|
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. |
This is weird. Things becoming illegal is the result of regulation, not the alternative.
The base situation without regulations is one where a thing is always permitted in every case, like anyone being able to drive a car anywhere. When you pass regulations, they close off the allowable space by making things illegal in specific circumstances, like you cannot drive on sidewalks or when under the age of 15. Regulation and illegality are directly related and not in competition at all.
The only case where you get a dichotomy is if you set up an artificial scenario where the options are to totally ban something or just to ban it in specific circumstances (ie. "regulate" it).
Realistically, some form of the second option is almost always proposed, even in countries with very strict gun laws, so it seems a strange and hyperbolic edge case to focus on.
|
As far as I know pretty much everything is regulated to one degree or another directly or indirectly and very little if anything is outright banned in the US.
The whole "illegal and regulated" thing is rhetorical slight of hand for sure that disadvantages people advocating more regulations but it's hardly what it was painted as which was what I was trying to point out. But I apparently mostly failed, oh well, I tried.
|
On September 11 2018 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
As far as I know pretty much everything is regulated to one degree or another directly or indirectly and very little if anything is outright banned in the US.
The whole "illegal and regulated" thing is rhetorical slight of hand for sure that disadvantages people advocating more regulations but it's hardly what it was painted as which was what I was trying to point out. But I apparently mostly failed, oh well, I tried.
I appreciate what you did and I admit that it was an attempt at being rhetorically clever ala "you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you can't afford a pair of boots". I did not predict that the argument would fly off the tracks into a pit of semantics.
|
|
|
On September 14 2018 01:59 JimmiC wrote:Yet another shooting, 6 dead one being the shooter. https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/us/california-shootings-multiple-dead/index.htmlGuy was apparently fighting with his wife someone intervened and the guy shot him and his wife. He then was chased by some one else, he also shot and killed that guy, he then entered a house killed 2 more people, car jacked a car with a lady and child but did not kill them. Was pulled over by police and killed himself. More senseless murders. With the NRA going full racist today attacking Thomas the Train engine for being to diverse and more and more shootings, I don't even know. It is also crazy how when these shootings are less than 10 people it barely seems to even make the news. In Canada I hear about shootings where no one died thousands of miles away.
it makes sense you'd hear about distant shootings in canada; canada looks to only get about one and a half murders a day, so it's easy for many of them to be a big deal and to hear about distant shootings because the threshold is lower. you probably have days where there isn't a murder.
US has ~ 45 murders a day; so a non-fatal shooting isn't going to the darkest crime news except for the local area, there'll always be a murder (or several) to report on nationally (or just always a regional one to report on).
|
On September 14 2018 01:59 JimmiC wrote:Yet another shooting, 6 dead one being the shooter. https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/us/california-shootings-multiple-dead/index.htmlGuy was apparently fighting with his wife someone intervened and the guy shot him and his wife. He then was chased by some one else, he also shot and killed that guy, he then entered a house killed 2 more people, car jacked a car with a lady and child but did not kill them. Was pulled over by police and killed himself. More senseless murders. With the NRA going full racist today attacking Thomas the Train engine for being to diverse and more and more shootings, I don't even know. It is also crazy how when these shootings are less than 10 people it barely seems to even make the news. In Canada I hear about shootings where no one died thousands of miles away.
Literally nothing about this in my country's news. Mass murder of only 6 people in the us is so regular at this point people don't even care
|
|
|
I'm just going to put this out there as an idea, maybe people can share what they think about it.
I don't buy guns, many Americans don't buy guns, and I'm pretty sure these people are happy with no guns...
Some people in America do buy guns...
The reason there are soooooo many guns in America is because people buy them, therefore people make money from selling them, which leads to an industry of selling/buying guns...
The result is that America is flooded with guns. Some people are responsible, some people aren't responsible and either murder other people or let guns get in the hands of murders. The same can be said for gun dealers.
