|
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 22 2018 06:55 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 06:44 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 05:21 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 05:01 solidbebe wrote:On September 22 2018 04:05 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 03:43 solidbebe wrote:
You're going to need people to organize marches, to protest, to actively stand up and start building a nation without a proliferation of tools which exist for the sole purpose of killing humans.
I generally agree with the rest of your post but, once again, I need to point out that mischaracterizing guns like that only brings us further from any solutions to the USA's current problems. Do you want to argue about what the purpose of guns are or do you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths? You won't be able to successfully do both. Funnily enough, the fact that you would even consider that a mischaracterization is something which, in my mind, is probably one of the exact problems of American gun culture. I won't pretend to know your history, but I can imagine why for someone growing up in America you might feel that way, since guns are such a large part of American culture and history in many ways. But as someone who grew up in western Europe, in a country where most people won't even see a gun in their lifetime which isn't a policeman's holstered pistol, can you imagine why I feel that way? Hunting rifles aside, what is the purpose of a gun besides killing humans? Sure they might be fun to shoot on a range, hell I would probably enjoy it myself. But the same could be said for missile launchers, tanks, or what have you. You might not consider those things to be in the same category, but I think they are. A handgun has orders of magnitude less firepower than a tank, but its purpose is the same: killing humans. I asked you if you want to argue about what the purpose of a gun is, or if you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths. Judging from the above, you chose the former, and gave up on the latter. Why? It's amazing how easily this issue entraps well-intentioned posters. In the hour or so since my last post, two posters wanted to focus on the purpose of guns, even though the purpose is not ultimately what matters, even if it provides some context. If the purpose of an item is to make bunnies fluffy but it has a side effect of vaporizing continents, then I don't give a crap what the purpose is, it's not important. I'm not going to repeat the pages-long argument about what the purpose of various types of guns are. Look back at the history of this thread if you really want but I'd be hypocritical if I chastised you for wanting to discuss this topic further and then went ahead and did it myself. If you choose to just assume I'm wrong and disregard me then fine, but I still recommend you keep the discussion away from the purpose of guns. I understand your point, but I disagree with it. The purpose does matter, much like in a case of murder intent matters. I don't think there is anyway of separating the two because the purpose is the problem. When you talk about removing cars or something from society there is a bunch of, how will we get around and how will move stuff questions. When you talk about removing guns, the questions are well then how will kill stuff as easily? When people are even at the range they are practicing to be better at killing people. Now in the argument for guns, it is bad people, but most of the time this is justified with, if I don't do it they will get me. That happens at a statistically insignificant number in most of the world because you don't need MAD if the other side doesn't have a nuke. Even in the states there is a statistically insignificant amount of citizen saving themselves or others shootings and the biggest reason it is even a someone legitimate concern is because it is so easy for so many people to have guns. The red text above does seem to be the major source of our disagreement. What matters isn't what the purpose of guns are. What matters is: - The actual role of guns in society
- The fact that XXX is happening a lot
Some examples of XXX are multiple major school shootings per relatively short period of time, cases of dozens of innocent people being shot by one well-armed person, etc. The same analysis can be done to anything else. You brought up cars. What matters is not the purpose of cars. What matters is: - The actual role of cars in society
- The fact that XXX is happening a lot
Some examples of XXX are terrorists or white nationalists intentionally ramming their cars into groups of innocent pedestrians, people driving super dangerously until they crash into cars with innocent people, etc. The interplay between 1 and 2 when trying to decide what to do about laws and regulations is probably going to be different in each of those cases. I've said before I generally agree with guns being treated more like cars and less like buying someone completely unregulated, so long as proper protections are put in place to prevent bait and switch situations which abuse agreed-upon regulations. In neither of the examples above (cars or guns) do I need to give much thought to what the purpose of them are in order to make reasonable recommendations.... I just need to understand the role of them in society and the current events. We can argue about what their purpose is but that's just a major opportunity to disagree without accomplishing anything, has has been proven countless times in this thread. I'd prefer to discuss ways to prevent #2 (or make them less common) from the lists above.
i agree with jimmic in that you cant really separate the purpose of guns and their role in society, as well as how we tackle the problem to begin with.
guns are designed to kill things period. if youre not using an item for its purpose then quite frankly the item is surplus to the requirements of society. cars are designed for transport, but some people race with it. if we were to ban racing would society really lose much?
the issue of self-defense and the validity of the idea of a militia have been discussed already so i wont get into it too much, but its quite clear that many people think guns dont really help with the former and the latter isnt a scenario worth worrying about to begin with. then what reason do you have to keep so many guns in your country, when the problem is quite clearly the amount of guns that are available to your country?
|
On September 22 2018 10:44 Sermokala wrote:
Nothing about my post mentioned cops but the media's desensitization about shooting deaths of minorities and gang members. Other then that yeah.
Most cities don't clear most killings anyway. I could get my gun and go to a city a state or two away and have a better chance at not.at getting away with murder let alone anything below that. Justice system is a bad joke before race is involved.
You were responding to a post about cops being wounded in a shootout with gang members (which is why it made news). Shootouts between gang members don't get reported or solved because no one gives a shit but their friends and family and they have no political clout.
When a cop is killed however, it almost NEVER goes unsolved.
The media is a reflection of the police and society on this one. It's been said a dozen ways on a dozen shows/movies but it boils down to "let them kill each other" and no one but the people living it are doing anything to address it.
|
On September 22 2018 15:19 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 06:55 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 06:44 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 05:21 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 05:01 solidbebe wrote:On September 22 2018 04:05 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 03:43 solidbebe wrote:
You're going to need people to organize marches, to protest, to actively stand up and start building a nation without a proliferation of tools which exist for the sole purpose of killing humans.
