dont you highlight us a picture of how exactly that scenario could come to be and how it would play out. you want to be part of the discussion when your government passes laws right? surely then you have at least the bare minimum ability to guess how things would play out in hypothetical scenarios? id be very interested to hear your story of how the general public would heroically overthrow the entire US goverment and why such actions may have been required in the first place How about a distant government in Washington DC votes an ordinary bill to make gun ownership illegal, and a friendly supreme court adopts some of the views espoused in the minority opinion of Heller and says the second amendment doesn't really mean what you think it means. There's one. How about your state declares that racism against whites isn't really racism, and they owe a reparation tax, and a friendly court agrees that there's no constitutional violations because of historical discrimination. How about the same cultural allies declare that free speech does not protect hate speech, and pastors disagreeing with gay marriage and private schools disagreeing with transgenderism must change their rhetoric or risk fines (or jail)? Those are several either opening shots leading down the chain of tyranny, or final conclusions to a different chain of smaller offenses. But the same problem exists as part of a fire. You don't need a great imagination to assess how a fire might start to know the need for fire extinguishing methods. It lends itself to mockery and parodies of the various doomsday scenarios, not the rational citizens recognition that an armed citizenry is the first bulwark against future government tyranny. Many countries have declared this point, usually specific to certain types of hate speech. I'm not sure how it has hurt society. Even the USA has some rules regarding hate speech. Based on this, you must be really angry at the parts of the republican party that are trying to take away the rights of women to choose on pregnancy, and the rights of people to marry whoever they want regardless of gender? Arn't you just opening yourself up for the same question phrased back to you while also being on topic while yours isn't? I mean your argument just boils down to "my hipocracy is better then yours so ha". Whats my hypocrisy? If you are specific I'll attempt to answer. If it is about individuals rights and freedoms, I'm completely ok with regulation. I think speed limits are a good thing, I'm completely fine with abortions being regulated. And I am fine with gun regulation. You snarked that Danglers must feel bad about being pro life and against gay marriage beacuse of their non constitutional rights but had a problem with people restricting a constitutional right. Isn't the same argument that you're for gay marriage and pro choice but against the peoples right to bear arms? What is this snarking business? Both you and Danglars complain about snarking when someone puts forth a position different from your own frequently and quite frankly it is rather tiring. Also you Sermakola don't seem to understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Medicine for instance is regulated but not illegal. This is very clear and simple, I don't understand how you can equivocate or confuse the two together. Ok I don't think you understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Automatic weapons in america are regulated and illegal. Medicine is regulated and illegal. You're the one confused about the word yet you want to prejudice the conversation with you opinion. Do you really think that the conversation will go well after that or are you just barking for barkings sake?
Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it.
|
On September 09 2018 02:06 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 01:17 JelloKitty wrote:On September 08 2018 22:18 Jumperer wrote:
The elites want to take guns away from the population so in the future(50-200 years) when they pull a 1984 no one would be able to resist. Now, guns are a problem but since there are way too many guns right now illegally and legally in the US it's difficult to simply restrict guns. Furthermore, Gun violence happens all the time in gun-free zones and gun-free countries.
Lastly, the root cause of gun violence stems from mental illness. You don't ban cars or driving just because some idiots killed someone via drunk driving. You solve that problem by preventing drunk people from driving. You can go one level deeper and attempt to reduce drinking rates. Same with these mass shootings, improve society and implement social policy that deal with people with mental illness better. If you want to cut a tree and stop it from growing, we need to identify and cut the root rather than cut the leafs repeatedly and hope the tree stop growing.
However, if I were to start a new country I would probably ban guns. I really hate the comparison between a car and a gun. One is for transportation, the other one is to kill. What matters isn't what you think they are for. What matters is why people, overall, want/need them balanced against the risk they pose. Cars are a very important part of society across the country, despite being dangerous, and so various precautions are taken but most people can still have cars and drive. Private gun ownership is very important to a large portion of society, although a smaller portion than is the case for cars. Guns are also dangerous and so precautions should be taken, including some that are currently not being taken in some/all places of the country. My point is not that the gun situation is A-ok, but that comparisons to cars in principle is fine. A lot of people want guns to be treated like cars in terms of licensing and required training.
the relative importance seems quite disparate. There's a difference between people feeling something is important, and it actually being important. (i.e. people may feel that football is very important in their lives, but if it were removed the actual impact wouldn't be that big).