*My thought, is that if people want guns in America it is their collective responsibility to safely manage their guns... That means when the laws aren't working or aren't being enforced, they... are the ones protesting and petitioning the NRA, the government, the gun dealers to act in a responsible way... because with the right to have guns comes the responsibility to own guns safely.
It is not enough to just advocate for the right to own guns, especially when so many deaths are caused because of guns.
My frustration is that gun advocates only advocate for their right to own.
|
United States24753 Posts
What do you want responsible gun owners to do when one gun owner goes on a shooting spree? The NRA is already all about gun safety. I took one of their courses to see what it's like and it was actually pretty good, despite how nuts their institute for legislative action is.
It's probably not the manufacturer's direct fault that someone who legally purchased a gun used it for crime. The only thing I can think of is that you think responsible gun owners should fight for laws that reduce risk without stopping them from being able to continue to be responsible gun owners in the manner that they want, but that's difficult when much of the push and lobbying for laws severely interfere with the responsible gun owner. All that really leaves is recommendations from responsible gun owners for common sense laws that will make at least a dent in the illegal gun use problem, and I guess protesting to that effect?
|
On September 14 2018 12:11 micronesia wrote:
What do you want responsible gun owners to do when one gun owner goes on a shooting spree? The NRA is already all about gun safety. I took one of their courses to see what it's like and it was actually pretty good, despite how nuts their institute for legislative action is.
It's probably not the manufacturer's direct fault that someone who legally purchased a gun used it for crime. The only thing I can think of is that you think responsible gun owners should fight for laws that reduce risk without stopping them from being able to continue to be responsible gun owners in the manner that they want, but that's difficult when much of the push and lobbying for laws severely interfere with the responsible gun owner. All that really leaves is recommendations from responsible gun owners for common sense laws that will make at least a dent in the illegal gun use problem, and I guess protesting to that effect?
Yes, protesting to that effect.
For example, the gun show loophole is a primary example of how many guns get into the hands of people that shouldn't own guns. It's also an example of how gun dealers bypass laws to make more money selling to people without doing any responsible check on if that person should own a gun.
If gun owners want to own guns responsibly I can't see any reason why they wouldn't want this loophole closed. The only reason it exists is to have unmonitored access to guns and for dealers to make money, there is no reason for this, it's simply just a hazard.
So my question to gun advocates,
Why aren't you protesting and lobbying organizations like the NRA and you're state representatives for stronger enforcement of the current laws and creation of new laws closing the gun show loophole?
|
On September 14 2018 12:47 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2018 12:11 micronesia wrote:
What do you want responsible gun owners to do when one gun owner goes on a shooting spree? The NRA is already all about gun safety. I took one of their courses to see what it's like and it was actually pretty good, despite how nuts their institute for legislative action is.
It's probably not the manufacturer's direct fault that someone who legally purchased a gun used it for crime. The only thing I can think of is that you think responsible gun owners should fight for laws that reduce risk without stopping them from being able to continue to be responsible gun owners in the manner that they want, but that's difficult when much of the push and lobbying for laws severely interfere with the responsible gun owner. All that really leaves is recommendations from responsible gun owners for common sense laws that will make at least a dent in the illegal gun use problem, and I guess protesting to that effect? Yes, protesting to that effect. For example, the gun show loophole is a primary example of how many guns get into the hands of people that shouldn't own guns. It's also an example of how gun dealers bypass laws to make more money selling to people without doing any responsible check on if that person should own a gun. If gun owners want to own guns responsibly I can't see any reason why they wouldn't want this loophole closed. The only reason it exists is to have unmonitored access to guns and for dealers to make money, there is no reason for this, it's simply just a hazard. So my question to gun advocates, Why aren't you protesting and lobbying organizations like the NRA and you're state representatives for stronger enforcement of the current laws and creation of new laws closing the gun show loophole?
It's low on my priority list personally. That said, I did actually go to the one put together by the high school kids. March For Our Lives iirc.