I generally agree with the rest of your post but, once again, I need to point out that mischaracterizing guns like that only brings us further from any solutions to the USA's current problems. Do you want to argue about what the purpose of guns are or do you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths? You won't be able to successfully do both. Funnily enough, the fact that you would even consider that a mischaracterization is something which, in my mind, is probably one of the exact problems of American gun culture. I won't pretend to know your history, but I can imagine why for someone growing up in America you might feel that way, since guns are such a large part of American culture and history in many ways. But as someone who grew up in western Europe, in a country where most people won't even see a gun in their lifetime which isn't a policeman's holstered pistol, can you imagine why I feel that way? Hunting rifles aside, what is the purpose of a gun besides killing humans? Sure they might be fun to shoot on a range, hell I would probably enjoy it myself. But the same could be said for missile launchers, tanks, or what have you. You might not consider those things to be in the same category, but I think they are. A handgun has orders of magnitude less firepower than a tank, but its purpose is the same: killing humans. I asked you if you want to argue about what the purpose of a gun is, or if you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths. Judging from the above, you chose the former, and gave up on the latter. Why? It's amazing how easily this issue entraps well-intentioned posters. In the hour or so since my last post, two posters wanted to focus on the purpose of guns, even though the purpose is not ultimately what matters, even if it provides some context. If the purpose of an item is to make bunnies fluffy but it has a side effect of vaporizing continents, then I don't give a crap what the purpose is, it's not important. I'm not going to repeat the pages-long argument about what the purpose of various types of guns are. Look back at the history of this thread if you really want but I'd be hypocritical if I chastised you for wanting to discuss this topic further and then went ahead and did it myself. If you choose to just assume I'm wrong and disregard me then fine, but I still recommend you keep the discussion away from the purpose of guns. I understand your point, but I disagree with it. The purpose does matter, much like in a case of murder intent matters. I don't think there is anyway of separating the two because the purpose is the problem. When you talk about removing cars or something from society there is a bunch of, how will we get around and how will move stuff questions. When you talk about removing guns, the questions are well then how will kill stuff as easily? When people are even at the range they are practicing to be better at killing people. Now in the argument for guns, it is bad people, but most of the time this is justified with, if I don't do it they will get me. That happens at a statistically insignificant number in most of the world because you don't need MAD if the other side doesn't have a nuke. Even in the states there is a statistically insignificant amount of citizen saving themselves or others shootings and the biggest reason it is even a someone legitimate concern is because it is so easy for so many people to have guns. The red text above does seem to be the major source of our disagreement. What matters isn't what the purpose of guns are. What matters is: - The actual role of guns in society
- The fact that XXX is happening a lot
Some examples of XXX are multiple major school shootings per relatively short period of time, cases of dozens of innocent people being shot by one well-armed person, etc. The same analysis can be done to anything else. You brought up cars. What matters is not the purpose of cars. What matters is: - The actual role of cars in society
- The fact that XXX is happening a lot
Some examples of XXX are terrorists or white nationalists intentionally ramming their cars into groups of innocent pedestrians, people driving super dangerously until they crash into cars with innocent people, etc. The interplay between 1 and 2 when trying to decide what to do about laws and regulations is probably going to be different in each of those cases. I've said before I generally agree with guns being treated more like cars and less like buying someone completely unregulated, so long as proper protections are put in place to prevent bait and switch situations which abuse agreed-upon regulations. In neither of the examples above (cars or guns) do I need to give much thought to what the purpose of them are in order to make reasonable recommendations.... I just need to understand the role of them in society and the current events. We can argue about what their purpose is but that's just a major opportunity to disagree without accomplishing anything, has has been proven countless times in this thread. I'd prefer to discuss ways to prevent #2 (or make them less common) from the lists above. i agree with jimmic in that you cant really separate the purpose of guns and their role in society, as well as how we tackle the problem to begin with. guns are designed to kill things period. if youre not using an item for its purpose then quite frankly the item is surplus to the requirements of society. cars are designed for transport, but some people race with it. if we were to ban racing would society really lose much? the issue of self-defense and the validity of the idea of a militia have been discussed already so i wont get into it too much, but its quite clear that many people think guns dont really help with the former and the latter isnt a scenario worth worrying about to begin with. then what reason do you have to keep so many guns in your country, when the problem is quite clearly the amount of guns that are available to your country?
Because making guns illegal doesn't make guns dissapear. Remember how making drugs illegal made drug addiction and drug related crimes dissapear?
The self defense argument is disregarded by some people, not by others. Many consider it a right, like free spech, wether it works or not. If 5 people are stupid with guns and shot themselves, but 2 are well trained and use them to defend themselves and their family, great. And the debate is not settled; you can find an infinite number of publications both in favor and againt self defence efficancy, as well as gun regulation/homicide rates relationship.
Should we ban alcohol? I'm quite sure way more lives would be saved that way.
An iteration of this discussion can go on forever and that's why most people are fed up with this thread, specially when someone (not you) atributes malice to their counter part. I.E. "they don't care about dead children" "gun touting idiots" "they hate america and the constitution" "they hate freedom" etc etc.
|
|
|
On September 23 2018 23:53 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 15:19 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 22 2018 06:55 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 06:44 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 05:21 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 05:01 solidbebe wrote:On September 22 2018 04:05 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 03:43 solidbebe wrote:
You're going to need people to organize marches, to protest, to actively stand up and start building a nation without a proliferation of tools which exist for the sole purpose of killing humans.