Few people need guns to the extent that many people need cars.
hence I conclude that, while there is some merit to a car comparison, there's also more than enough room to make very inapt comparisons. as many pro-gun folks ignore the vast difference in average need of guns as compared to cars.
especially since here, the context is you defending jumperer.
|
On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:28 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2018 04:23 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:10 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2018 03:59 Danglars wrote:On September 08 2018 03:11 evilfatsh1t wrote:
umm...do you understand how your political system works? aside from trumps' very questionable appointments, typically individuals that are experts in their certain field are appointed to provide input in relation to their field. the fact that they take the job and they studied that area make them much more suitable and capable than your average barista. i mean...this kind of logic is like "why should we listen to nasa about space travel? what makes them more qualified?" or "why should we listen to doctors about medicine? im pretty sure i know better about vaccines". I stated exactly the problems I had with your characterization of the political system in my last post. It is in fact very different that listening to doctors about medicine. And I don't know about you, but I might trust the average barista more than I trust Trump, understand? So in fact for our differences, I'd discuss the points I raised previously, because nothing has changed here. We both know every disastrous and great legislation both have their starts in someone with the label of "expert in ..." and this is mere restatement of the previous post I responded to. also, name me any single piece of legislation that was discussed by your citizens before it was passed in government. zero.
whether you like it or not, the most influence citizens have outside of actual elections is voicing approval. no government in the world has ever asked the general population to take part in the discussion of the particulars for any implementation of any law. Obamacare. Citizens tossed out all the great majority of politicians that voted for it. Citizens had discussed socialized medicine, subsidies, and various carrot-and-stick models for a very long time before that. See the previous debate over Hillarycare back in the 90s. In fact, legislation passed without prior citizen input is one of those telling signs for a tyrannical government, you know! and since you seem to think a tyrannical government is still a possibility why dont you highlight us a picture of how exactly that scenario could come to be and how it would play out. you want to be part of the discussion when your government passes laws right? surely then you have at least the bare minimum ability to guess how things would play out in hypothetical scenarios? id be very interested to hear your story of how the general public would heroically overthrow the entire US goverment and why such actions may have been required in the first place How about a distant government in Washington DC votes an ordinary bill to make gun ownership illegal, and a friendly supreme court adopts some of the views espoused in the minority opinion of Heller and says the second amendment doesn't really mean what you think it means. There's one. How about your state declares that racism against whites isn't really racism, and they owe a reparation tax, and a friendly court agrees that there's no constitutional violations because of historical discrimination. How about the same cultural allies declare that free speech does not protect hate speech, and pastors disagreeing with gay marriage and private schools disagreeing with transgenderism must change their rhetoric or risk fines (or jail)? Those are several either opening shots leading down the chain of tyranny, or final conclusions to a different chain of smaller offenses. But the same problem exists as part of a fire. You don't need a great imagination to assess how a fire might start to know the need for fire extinguishing methods. It lends itself to mockery and parodies of the various doomsday scenarios, not the rational citizens recognition that an armed citizenry is the first bulwark against future government tyranny. Many countries have declared this point, usually specific to certain types of hate speech. I'm not sure how it has hurt society. Even the USA has some rules regarding hate speech. Based on this, you must be really angry at the parts of the republican party that are trying to take away the rights of women to choose on pregnancy, and the rights of people to marry whoever they want regardless of gender? Arn't you just opening yourself up for the same question phrased back to you while also being on topic while yours isn't? I mean your argument just boils down to "my hipocracy is better then yours so ha". Whats my hypocrisy? If you are specific I'll attempt to answer. If it is about individuals rights and freedoms, I'm completely ok with regulation. I think speed limits are a good thing, I'm completely fine with abortions being regulated. And I am fine with gun regulation. You snarked that Danglers must feel bad about being pro life and against gay marriage beacuse of their non constitutional rights but had a problem with people restricting a constitutional right. Isn't the same argument that you're for gay marriage and pro choice but against the peoples right to bear arms? What is this snarking business? Both you and Danglars complain about snarking when someone puts forth a position different from your own frequently and quite frankly it is rather tiring. Also you Sermakola don't seem to understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Medicine for instance is regulated but not illegal. This is very clear and simple, I don't understand how you can equivocate or confuse the two together. Ok I don't think you understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Automatic weapons in america are regulated and illegal. Medicine is regulated and illegal. You're the one confused about the word yet you want to prejudice the conversation with you opinion. Do you really think that the conversation will go well after that or are you just barking for barkings sake? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it.