Don't know if I fall into the "gun advocates" category though.
|
On September 14 2018 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2018 12:47 ShambhalaWar wrote:On September 14 2018 12:11 micronesia wrote:
What do you want responsible gun owners to do when one gun owner goes on a shooting spree? The NRA is already all about gun safety. I took one of their courses to see what it's like and it was actually pretty good, despite how nuts their institute for legislative action is.
It's probably not the manufacturer's direct fault that someone who legally purchased a gun used it for crime. The only thing I can think of is that you think responsible gun owners should fight for laws that reduce risk without stopping them from being able to continue to be responsible gun owners in the manner that they want, but that's difficult when much of the push and lobbying for laws severely interfere with the responsible gun owner. All that really leaves is recommendations from responsible gun owners for common sense laws that will make at least a dent in the illegal gun use problem, and I guess protesting to that effect? Yes, protesting to that effect. For example, the gun show loophole is a primary example of how many guns get into the hands of people that shouldn't own guns. It's also an example of how gun dealers bypass laws to make more money selling to people without doing any responsible check on if that person should own a gun. If gun owners want to own guns responsibly I can't see any reason why they wouldn't want this loophole closed. The only reason it exists is to have unmonitored access to guns and for dealers to make money, there is no reason for this, it's simply just a hazard. So my question to gun advocates, Why aren't you protesting and lobbying organizations like the NRA and you're state representatives for stronger enforcement of the current laws and creation of new laws closing the gun show loophole? It's low on my priority list personally. That said, I did actually go to the one put together by the high school kids. March For Our Lives iirc. Don't know if I fall into the "gun advocates" category though.
So you're not even sure if you are a gun advocate and you still showed up to protest?
In other words guns aren't that relevant in your life, but you felt called to show up and try to make sure less school shootings happen by protesting for a change?
|
On September 14 2018 13:19 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2018 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 14 2018 12:47 ShambhalaWar wrote:On September 14 2018 12:11 micronesia wrote:
What do you want responsible gun owners to do when one gun owner goes on a shooting spree? The NRA is already all about gun safety. I took one of their courses to see what it's like and it was actually pretty good, despite how nuts their institute for legislative action is.
It's probably not the manufacturer's direct fault that someone who legally purchased a gun used it for crime. The only thing I can think of is that you think responsible gun owners should fight for laws that reduce risk without stopping them from being able to continue to be responsible gun owners in the manner that they want, but that's difficult when much of the push and lobbying for laws severely interfere with the responsible gun owner. All that really leaves is recommendations from responsible gun owners for common sense laws that will make at least a dent in the illegal gun use problem, and I guess protesting to that effect? Yes, protesting to that effect. For example, the gun show loophole is a primary example of how many guns get into the hands of people that shouldn't own guns. It's also an example of how gun dealers bypass laws to make more money selling to people without doing any responsible check on if that person should own a gun. If gun owners want to own guns responsibly I can't see any reason why they wouldn't want this loophole closed. The only reason it exists is to have unmonitored access to guns and for dealers to make money, there is no reason for this, it's simply just a hazard. So my question to gun advocates, Why aren't you protesting and lobbying organizations like the NRA and you're state representatives for stronger enforcement of the current laws and creation of new laws closing the gun show loophole? It's low on my priority list personally. That said, I did actually go to the one put together by the high school kids. March For Our Lives iirc. Don't know if I fall into the "gun advocates" category though. So you're not even sure if you are a gun advocate and you still showed up to protest? In other words guns aren't that relevant in your life, but you felt called to show up and try to make sure less school shootings happen by protesting for a change?
I mean I'm a gun owner with what I view as a pretty reasonable position on guns that has long wanted to see more effective regulation/policy and social awareness around guns and mental health (suicides) in general.
I went to the protest for political organizing reasons but I marched and held a sign as well.
I guess what loses me on much enthusiasm is that people want to make it strictly partisan instead of recognizing that both parties use the issue to manipulate voters, neither with any intention or feeling of moral obligation to significantly improve the situation.