I generally agree with the rest of your post but, once again, I need to point out that mischaracterizing guns like that only brings us further from any solutions to the USA's current problems. Do you want to argue about what the purpose of guns are or do you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths? You won't be able to successfully do both. Funnily enough, the fact that you would even consider that a mischaracterization is something which, in my mind, is probably one of the exact problems of American gun culture. I won't pretend to know your history, but I can imagine why for someone growing up in America you might feel that way, since guns are such a large part of American culture and history in many ways. But as someone who grew up in western Europe, in a country where most people won't even see a gun in their lifetime which isn't a policeman's holstered pistol, can you imagine why I feel that way? Hunting rifles aside, what is the purpose of a gun besides killing humans? Sure they might be fun to shoot on a range, hell I would probably enjoy it myself. But the same could be said for missile launchers, tanks, or what have you. You might not consider those things to be in the same category, but I think they are. A handgun has orders of magnitude less firepower than a tank, but its purpose is the same: killing humans. I asked you if you want to argue about what the purpose of a gun is, or if you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths. Judging from the above, you chose the former, and gave up on the latter. Why? It's amazing how easily this issue entraps well-intentioned posters. In the hour or so since my last post, two posters wanted to focus on the purpose of guns, even though the purpose is not ultimately what matters, even if it provides some context. If the purpose of an item is to make bunnies fluffy but it has a side effect of vaporizing continents, then I don't give a crap what the purpose is, it's not important. I'm not going to repeat the pages-long argument about what the purpose of various types of guns are. Look back at the history of this thread if you really want but I'd be hypocritical if I chastised you for wanting to discuss this topic further and then went ahead and did it myself. If you choose to just assume I'm wrong and disregard me then fine, but I still recommend you keep the discussion away from the purpose of guns. I understand your point, but I disagree with it. The purpose does matter, much like in a case of murder intent matters. I don't think there is anyway of separating the two because the purpose is the problem. When you talk about removing cars or something from society there is a bunch of, how will we get around and how will move stuff questions. When you talk about removing guns, the questions are well then how will kill stuff as easily? When people are even at the range they are practicing to be better at killing people. Now in the argument for guns, it is bad people, but most of the time this is justified with, if I don't do it they will get me. That happens at a statistically insignificant number in most of the world because you don't need MAD if the other side doesn't have a nuke. Even in the states there is a statistically insignificant amount of citizen saving themselves or others shootings and the biggest reason it is even a someone legitimate concern is because it is so easy for so many people to have guns. The red text above does seem to be the major source of our disagreement. What matters isn't what the purpose of guns are. What matters is: - The actual role of guns in society
- The fact that XXX is happening a lot
Some examples of XXX are multiple major school shootings per relatively short period of time, cases of dozens of innocent people being shot by one well-armed person, etc. The same analysis can be done to anything else. You brought up cars. What matters is not the purpose of cars. What matters is: - The actual role of cars in society
- The fact that XXX is happening a lot
Some examples of XXX are terrorists or white nationalists intentionally ramming their cars into groups of innocent pedestrians, people driving super dangerously until they crash into cars with innocent people, etc. The interplay between 1 and 2 when trying to decide what to do about laws and regulations is probably going to be different in each of those cases. I've said before I generally agree with guns being treated more like cars and less like buying someone completely unregulated, so long as proper protections are put in place to prevent bait and switch situations which abuse agreed-upon regulations. In neither of the examples above (cars or guns) do I need to give much thought to what the purpose of them are in order to make reasonable recommendations.... I just need to understand the role of them in society and the current events. We can argue about what their purpose is but that's just a major opportunity to disagree without accomplishing anything, has has been proven countless times in this thread. I'd prefer to discuss ways to prevent #2 (or make them less common) from the lists above. i agree with jimmic in that you cant really separate the purpose of guns and their role in society, as well as how we tackle the problem to begin with. guns are designed to kill things period. if youre not using an item for its purpose then quite frankly the item is surplus to the requirements of society. cars are designed for transport, but some people race with it. if we were to ban racing would society really lose much? the issue of self-defense and the validity of the idea of a militia have been discussed already so i wont get into it too much, but its quite clear that many people think guns dont really help with the former and the latter isnt a scenario worth worrying about to begin with. then what reason do you have to keep so many guns in your country, when the problem is quite clearly the amount of guns that are available to your country? Because making guns illegal doesn't make guns dissapear. Remember how making drugs illegal made drug addiction and drug related crimes dissapear? The self defense argument is disregarded by some people, not by others. Many consider it a right, like free spech, wether it works or not. If 5 people are stupid with guns and shot themselves, but 2 are well trained and use them to defend themselves and their family, great. And the debate is not settled; you can find an infinite number of publications both in favor and againt self defence efficancy, as well as gun regulation/homicide rates relationship. Should we ban alcohol? I'm quite sure way more lives would be saved that way. An iteration of this discussion can go on forever and that's why most people are fed up with this thread, specially when someone (not you) atributes malice to their counter part. I.E. "they don't care about dead children" "gun touting idiots" "they hate america and the constitution" "they hate freedom" etc etc.
I too am a little tired of the statistics on rights. If this amount of people are untrained, and this amount are reckless, and this amount get disarmed, and this amount used it to commit suicide, then little old you has less of a right to defend yourself because the statistics say so!
Do you have any optimism for the future of the debate and the tug of war on compromises of regulation and gun rights?
|
On September 24 2018 01:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2018 23:53 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 22 2018 15:19 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 22 2018 06:55 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 06:44 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 05:21 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 05:01 solidbebe wrote:On September 22 2018 04:05 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 03:43 solidbebe wrote:
You're going to need people to organize marches, to protest, to actively stand up and start building a nation without a proliferation of tools which exist for the sole purpose of killing humans.