Automatic weapons are illegal in america but you can get one if you go through ATF regulations. Medicine has controlled substances lists that make some illegal under most circumstances but legal under others. I mean cars are illegal unless you follow the proscribed regulations on them.
|
United States24753 Posts
On September 09 2018 03:00 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 02:06 micronesia wrote:On September 09 2018 01:17 JelloKitty wrote:On September 08 2018 22:18 Jumperer wrote:
The elites want to take guns away from the population so in the future(50-200 years) when they pull a 1984 no one would be able to resist. Now, guns are a problem but since there are way too many guns right now illegally and legally in the US it's difficult to simply restrict guns. Furthermore, Gun violence happens all the time in gun-free zones and gun-free countries.
Lastly, the root cause of gun violence stems from mental illness. You don't ban cars or driving just because some idiots killed someone via drunk driving. You solve that problem by preventing drunk people from driving. You can go one level deeper and attempt to reduce drinking rates. Same with these mass shootings, improve society and implement social policy that deal with people with mental illness better. If you want to cut a tree and stop it from growing, we need to identify and cut the root rather than cut the leafs repeatedly and hope the tree stop growing.
However, if I were to start a new country I would probably ban guns. I really hate the comparison between a car and a gun. One is for transportation, the other one is to kill. What matters isn't what you think they are for. What matters is why people, overall, want/need them balanced against the risk they pose. Cars are a very important part of society across the country, despite being dangerous, and so various precautions are taken but most people can still have cars and drive. Private gun ownership is very important to a large portion of society, although a smaller portion than is the case for cars. Guns are also dangerous and so precautions should be taken, including some that are currently not being taken in some/all places of the country. My point is not that the gun situation is A-ok, but that comparisons to cars in principle is fine. A lot of people want guns to be treated like cars in terms of licensing and required training. the relative importance seems quite disparate. There's a difference between people feeling something is important, and it actually being important. (i.e. people may feel that football is very important in their lives, but if it were removed the actual impact wouldn't be that big). Few people need guns to the extent that many people need cars. hence I conclude that, while there is some merit to a car comparison, there's also more than enough room to make very inapt comparisons. as many pro-gun folks ignore the vast difference in average need of guns as compared to cars. especially since here, the context is you defending jumperer.
First of all, I'm not defending jumperer. I am discussing a point made by JelloKitty.
The fact that inapt comparisons can be made between cars and guns is not relevant to the point I was making. Anything that is non-identical to cars can be compared in an inapt manner. That doesn't mean by default we should avoid comparing that thing to cars. There are plenty of good comparisons that can be made between guns and cars, such as a couple of examples I mentioned in my previous post.
|
On September 09 2018 03:31 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 03:00 zlefin wrote:On September 09 2018 02:06 micronesia wrote:On September 09 2018 01:17 JelloKitty wrote:On September 08 2018 22:18 Jumperer wrote:
The elites want to take guns away from the population so in the future(50-200 years) when they pull a 1984 no one would be able to resist. Now, guns are a problem but since there are way too many guns right now illegally and legally in the US it's difficult to simply restrict guns. Furthermore, Gun violence happens all the time in gun-free zones and gun-free countries.
Lastly, the root cause of gun violence stems from mental illness. You don't ban cars or driving just because some idiots killed someone via drunk driving. You solve that problem by preventing drunk people from driving. You can go one level deeper and attempt to reduce drinking rates. Same with these mass shootings, improve society and implement social policy that deal with people with mental illness better. If you want to cut a tree and stop it from growing, we need to identify and cut the root rather than cut the leafs repeatedly and hope the tree stop growing.