So while I recognize those types of events and causes as organizing opportunities, I find their efforts rather fruitless so long as they ignore why some high school kids had to organize the rally in the first place. Which, by and large from the ones I saw and the ongoing efforts, they aren't.
Additionally, I'm 100% certain that even the best possible legislation will disproportionately negatively impact POC, particularly Black people. Without a doubt will cause the incarceration and forced labor of Black men by the 10's of thousands, and probably do very little to address most gun deaths.
|
On September 14 2018 13:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2018 13:19 ShambhalaWar wrote:On September 14 2018 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 14 2018 12:47 ShambhalaWar wrote:On September 14 2018 12:11 micronesia wrote:
What do you want responsible gun owners to do when one gun owner goes on a shooting spree? The NRA is already all about gun safety. I took one of their courses to see what it's like and it was actually pretty good, despite how nuts their institute for legislative action is.
It's probably not the manufacturer's direct fault that someone who legally purchased a gun used it for crime. The only thing I can think of is that you think responsible gun owners should fight for laws that reduce risk without stopping them from being able to continue to be responsible gun owners in the manner that they want, but that's difficult when much of the push and lobbying for laws severely interfere with the responsible gun owner. All that really leaves is recommendations from responsible gun owners for common sense laws that will make at least a dent in the illegal gun use problem, and I guess protesting to that effect? Yes, protesting to that effect. For example, the gun show loophole is a primary example of how many guns get into the hands of people that shouldn't own guns. It's also an example of how gun dealers bypass laws to make more money selling to people without doing any responsible check on if that person should own a gun. If gun owners want to own guns responsibly I can't see any reason why they wouldn't want this loophole closed. The only reason it exists is to have unmonitored access to guns and for dealers to make money, there is no reason for this, it's simply just a hazard. So my question to gun advocates, Why aren't you protesting and lobbying organizations like the NRA and you're state representatives for stronger enforcement of the current laws and creation of new laws closing the gun show loophole? It's low on my priority list personally. That said, I did actually go to the one put together by the high school kids. March For Our Lives iirc. Don't know if I fall into the "gun advocates" category though. So you're not even sure if you are a gun advocate and you still showed up to protest? In other words guns aren't that relevant in your life, but you felt called to show up and try to make sure less school shootings happen by protesting for a change? I mean I'm a gun owner with what I view as a pretty reasonable position on guns that has long wanted to see more effective regulation/policy and social awareness around guns and mental health (suicides) in general. I went to the protest for political organizing reasons but I marched and held a sign as well. I guess what loses me on much enthusiasm is that people want to make it strictly partisan instead of recognizing that both parties use the issue to manipulate voters, neither with any intention or feeling of moral obligation to significantly improve the situation. So while I recognize those types of events and causes as organizing opportunities, I find their efforts rather fruitless so long as they ignore why some high school kids had to organize the rally in the first place. Which, by and large from the ones I saw and the ongoing efforts, they aren't. Additionally, I'm 100% certain that even the best possible legislation will disproportionately negatively impact POC, particularly Black people. Without a doubt will cause the incarceration and forced labor of Black men by the 10's of thousands, and probably do very little to address most gun deaths.
If you're a gun owner and you went to protest, that's awesome. I imagine you went because you don't want to see anymore kids get killed in school, right?
This really shouldn't be a partisan issue, preventing kids from getting killed in school really should be pretty f**king obvious of a thing to support.
Yet some people oppose it. That's not a partisan thing, that's just people making a choice to care more about easy access to guns of all types than preventing children from getting killed in school.
You did something to make a difference and for that you separate yourself from much of the gun advocate crowd, which oppose any change to the status quo of guns in America. I would say you would be an example of a responsible gun owner that is asking for change and speaking your voice.