I generally agree with the rest of your post but, once again, I need to point out that mischaracterizing guns like that only brings us further from any solutions to the USA's current problems. Do you want to argue about what the purpose of guns are or do you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths? You won't be able to successfully do both. Funnily enough, the fact that you would even consider that a mischaracterization is something which, in my mind, is probably one of the exact problems of American gun culture. I won't pretend to know your history, but I can imagine why for someone growing up in America you might feel that way, since guns are such a large part of American culture and history in many ways. But as someone who grew up in western Europe, in a country where most people won't even see a gun in their lifetime which isn't a policeman's holstered pistol, can you imagine why I feel that way? Hunting rifles aside, what is the purpose of a gun besides killing humans? Sure they might be fun to shoot on a range, hell I would probably enjoy it myself. But the same could be said for missile launchers, tanks, or what have you. You might not consider those things to be in the same category, but I think they are. A handgun has orders of magnitude less firepower than a tank, but its purpose is the same: killing humans. I asked you if you want to argue about what the purpose of a gun is, or if you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths. Judging from the above, you chose the former, and gave up on the latter. Why? It's amazing how easily this issue entraps well-intentioned posters. In the hour or so since my last post, two posters wanted to focus on the purpose of guns, even though the purpose is not ultimately what matters, even if it provides some context. If the purpose of an item is to make bunnies fluffy but it has a side effect of vaporizing continents, then I don't give a crap what the purpose is, it's not important. I'm not going to repeat the pages-long argument about what the purpose of various types of guns are. Look back at the history of this thread if you really want but I'd be hypocritical if I chastised you for wanting to discuss this topic further and then went ahead and did it myself. If you choose to just assume I'm wrong and disregard me then fine, but I still recommend you keep the discussion away from the purpose of guns. I understand your point, but I disagree with it. The purpose does matter, much like in a case of murder intent matters. I don't think there is anyway of separating the two because the purpose is the problem. When you talk about removing cars or something from society there is a bunch of, how will we get around and how will move stuff questions. When you talk about removing guns, the questions are well then how will kill stuff as easily? When people are even at the range they are practicing to be better at killing people. Now in the argument for guns, it is bad people, but most of the time this is justified with, if I don't do it they will get me. That happens at a statistically insignificant number in most of the world because you don't need MAD if the other side doesn't have a nuke. Even in the states there is a statistically insignificant amount of citizen saving themselves or others shootings and the biggest reason it is even a someone legitimate concern is because it is so easy for so many people to have guns. The red text above does seem to be the major source of our disagreement. What matters isn't what the purpose of guns are. What matters is: - The actual role of guns in society
- The fact that XXX is happening a lot
Some examples of XXX are multiple major school shootings per relatively short period of time, cases of dozens of innocent people being shot by one well-armed person, etc. The same analysis can be done to anything else. You brought up cars. What matters is not the purpose of cars. What matters is: - The actual role of cars in society
- The fact that XXX is happening a lot
Some examples of XXX are terrorists or white nationalists intentionally ramming their cars into groups of innocent pedestrians, people driving super dangerously until they crash into cars with innocent people, etc. The interplay between 1 and 2 when trying to decide what to do about laws and regulations is probably going to be different in each of those cases. I've said before I generally agree with guns being treated more like cars and less like buying someone completely unregulated, so long as proper protections are put in place to prevent bait and switch situations which abuse agreed-upon regulations. In neither of the examples above (cars or guns) do I need to give much thought to what the purpose of them are in order to make reasonable recommendations.... I just need to understand the role of them in society and the current events. We can argue about what their purpose is but that's just a major opportunity to disagree without accomplishing anything, has has been proven countless times in this thread. I'd prefer to discuss ways to prevent #2 (or make them less common) from the lists above. i agree with jimmic in that you cant really separate the purpose of guns and their role in society, as well as how we tackle the problem to begin with. guns are designed to kill things period. if youre not using an item for its purpose then quite frankly the item is surplus to the requirements of society. cars are designed for transport, but some people race with it. if we were to ban racing would society really lose much? the issue of self-defense and the validity of the idea of a militia have been discussed already so i wont get into it too much, but its quite clear that many people think guns dont really help with the former and the latter isnt a scenario worth worrying about to begin with. then what reason do you have to keep so many guns in your country, when the problem is quite clearly the amount of guns that are available to your country? Because making guns illegal doesn't make guns dissapear. Remember how making drugs illegal made drug addiction and drug related crimes dissapear? The self defense argument is disregarded by some people, not by others. Many consider it a right, like free spech, wether it works or not. If 5 people are stupid with guns and shot themselves, but 2 are well trained and use them to defend themselves and their family, great. And the debate is not settled; you can find an infinite number of publications both in favor and againt self defence efficancy, as well as gun regulation/homicide rates relationship. Should we ban alcohol? I'm quite sure way more lives would be saved that way. An iteration of this discussion can go on forever and that's why most people are fed up with this thread, specially when someone (not you) atributes malice to their counter part. I.E. "they don't care about dead children" "gun touting idiots" "they hate america and the constitution" "they hate freedom" etc etc. I too am a little tired of the statistics on rights. If this amount of people are untrained, and this amount are reckless, and this amount get disarmed, and this amount used it to commit suicide, then little old you has less of a right to defend yourself because the statistics say so! Do you have any optimism for the future of the debate and the tug of war on compromises of regulation and gun rights?
No, I think the democratic party is now a full blown leftist party and keeps turning left pushing identity politics and "democratic" socialism. Compromises are much much harder with polarized sides, and politics becomes more and more a "team sport".
Edit: That said, homicide and criminal rates in general keep going down year after year so that's acceptable. I think "gun laws" effect on that is marginal at best, and solutions comes on other fronts.
|
On September 24 2018 02:24 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2018 01:57 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2018 23:53 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 22 2018 15:19 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 22 2018 06:55 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 06:44 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 05:21 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 05:01 solidbebe wrote:On September 22 2018 04:05 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 03:43 solidbebe wrote:
You're going to need people to organize marches, to protest, to actively stand up and start building a nation without a proliferation of tools which exist for the sole purpose of killing humans.