However, if I were to start a new country I would probably ban guns. I really hate the comparison between a car and a gun. One is for transportation, the other one is to kill. What matters isn't what you think they are for. What matters is why people, overall, want/need them balanced against the risk they pose. Cars are a very important part of society across the country, despite being dangerous, and so various precautions are taken but most people can still have cars and drive. Private gun ownership is very important to a large portion of society, although a smaller portion than is the case for cars. Guns are also dangerous and so precautions should be taken, including some that are currently not being taken in some/all places of the country. My point is not that the gun situation is A-ok, but that comparisons to cars in principle is fine. A lot of people want guns to be treated like cars in terms of licensing and required training. the relative importance seems quite disparate. There's a difference between people feeling something is important, and it actually being important. (i.e. people may feel that football is very important in their lives, but if it were removed the actual impact wouldn't be that big). Few people need guns to the extent that many people need cars. hence I conclude that, while there is some merit to a car comparison, there's also more than enough room to make very inapt comparisons. as many pro-gun folks ignore the vast difference in average need of guns as compared to cars. especially since here, the context is you defending jumperer. First of all, I'm not defending jumperer. I am discussing a point made by JelloKitty. The fact that inapt comparisons can be made between cars and guns is not relevant to the point I was making. Anything that is non-identical to cars can be compared in an inapt manner. That doesn't mean by default we should avoid comparing that thing to cars. There are plenty of good comparisons that can be made between guns and cars, such as a couple of examples I mentioned in my previous post.
a point that jello made in direct response to jumperer, and that is part of the quote chain where you entered. so in context you are, to an extent, defending the aptness of jumperers comparison.
it might not be your intent; what with how complicated communication is, but you are in fact doing so to an extent.
the other issue ofc is the point that inapt comparisons are a common problem made in this context, so it's one that bears being extra careful with. your comparisons also have the issue that you pointedly ignored the vast discrepancy in need between the two, even after your next reply wherein it had already been pointed out.
|
On September 09 2018 03:03 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:28 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2018 04:23 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:10 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2018 03:59 Danglars wrote:On September 08 2018 03:11 evilfatsh1t wrote:
umm...do you understand how your political system works? aside from trumps' very questionable appointments, typically individuals that are experts in their certain field are appointed to provide input in relation to their field. the fact that they take the job and they studied that area make them much more suitable and capable than your average barista. i mean...this kind of logic is like "why should we listen to nasa about space travel? what makes them more qualified?" or "why should we listen to doctors about medicine? im pretty sure i know better about vaccines". I stated exactly the problems I had with your characterization of the political system in my last post. It is in fact very different that listening to doctors about medicine. And I don't know about you, but I might trust the average barista more than I trust Trump, understand? So in fact for our differences, I'd discuss the points I raised previously, because nothing has changed here. We both know every disastrous and great legislation both have their starts in someone with the label of "expert in ..." and this is mere restatement of the previous post I responded to. also, name me any single piece of legislation that was discussed by your citizens before it was passed in government. zero.
whether you like it or not, the most influence citizens have outside of actual elections is voicing approval. no government in the world has ever asked the general population to take part in the discussion of the particulars for any implementation of any law. Obamacare. Citizens tossed out all the great majority of politicians that voted for it. Citizens had discussed socialized medicine, subsidies, and various carrot-and-stick models for a very long time before that. See the previous debate over Hillarycare back in the 90s. In fact, legislation passed without prior citizen input is one of those telling signs for a tyrannical government, you know! and since you seem to think a tyrannical government is still a possibility why dont you highlight us a picture of how exactly that scenario could come to be and how it would play out. you want to be part of the discussion when your government passes laws right? surely then you have at least the bare minimum ability to guess how things would play out in hypothetical scenarios? id be very interested to hear your story of how the general public would heroically overthrow the entire US goverment and why such actions may have been required in the first place How about a distant government in Washington DC votes an ordinary bill to make gun ownership illegal, and a friendly supreme court adopts some of the views espoused in the minority opinion of Heller and says the second amendment doesn't really mean what you think it means. There's one. How about your state declares that racism against