I think if all gun owners had your attitude then our laws would be different, the standard for gun ownership would be higher, therefore less mentally ill people would have access, and less shootings would take place. I truly believe that.
|
Every time I check this thread I'm happy I live in a country where guns are so rare that in fact I have never seen an unholstered gun or heard an actual shot in my life. On the rare occasion where somone fires a gun in the Netherlands, it makes the news, even when it's "just" the police firing 1 or 2 warning shots.
|
United States24753 Posts
On September 14 2018 15:00 ShambhalaWar wrote:
This really shouldn't be a partisan issue, preventing kids from getting killed in school really should be pretty f**king obvious of a thing to support.
Yet some people oppose it.
This is actually a pretty good example of why I'm not out protesting right now. Instead, I'm spending time trying to correct people from making outrageous posts that polarize the issue so much that absolutely nothing will ever get accomplished. Do you really think the gun owners who oppose a lot of new gun restrictions actually oppose preventing kids from getting killed in school? They don't want kids to get shot up either. You can fault them for their judgment, but it's ridiculous to imply they want lots of children to get shot. Now when you go to protest, you'll be outnumbered by all the people you just accused of being complicit in child murder and they don't agree with you.
|
I dont think anyone thinks gun owners want to see children getting shot.
Rather I think antigun people see gun owners as people who see their right to guns as more important than the children being shot.
|
|
|
United States24753 Posts
@ solidbebe: Like I said, a question of judgment. However, I don't agree with you that nobody thinks or nobody says gun owners want to see children getting shot. Don't underestimate how radicalized many people get on this issue. Also, some people may not actually believe the claim but if they say it then the damage is already done.
|
On September 14 2018 22:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2018 11:59 ShambhalaWar wrote:
I'm just going to put this out there as an idea, maybe people can share what they think about it.
I don't buy guns, many Americans don't buy guns, and I'm pretty sure these people are happy with no guns...
Some people in America do buy guns...
The reason there are soooooo many guns in America is because people buy them, therefore people make money from selling them, which leads to an industry of selling/buying guns...
The result is that America is flooded with guns. Some people are responsible, some people aren't responsible and either murder other people or let guns get in the hands of murders. The same can be said for gun dealers.
*My thought, is that if people want guns in America it is their collective responsibility to safely manage their guns... That means when the laws aren't working or aren't being enforced, they... are the ones protesting and petitioning the NRA, the government, the gun dealers to act in a responsible way... because with the right to have guns comes the responsibility to own guns safely.
It is not enough to just advocate for the right to own guns, especially when so many deaths are caused because of guns.
My frustration is that gun advocates only advocate for their right to own. So the movement in Environmental circles is something called EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) It is big in Europe and making its way through Canada. What it basically means is now the manufacturer is responsible for dealing with the waste instead of the municipal government. Consumers still pay for it just in the price tag of the product instead of in their taxes. But the bonus is now manufactures care about how they package products because they have to recycle it. So there is much more standardization and so on. http://www.cssalliance.ca/portal/what-is-epr-and-why-is-it-important/For guns I'm not sure how this would exactly work but if they were responsible for the incarceration of criminals using guns. Or maybe the medical bills of of people who were shot by guns, they would all the sudden have a financial reason to make guns themselves safer (harder to mod) and make sure that only responsible people owned them. I don't know how you would ever do this because the cost to society of gun violence likely FAR outstrips the profits of gun manufacturers. With packaging EPR has only raised prices like 5-10% and the industries are finding new and better ways to not just recycle but reduce. As for the NRA, it is probably best to not get them involved. I'm not even sure what they are after now, they are now just a right wing political group. They are making Racist MEME's about toddlers cartoons to rail against too much multiculturalism in them?!?!?!?! So I'm not sure that guns even matter so much as it is about keep people angry and unfocused on important issues.
The NRA have given up on pushing the idea that widespread gun ownership is ok and have just turned into another Stefan Molyneux/Ben Shapiro anti-lefist anti-feminist group instead.
You can't blame them really, using blatantly fiddled statistics can only get you so far for so long before everyone's life experience catches up to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