I generally agree with the rest of your post but, once again, I need to point out that mischaracterizing guns like that only brings us further from any solutions to the USA's current problems. Do you want to argue about what the purpose of guns are or do you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths? You won't be able to successfully do both. Funnily enough, the fact that you would even consider that a mischaracterization is something which, in my mind, is probably one of the exact problems of American gun culture. I won't pretend to know your history, but I can imagine why for someone growing up in America you might feel that way, since guns are such a large part of American culture and history in many ways. But as someone who grew up in western Europe, in a country where most people won't even see a gun in their lifetime which isn't a policeman's holstered pistol, can you imagine why I feel that way? Hunting rifles aside, what is the purpose of a gun besides killing humans? Sure they might be fun to shoot on a range, hell I would probably enjoy it myself. But the same could be said for missile launchers, tanks, or what have you. You might not consider those things to be in the same category, but I think they are. A handgun has orders of magnitude less firepower than a tank, but its purpose is the same: killing humans. I asked you if you want to argue about what the purpose of a gun is, or if you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths. Judging from the above, you chose the former, and gave up on the latter. Why? It's amazing how easily this issue entraps well-intentioned posters. In the hour or so since my last post, two posters wanted to focus on the purpose of guns, even though the purpose is not ultimately what matters, even if it provides some context. If the purpose of an item is to make bunnies fluffy but it has a side effect of vaporizing continents, then I don't give a crap what the purpose is, it's not important. I'm not going to repeat the pages-long argument about what the purpose of various types of guns are. Look back at the history of this thread if you really want but I'd be hypocritical if I chastised you for wanting to discuss this topic further and then went ahead and did it myself. If you choose to just assume I'm wrong and disregard me then fine, but I still recommend you keep the discussion away from the purpose of guns. I understand your point, but I disagree with it. The purpose does matter, much like in a case of murder intent matters. I don't think there is anyway of separating the two because the purpose is the problem. When you talk about removing cars or something from society there is a bunch of, how will we get around and how will move stuff questions. When you talk about removing guns, the questions are well then how will kill stuff as easily? When people are even at the range they are practicing to be better at killing people. Now in the argument for guns, it is bad people, but most of the time this is justified with, if I don't do it they will get me. That happens at a statistically insignificant number in most of the world because you don't need MAD if the other side doesn't have a nuke. Even in the states there is a statistically insignificant amount of citizen saving themselves or others shootings and the biggest reason it is even a someone legitimate concern is because it is so easy for so many people to have guns. The red text above does seem to be the major source of our disagreement. What matters isn't what the purpose of guns are. What matters is: - The actual role of guns in society
- The fact that XXX is happening a lot
Some examples of XXX are multiple major school shootings per relatively short period of time, cases of dozens of innocent people being shot by one well-armed person, etc. The same analysis can be done to anything else. You brought up cars. What matters is not the purpose of cars. What matters is: - The actual role of cars in society
- The fact that XXX is happening a lot
Some examples of XXX are terrorists or white nationalists intentionally ramming their cars into groups of innocent pedestrians, people driving super dangerously until they crash into cars with innocent people, etc. The interplay between 1 and 2 when trying to decide what to do about laws and regulations is probably going to be different in each of those cases. I've said before I generally agree with guns being treated more like cars and less like buying someone completely unregulated, so long as proper protections are put in place to prevent bait and switch situations which abuse agreed-upon regulations. In neither of the examples above (cars or guns) do I need to give much thought to what the purpose of them are in order to make reasonable recommendations.... I just need to understand the role of them in society and the current events. We can argue about what their purpose is but that's just a major opportunity to disagree without accomplishing anything, has has been proven countless times in this thread. I'd prefer to discuss ways to prevent #2 (or make them less common) from the lists above. i agree with jimmic in that you cant really separate the purpose of guns and their role in society, as well as how we tackle the problem to begin with. guns are designed to kill things period. if youre not using an item for its purpose then quite frankly the item is surplus to the requirements of society. cars are designed for transport, but some people race with it. if we were to ban racing would society really lose much? the issue of self-defense and the validity of the idea of a militia have been discussed already so i wont get into it too much, but its quite clear that many people think guns dont really help with the former and the latter isnt a scenario worth worrying about to begin with. then what reason do you have to keep so many guns in your country, when the problem is quite clearly the amount of guns that are available to your country? Because making guns illegal doesn't make guns dissapear. Remember how making drugs illegal made drug addiction and drug related crimes dissapear? The self defense argument is disregarded by some people, not by others. Many consider it a right, like free spech, wether it works or not. If 5 people are stupid with guns and shot themselves, but 2 are well trained and use them to defend themselves and their family, great. And the debate is not settled; you can find an infinite number of publications both in favor and againt self defence efficancy, as well as gun regulation/homicide rates relationship. Should we ban alcohol? I'm quite sure way more lives would be saved that way. An iteration of this discussion can go on forever and that's why most people are fed up with this thread, specially when someone (not you) atributes malice to their counter part. I.E. "they don't care about dead children" "gun touting idiots" "they hate america and the constitution" "they hate freedom" etc etc. I too am a little tired of the statistics on rights. If this amount of people are untrained, and this amount are reckless, and this amount get disarmed, and this amount used it to commit suicide, then little old you has less of a right to defend yourself because the statistics say so! Do you have any optimism for the future of the debate and the tug of war on compromises of regulation and gun rights? No, I think the democratic party is now a full blown leftist party and keeps turning left pushing identity politics and "democratic" socialism. Compromises are much much harder with polarized sides, and politics becomes more and more a "team sport". Edit: That said, homicide and criminal rates in general keep going down year after year so that's acceptable. I think "gun laws" effect on that is marginal at best, and solutions comes on other fronts.
Trust me, you'd see a lot more celebrating from me if Democrats were a full blown leftist party. The US has a Center and a Right, but the Left is disdained (or at best patronized) by both. FWIW Radical leftist are not calling for harsher gun restrictions pretty much at all. Other than if you take mine, you better take the police's first. There's not a lot of resistance to them either. Huey P Newton gun club isn't arguing to take away 30 rd clips or "assault weapons" for example.
|
|
|
On September 24 2018 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2018 02:24 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 24 2018 01:57 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2018 23:53 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 22 2018 15:19 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 22 2018 06:55 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 06:44 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 05:21 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 05:01 solidbebe wrote:On September 22 2018 04:05 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