whites isn't really racism, and they owe a reparation tax, and a friendly court agrees that there's no constitutional violations because of historical discrimination. How about the same cultural allies declare that free speech does not protect hate speech, and pastors disagreeing with gay marriage and private schools disagreeing with transgenderism must change their rhetoric or risk fines (or jail)? Those are several either opening shots leading down the chain of tyranny, or final conclusions to a different chain of smaller offenses. But the same problem exists as part of a fire. You don't need a great imagination to assess how a fire might start to know the need for fire extinguishing methods. It lends itself to mockery and parodies of the various doomsday scenarios, not the rational citizens recognition that an armed citizenry is the first bulwark against future government tyranny. Many countries have declared this point, usually specific to certain types of hate speech. I'm not sure how it has hurt society. Even the USA has some rules regarding hate speech. Based on this, you must be really angry at the parts of the republican party that are trying to take away the rights of women to choose on pregnancy, and the rights of people to marry whoever they want regardless of gender? Arn't you just opening yourself up for the same question phrased back to you while also being on topic while yours isn't? I mean your argument just boils down to "my hipocracy is better then yours so ha". Whats my hypocrisy? If you are specific I'll attempt to answer. If it is about individuals rights and freedoms, I'm completely ok with regulation. I think speed limits are a good thing, I'm completely fine with abortions being regulated. And I am fine with gun regulation. You snarked that Danglers must feel bad about being pro life and against gay marriage beacuse of their non constitutional rights but had a problem with people restricting a constitutional right. Isn't the same argument that you're for gay marriage and pro choice but against the peoples right to bear arms? What is this snarking business? Both you and Danglars complain about snarking when someone puts forth a position different from your own frequently and quite frankly it is rather tiring. Also you Sermakola don't seem to understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Medicine for instance is regulated but not illegal. This is very clear and simple, I don't understand how you can equivocate or confuse the two together. Ok I don't think you understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Automatic weapons in america are regulated and illegal. Medicine is regulated and illegal. You're the one confused about the word yet you want to prejudice the conversation with you opinion. Do you really think that the conversation will go well after that or are you just barking for barkings sake? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. Automatic weapons are illegal in america but you can get one if you go through ATF regulations. Medicine has controlled substances lists that make some illegal under most circumstances but legal under others. I mean cars are illegal unless you follow the proscribed regulations on them.
But cars are regulated to the point where the vast majority of people who have one are safe, responsible owners who know how not to end a life on accident. And I don't see people complaining about how difficult it is to become a licensed driver. If you feel you need one, it's just what you do. I really don't think that makes the point you think it does.
|
On September 09 2018 03:41 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 03:03 Sermokala wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:28 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2018 04:23 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:10 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2018 03:59 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I stated exactly the problems I had with your characterization of the political system in my last post. It is in fact very different that listening to doctors about medicine. And I don't know about you, but I might trust the average barista more than I trust Trump, understand? So in fact for our differences, I'd discuss the points I raised previously, because nothing has changed here. We both know every disastrous and great legislation both have their starts in someone with the label of "expert in ..." and this is mere restatement of the previous post I responded to.
[quote]
Obamacare. Citizens tossed out all the great majority of politicians that voted for it. Citizens had discussed socialized medicine, subsidies, and various carrot-and-stick models for a very long time before that. See the previous debate over Hillarycare back in the 90s. In fact, legislation passed without prior citizen input is one of those telling signs for a tyrannical government, you know!
[quote]
How about a distant government in Washington DC votes an ordinary bill to make gun ownership illegal, and a friendly supreme court adopts some of the views espoused in the minority opinion of Heller and says the second amendment doesn't really mean what you think it means. There's one. How about your state declares that racism against whites isn't really racism, and they owe a reparation tax, and a friendly court agrees that there's no constitutional violations because of historical discrimination. How about the same cultural allies declare that free speech does not protect hate speech, and pastors disagreeing with gay marriage and private schools disagreeing with transgenderism must change their rhetoric or risk fines (or jail)? Those are several either opening shots leading down the chain of tyranny, or final conclusions to a different chain of smaller offenses.