I generally agree with the rest of your post but, once again, I need to point out that mischaracterizing guns like that only brings us further from any solutions to the USA's current problems. Do you want to argue about what the purpose of guns are or do you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths? You won't be able to successfully do both. Funnily enough, the fact that you would even consider that a mischaracterization is something which, in my mind, is probably one of the exact problems of American gun culture. I won't pretend to know your history, but I can imagine why for someone growing up in America you might feel that way, since guns are such a large part of American culture and history in many ways. But as someone who grew up in western Europe, in a country where most people won't even see a gun in their lifetime which isn't a policeman's holstered pistol, can you imagine why I feel that way? Hunting rifles aside, what is the purpose of a gun besides killing humans? Sure they might be fun to shoot on a range, hell I would probably enjoy it myself. But the same could be said for missile launchers, tanks, or what have you. You might not consider those things to be in the same category, but I think they are. A handgun has orders of magnitude less firepower than a tank, but its purpose is the same: killing humans. I asked you if you want to argue about what the purpose of a gun is, or if you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths. Judging from the above, you chose the former, and gave up on the latter. Why? It's amazing how easily this issue entraps well-intentioned posters. In the hour or so since my last post, two posters wanted to focus on the purpose of guns, even though the purpose is not ultimately what matters, even if it provides some context. If the purpose of an item is to make bunnies fluffy but it has a side effect of vaporizing continents, then I don't give a crap what the purpose is, it's not important. I'm not going to repeat the pages-long argument about what the purpose of various types of guns are. Look back at the history of this thread if you really want but I'd be hypocritical if I chastised you for wanting to discuss this topic further and then went ahead and did it myself. If you choose to just assume I'm wrong and disregard me then fine, but I still recommend you keep the discussion away from the purpose of guns. I understand your point, but I disagree with it. The purpose does matter, much like in a case of murder intent matters. I don't think there is anyway of separating the two because the purpose is the problem. When you talk about removing cars or something from society there is a bunch of, how will we get around and how will move stuff questions. When you talk about removing guns, the questions are well then how will kill stuff as easily? When people are even at the range they are practicing to be better at killing people. Now in the argument for guns, it is bad people, but most of the time this is justified with, if I don't do it they will get me. That happens at a statistically insignificant number in most of the world because you don't need MAD if the other side doesn't have a nuke. Even in the states there is a statistically insignificant amount of citizen saving themselves or others shootings and the biggest reason it is even a someone legitimate concern is because it is so easy for so many people to have guns. The red text above does seem to be the major source of our disagreement. What matters isn't what the purpose of guns are. What matters is: - The actual role of guns in society
- The fact that XXX is happening a lot
Some examples of XXX are multiple major school shootings per relatively short period of time, cases of dozens of innocent people being shot by one well-armed person, etc. The same analysis can be done to anything else. You brought up cars. What matters is not the purpose of cars. What matters is: - The actual role of cars in society
- The fact that XXX is happening a lot
Some examples of XXX are terrorists or white nationalists intentionally ramming their cars into groups of innocent pedestrians, people driving super dangerously until they crash into cars with innocent people, etc. The interplay between 1 and 2 when trying to decide what to do about laws and regulations is probably going to be different in each of those cases. I've said before I generally agree with guns being treated more like cars and less like buying someone completely unregulated, so long as proper protections are put in place to prevent bait and switch situations which abuse agreed-upon regulations. In neither of the examples above (cars or guns) do I need to give much thought to what the purpose of them are in order to make reasonable recommendations.... I just need to understand the role of them in society and the current events. We can argue about what their purpose is but that's just a major opportunity to disagree without accomplishing anything, has has been proven countless times in this thread. I'd prefer to discuss ways to prevent #2 (or make them less common) from the lists above. i agree with jimmic in that you cant really separate the purpose of guns and their role in society, as well as how we tackle the problem to begin with. guns are designed to kill things period. if youre not using an item for its purpose then quite frankly the item is surplus to the requirements of society. cars are designed for transport, but some people race with it. if we were to ban racing would society really lose much? the issue of self-defense and the validity of the idea of a militia have been discussed already so i wont get into it too much, but its quite clear that many people think guns dont really help with the former and the latter isnt a scenario worth worrying about to begin with. then what reason do you have to keep so many guns in your country, when the problem is quite clearly the amount of guns that are available to your country? Because making guns illegal doesn't make guns dissapear. Remember how making drugs illegal made drug addiction and drug related crimes dissapear? The self defense argument is disregarded by some people, not by others. Many consider it a right, like free spech, wether it works or not. If 5 people are stupid with guns and shot themselves, but 2 are well trained and use them to defend themselves and their family, great. And the debate is not settled; you can find an infinite number of publications both in favor and againt self defence efficancy, as well as gun regulation/homicide rates relationship. Should we ban alcohol? I'm quite sure way more lives would be saved that way. An iteration of this discussion can go on forever and that's why most people are fed up with this thread, specially when someone (not you) atributes malice to their counter part. I.E. "they don't care about dead children" "gun touting idiots" "they hate america and the constitution" "they hate freedom" etc etc. I too am a little tired of the statistics on rights. If this amount of people are untrained, and this amount are reckless, and this amount get disarmed, and this amount used it to commit suicide, then little old you has less of a right to defend yourself because the statistics say so! Do you have any optimism for the future of the debate and the tug of war on compromises of regulation and gun rights? No, I think the democratic party is now a full blown leftist party and keeps turning left pushing identity politics and "democratic" socialism. Compromises are much much harder with polarized sides, and politics becomes more and more a "team sport". Edit: That said, homicide and criminal rates in general keep going down year after year so that's acceptable. I think "gun laws" effect on that is marginal at best, and solutions comes on other fronts. Trust me, you'd see a lot more celebrating from me if Democrats were a full blown leftist party. The US has a Center and a Right, but the Left is disdained (or at best patronized) by both. FWIW Radical leftist are not calling for harsher gun restrictions pretty much at all. Other than if you take mine, you better take the police's first. There's not a lot of resistance to them either. Huey P Newton gun club isn't arguing to take away 30 rd clips or "assault weapons" for example.
Could you stop arguing ridiculous stuff like disarming/dismanteling the police is somehow an "average/real" leftist position? Stuff like this is very fringe.
You in general tend to argue for all kinds of revolutions and seem to be unable to see that there are true "leftists" that believe in less extreme solutions to be not left.
Edit: sry, didn't realise that post was so old.
|
Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 00:44 Velr wrote:On September 24 2018 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 24 2018 02:24 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 24 2018 01:57 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2018 23:53 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 22 2018 15:19 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 22 2018 06:55 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 06:44 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 05:21 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
I asked you if you want to argue about what the purpose of a gun is, or if you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths. Judging from the above, you chose the former, and gave up on the latter. Why? It's amazing how easily this issue entraps well-intentioned posters. In the hour or so since my last post, two posters wanted to focus on the purpose of guns, even though the purpose is not ultimately what matters, even if it provides some context. If the purpose of an item is to make bunnies fluffy but it has a side effect of vaporizing continents, then I don't give a crap what the purpose is, it's not important.
I'm not going to repeat the pages-long argument about what the purpose of various types of guns are. Look back at the history of this thread if you really want but I'd be hypocritical if I chastised you for wanting to discuss this topic further and then went ahead and did it myself. If you choose to just assume I'm wrong and disregard me then fine, but I still recommend you keep the discussion away from the purpose of guns.