But the same problem exists as part of a fire. You don't need a great imagination to assess how a fire might start to know the need for fire extinguishing methods. It lends itself to mockery and parodies of the various doomsday scenarios, not the rational citizens recognition that an armed citizenry is the first bulwark against future government tyranny. Many countries have declared this point, usually specific to certain types of hate speech. I'm not sure how it has hurt society. Even the USA has some rules regarding hate speech. Based on this, you must be really angry at the parts of the republican party that are trying to take away the rights of women to choose on pregnancy, and the rights of people to marry whoever they want regardless of gender? Arn't you just opening yourself up for the same question phrased back to you while also being on topic while yours isn't? I mean your argument just boils down to "my hipocracy is better then yours so ha". Whats my hypocrisy? If you are specific I'll attempt to answer. If it is about individuals rights and freedoms, I'm completely ok with regulation. I think speed limits are a good thing, I'm completely fine with abortions being regulated. And I am fine with gun regulation. You snarked that Danglers must feel bad about being pro life and against gay marriage beacuse of their non constitutional rights but had a problem with people restricting a constitutional right. Isn't the same argument that you're for gay marriage and pro choice but against the peoples right to bear arms? What is this snarking business? Both you and Danglars complain about snarking when someone puts forth a position different from your own frequently and quite frankly it is rather tiring. Also you Sermakola don't seem to understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Medicine for instance is regulated but not illegal. This is very clear and simple, I don't understand how you can equivocate or confuse the two together. Ok I don't think you understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Automatic weapons in america are regulated and illegal. Medicine is regulated and illegal. You're the one confused about the word yet you want to prejudice the conversation with you opinion. Do you really think that the conversation will go well after that or are you just barking for barkings sake? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. Automatic weapons are illegal in america but you can get one if you go through ATF regulations. Medicine has controlled substances lists that make some illegal under most circumstances but legal under others. I mean cars are illegal unless you follow the proscribed regulations on them. But cars are regulated to the point where the vast majority of people who have one are safe, responsible owners who know how not to end a life on accident. And I don't see people complaining about how difficult it is to become a licensed driver. If you feel you need one, it's just what you do. I really don't think that makes the point you think it does.
And the vast majority of people who own guns are responsible owners who know how to not end a life on accident. Unintentional shootings count for what two thousand a year? compared to the tens of thousands that die from traffic accidents?
|
On September 09 2018 03:52 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 03:41 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 03:03 Sermokala wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:28 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2018 04:23 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:10 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Many countries have declared this point, usually specific to certain types of hate speech. I'm not sure how it has hurt society. Even the USA has some rules regarding hate speech.
Based on this, you must be really angry at the parts of the republican party that are trying to take away the rights of women to choose on pregnancy, and the rights of people to marry whoever they want regardless of gender?
Arn't you just opening yourself up for the same question phrased back to you while also being on topic while yours isn't? I mean your argument just boils down to "my hipocracy is better then yours so ha". Whats my hypocrisy? If you are specific I'll attempt to answer. If it is about individuals rights and freedoms, I'm completely ok with regulation. I think speed limits are a good thing, I'm completely fine with abortions being regulated. And I am fine with gun regulation. You snarked that Danglers must feel bad about being pro life and against gay marriage beacuse of their non constitutional rights but had a problem with people restricting a constitutional right. Isn't the same argument that you're for gay marriage and pro choice but against the peoples right to bear arms? What is this snarking business? Both you and Danglars complain about snarking when someone puts forth a position different from your own frequently and quite frankly it is rather tiring. Also you Sermakola don't seem to understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Medicine for instance is regulated but not illegal. This is very clear and simple, I don't understand how you can equivocate or confuse the two together. Ok I don't think you understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Automatic weapons in america are regulated and illegal. Medicine is regulated and illegal. You're the one confused about the word yet you want to prejudice the conversation with you opinion. Do you really think that the conversation will go well after that or are you just barking for barkings sake? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. Automatic weapons are illegal in america but you can get one if you go through ATF regulations. Medicine has controlled substances lists that make some illegal under most circumstances but legal under others. I mean cars are illegal unless you follow the proscribed regulations on them. But cars are regulated to the point where the vast majority of people who have one are safe, responsible owners who know how not to end a life on accident. And I don't see people complaining about how difficult it is to become a licensed driver. If you feel you need one, it's just what you do. I really don't think that makes the point you think it does. And the vast majority of people who own guns are responsible owners who know how to not end a life on accident. Unintentional shootings count for what two thousand a year? compared to the tens of thousands that die from traffic accidents?