I understand your point, but I disagree with it. The purpose does matter, much like in a case of murder intent matters. I don't think there is anyway of separating the two because the purpose is the problem. When you talk about removing cars or something from society there is a bunch of, how will we get around and how will move stuff questions. When you talk about removing guns, the questions are well then how will kill stuff as easily? When people are even at the range they are practicing to be better at killing people. Now in the argument for guns, it is bad people, but most of the time this is justified with, if I don't do it they will get me. That happens at a statistically insignificant number in most of the world because you don't need MAD if the other side doesn't have a nuke. Even in the states there is a statistically insignificant amount of citizen saving themselves or others shootings and the biggest reason it is even a someone legitimate concern is because it is so easy for so many people to have guns. The red text above does seem to be the major source of our disagreement. What matters isn't what the purpose of guns are. What matters is: - The actual role of guns in society
- The fact that XXX is happening a lot
Some examples of XXX are multiple major school shootings per relatively short period of time, cases of dozens of innocent people being shot by one well-armed person, etc. The same analysis can be done to anything else. You brought up cars. What matters is not the purpose of cars. What matters is: - The actual role of cars in society
- The fact that XXX is happening a lot
Some examples of XXX are terrorists or white nationalists intentionally ramming their cars into groups of innocent pedestrians, people driving super dangerously until they crash into cars with innocent people, etc. The interplay between 1 and 2 when trying to decide what to do about laws and regulations is probably going to be different in each of those cases. I've said before I generally agree with guns being treated more like cars and less like buying someone completely unregulated, so long as proper protections are put in place to prevent bait and switch situations which abuse agreed-upon regulations. In neither of the examples above (cars or guns) do I need to give much thought to what the purpose of them are in order to make reasonable recommendations.... I just need to understand the role of them in society and the current events. We can argue about what their purpose is but that's just a major opportunity to disagree without accomplishing anything, has has been proven countless times in this thread. I'd prefer to discuss ways to prevent #2 (or make them less common) from the lists above. i agree with jimmic in that you cant really separate the purpose of guns and their role in society, as well as how we tackle the problem to begin with. guns are designed to kill things period. if youre not using an item for its purpose then quite frankly the item is surplus to the requirements of society. cars are designed for transport, but some people race with it. if we were to ban racing would society really lose much? the issue of self-defense and the validity of the idea of a militia have been discussed already so i wont get into it too much, but its quite clear that many people think guns dont really help with the former and the latter isnt a scenario worth worrying about to begin with. then what reason do you have to keep so many guns in your country, when the problem is quite clearly the amount of guns that are available to your country? Because making guns illegal doesn't make guns dissapear. Remember how making drugs illegal made drug addiction and drug related crimes dissapear? The self defense argument is disregarded by some people, not by others. Many consider it a right, like free spech, wether it works or not. If 5 people are stupid with guns and shot themselves, but 2 are well trained and use them to defend themselves and their family, great. And the debate is not settled; you can find an infinite number of publications both in favor and againt self defence efficancy, as well as gun regulation/homicide rates relationship. Should we ban alcohol? I'm quite sure way more lives would be saved that way. An iteration of this discussion can go on forever and that's why most people are fed up with this thread, specially when someone (not you) atributes malice to their counter part. I.E. "they don't care about dead children" "gun touting idiots" "they hate america and the constitution" "they hate freedom" etc etc. I too am a little tired of the statistics on rights. If this amount of people are untrained, and this amount are reckless, and this amount get disarmed, and this amount used it to commit suicide, then little old you has less of a right to defend yourself because the statistics say so! Do you have any optimism for the future of the debate and the tug of war on compromises of regulation and gun rights? No, I think the democratic party is now a full blown leftist party and keeps turning left pushing identity politics and "democratic" socialism. Compromises are much much harder with polarized sides, and politics becomes more and more a "team sport". Edit: That said, homicide and criminal rates in general keep going down year after year so that's acceptable. I think "gun laws" effect on that is marginal at best, and solutions comes on other fronts. Trust me, you'd see a lot more celebrating from me if Democrats were a full blown leftist party. The US has a Center and a Right, but the Left is disdained (or at best patronized) by both. FWIW Radical leftist are not calling for harsher gun restrictions pretty much at all. Other than if you take mine, you better take the police's first. There's not a lot of resistance to them either. Huey P Newton gun club isn't arguing to take away 30 rd clips or "assault weapons" for example. Could you stop arguing ridiculous stuff like disarming/dismanteling the police is somehow an "average/real" leftist position? Stuff like this is very fringe. You in general tend to argue for all kinds of revolutions and seem to be unable to see that there are true "leftists" that believe in less extreme solutions to be not left. Edit: sry, didn't realise that post was so old.
It's ok man, it's been a while this thread needed to be updated...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/03/us/florida-yoga-studio-shooting-victims/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/28/us/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-victims/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/us/north-carolina-high-school-shooting/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/29/us/kroger-shooting-hate-crime/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/29/us/chicago-weekend-shootings/index.html
That maybe spanned a weeks time... maybe 2.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On November 06 2018 00:44 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2018 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 24 2018 02:24 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 24 2018 01:57 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2018 23:53 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 22 2018 15:19 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 22 2018 06:55 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 06:44 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 05:21 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 05:01 solidbebe wrote:
[quote]
Funnily enough, the fact that you would even consider that a mischaracterization is something which, in my mind, is probably one of the exact problems of American gun culture. I won't pretend to know your history, but I can imagine why for someone growing up in America you might feel that way, since guns are such a large part of American culture and history in many ways. But as someone who grew up in western Europe, in a country where most people won't even see a gun in their lifetime which isn't a policeman's holstered pistol, can you imagine why I feel that way?
Hunting rifles aside, what is the purpose of a gun besides killing humans? Sure they might be fun to shoot on a range, hell I would probably enjoy it myself. But the same could be said for missile launchers, tanks, or what have you. You might not consider those things to be in the same category, but I think they are. A handgun has orders of magnitude less firepower than a tank, but its purpose is the same: killing humans.