Maybe we should talk in percentage of owners and time used instead..? If we just take "people who died of x", then sleeping would be the most dangerous activity in your life.
|
United States24753 Posts
On September 09 2018 03:34 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 03:31 micronesia wrote:On September 09 2018 03:00 zlefin wrote:On September 09 2018 02:06 micronesia wrote:On September 09 2018 01:17 JelloKitty wrote:On September 08 2018 22:18 Jumperer wrote:
The elites want to take guns away from the population so in the future(50-200 years) when they pull a 1984 no one would be able to resist. Now, guns are a problem but since there are way too many guns right now illegally and legally in the US it's difficult to simply restrict guns. Furthermore, Gun violence happens all the time in gun-free zones and gun-free countries.
Lastly, the root cause of gun violence stems from mental illness. You don't ban cars or driving just because some idiots killed someone via drunk driving. You solve that problem by preventing drunk people from driving. You can go one level deeper and attempt to reduce drinking rates. Same with these mass shootings, improve society and implement social policy that deal with people with mental illness better. If you want to cut a tree and stop it from growing, we need to identify and cut the root rather than cut the leafs repeatedly and hope the tree stop growing.
However, if I were to start a new country I would probably ban guns. I really hate the comparison between a car and a gun. One is for transportation, the other one is to kill. What matters isn't what you think they are for. What matters is why people, overall, want/need them balanced against the risk they pose. Cars are a very important part of society across the country, despite being dangerous, and so various precautions are taken but most people can still have cars and drive. Private gun ownership is very important to a large portion of society, although a smaller portion than is the case for cars. Guns are also dangerous and so precautions should be taken, including some that are currently not being taken in some/all places of the country. My point is not that the gun situation is A-ok, but that comparisons to cars in principle is fine. A lot of people want guns to be treated like cars in terms of licensing and required training. the relative importance seems quite disparate. There's a difference between people feeling something is important, and it actually being important. (i.e. people may feel that football is very important in their lives, but if it were removed the actual impact wouldn't be that big). Few people need guns to the extent that many people need cars. hence I conclude that, while there is some merit to a car comparison, there's also more than enough room to make very inapt comparisons. as many pro-gun folks ignore the vast difference in average need of guns as compared to cars. especially since here, the context is you defending jumperer. First of all, I'm not defending jumperer. I am discussing a point made by JelloKitty. The fact that inapt comparisons can be made between cars and guns is not relevant to the point I was making. Anything that is non-identical to cars can be compared in an inapt manner. That doesn't mean by default we should avoid comparing that thing to cars. There are plenty of good comparisons that can be made between guns and cars, such as a couple of examples I mentioned in my previous post. a point that jello made in direct response to jumperer, and that is part of the quote chain where you entered. so in context you are, to an extent, defending the aptness of jumperers comparison. it might not be your intent; what with how complicated communication is, but you are in fact doing so to an extent. the other issue ofc is the point that inapt comparisons are a common problem made in this context, so it's one that bears being extra careful with. your comparisons also have the issue that you pointedly ignored the vast discrepancy in need between the two, even after your next reply wherein it had already been pointed out.
Let me get this straight. If jumperer says "Anyone who defends me is hitler," JelloKitty responds with "no, 1+1=3", and then I respond with "actually 1+1 is 2, not 3," I am to an extent defending jumperer? Somehow my intention to correct misconceptions about math resulted in me admitting I am Hitler. That is obviously ridiculous. The only reason why we are even having this seemingly pointless discussion is because you tried to discredit my point somewhat by pointing to what jumperer said, even though it didn't affect my point at all. I suggest you drop this portion of the conversation in case your want to argue for the sake of arguing.
I fully agree with you, in principle, about inapt comparisons being a concern and something to try to avoid, so long as we all recognize that it is generally okay to make comparisons. If you now want to go to a separate topic of questioning whether my specific comparisons were good or not, we can, but that neither supports or disproves my overall point I was making when I entered into the conversation.
Personally I just don't agree with your specific contention, but since I don't specifically need to defend it in order for my overall point to stand, I'm not going to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