I asked you if you want to argue about what the purpose of a gun is, or if you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths. Judging from the above, you chose the former, and gave up on the latter. Why? It's amazing how easily this issue entraps well-intentioned posters. In the hour or so since my last post, two posters wanted to focus on the purpose of guns, even though the purpose is not ultimately what matters, even if it provides some context. If the purpose of an item is to make bunnies fluffy but it has a side effect of vaporizing continents, then I don't give a crap what the purpose is, it's not important. I'm not going to repeat the pages-long argument about what the purpose of various types of guns are. Look back at the history of this thread if you really want but I'd be hypocritical if I chastised you for wanting to discuss this topic further and then went ahead and did it myself. If you choose to just assume I'm wrong and disregard me then fine, but I still recommend you keep the discussion away from the purpose of guns. I understand your point, but I disagree with it. The purpose does matter, much like in a case of murder intent matters. I don't think there is anyway of separating the two because the purpose is the problem. When you talk about removing cars or something from society there is a bunch of, how will we get around and how will move stuff questions. When you talk about removing guns, the questions are well then how will kill stuff as easily? When people are even at the range they are practicing to be better at killing people. Now in the argument for guns, it is bad people, but most of the time this is justified with, if I don't do it they will get me. That happens at a statistically insignificant number in most of the world because you don't need MAD if the other side doesn't have a nuke. Even in the states there is a statistically insignificant amount of citizen saving themselves or others shootings and the biggest reason it is even a someone legitimate concern is because it is so easy for so many people to have guns. The red text above does seem to be the major source of our disagreement. What matters isn't what the purpose of guns are. What matters is: - The actual role of guns in society
- The fact that XXX is happening a lot
Some examples of XXX are multiple major school shootings per relatively short period of time, cases of dozens of innocent people being shot by one well-armed person, etc. The same analysis can be done to anything else. You brought up cars. What matters is not the purpose of cars. What matters is: - The actual role of cars in society
- The fact that XXX is happening a lot
Some examples of XXX are terrorists or white nationalists intentionally ramming their cars into groups of innocent pedestrians, people driving super dangerously until they crash into cars with innocent people, etc. The interplay between 1 and 2 when trying to decide what to do about laws and regulations is probably going to be different in each of those cases. I've said before I generally agree with guns being treated more like cars and less like buying someone completely unregulated, so long as proper protections are put in place to prevent bait and switch situations which abuse agreed-upon regulations. In neither of the examples above (cars or guns) do I need to give much thought to what the purpose of them are in order to make reasonable recommendations.... I just need to understand the role of them in society and the current events. We can argue about what their purpose is but that's just a major opportunity to disagree without accomplishing anything, has has been proven countless times in this thread. I'd prefer to discuss ways to prevent #2 (or make them less common) from the lists above. i agree with jimmic in that you cant really separate the purpose of guns and their role in society, as well as how we tackle the problem to begin with. guns are designed to kill things period. if youre not using an item for its purpose then quite frankly the item is surplus to the requirements of society. cars are designed for transport, but some people race with it. if we were to ban racing would society really lose much? the issue of self-defense and the validity of the idea of a militia have been discussed already so i wont get into it too much, but its quite clear that many people think guns dont really help with the former and the latter isnt a scenario worth worrying about to begin with. then what reason do you have to keep so many guns in your country, when the problem is quite clearly the amount of guns that are available to your country? Because making guns illegal doesn't make guns dissapear. Remember how making drugs illegal made drug addiction and drug related crimes dissapear? The self defense argument is disregarded by some people, not by others. Many consider it a right, like free spech, wether it works or not. If 5 people are stupid with guns and shot themselves, but 2 are well trained and use them to defend themselves and their family, great. And the debate is not settled; you can find an infinite number of publications both in favor and againt self defence efficancy, as well as gun regulation/homicide rates relationship. Should we ban alcohol? I'm quite sure way more lives would be saved that way. An iteration of this discussion can go on forever and that's why most people are fed up with this thread, specially when someone (not you) atributes malice to their counter part. I.E. "they don't care about dead children" "gun touting idiots" "they hate america and the constitution" "they hate freedom" etc etc. I too am a little tired of the statistics on rights. If this amount of people are untrained, and this amount are reckless, and this amount get disarmed, and this amount used it to commit suicide, then little old you has less of a right to defend yourself because the statistics say so! Do you have any optimism for the future of the debate and the tug of war on compromises of regulation and gun rights? No, I think the democratic party is now a full blown leftist party and keeps turning left pushing identity politics and "democratic" socialism. Compromises are much much harder with polarized sides, and politics becomes more and more a "team sport". Edit: That said, homicide and criminal rates in general keep going down year after year so that's acceptable. I think "gun laws" effect on that is marginal at best, and solutions comes on other fronts. Trust me, you'd see a lot more celebrating from me if Democrats were a full blown leftist party. The US has a Center and a Right, but the Left is disdained (or at best patronized) by both. FWIW Radical leftist are not calling for harsher gun restrictions pretty much at all. Other than if you take mine, you better take the police's first. There's not a lot of resistance to them either. Huey P Newton gun club isn't arguing to take away 30 rd clips or "assault weapons" for example. Could you stop arguing ridiculous stuff like disarming/dismanteling the police is somehow an "average/real" leftist position? Stuff like this is very fringe. You in general tend to argue for all kinds of revolutions and seem to be unable to see that there are true "leftists" that believe in less extreme solutions to be not left. Edit: sry, didn't realise that post was so old.
lol that was old but I might as well clear up that I recognize there's a "left" between myself and the centrists. It's just they don't have a party in the US. There's a centrist party and a center right (moving toward authoritarian right with Trump) party. The left operates at the fringe of the centrist party and has been roundly rejected by it's leadership.
That said, you can bring this discussion to my blog whenever, as it probably fits better there.
On a more topical note I voted against a gun initiative today. Reformers should be able to guess why, if they can't it's a large reason why, despite polling well, it might not pass
Here it is for those interested.
|
|
|
On November 08 2018 23:25 JimmiC wrote:We have not been using this thread. But a mass shooting at a bar near pepperdine university has a total of 13 dead so far, 11 people in the bar, the shooter and a cop. The why is not out there yet, but I'm not sure it really matters. It is crazy in a country as developed as the USA that there is so many regular shootings that for it to be national news it has to be a "mass shooting", and that still happens far far too often. I expect this to change nothing. I guess Americans are just accepting that this is part of their lives. https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/california-shooting-intl/index.htmlI think it is time to focus on the "well regulated" part of the second amendment that everyone ignores, but it appears to me like most people have given up on finding a solution.
The "well regulated" part of the amendment only matters in relation to a militia. If you want to argue how we should regulate militias in America that's cool but I don't see how that really relates to gun violence.
|
On November 09 2018 03:33 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 23:25 JimmiC wrote:We have not been using this thread. But a mass shooting at a bar near pepperdine university has a total of 13 dead so far, 11 people in the bar, the shooter and a cop. The why is not out there yet, but I'm not sure it really matters. It is crazy in a country as developed as the USA that there is so many regular shootings that for it to be national news it has to be a "mass shooting", and that still happens far far too often. I expect this to change nothing. I guess Americans are just accepting that this is part of their lives. https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/california-shooting-intl/index.htmlI think it is time to focus on the "well regulated" part of the second amendment that everyone ignores, but it appears to me like most people have given up on finding a solution. The "well regulated" part of the amendment only matters in relation to a militia. If you want to argue how we should regulate militias in America that's cool but I don't see how that really relates to gun violence.
This is untrue. The words “well regulated” and what they pertain to have been the subject of endless legal debate and is no way settled in the decisive manner you depict.
|
United States43533 Posts
On November 09 2018 03:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 03:33 Sermokala wrote:On November 08 2018 23:25 JimmiC wrote:We have not been using this thread. But a mass shooting at a bar near pepperdine university has a total of 13 dead so far, 11 people in the bar, the shooter and a cop. The why is not out there yet, but I'm not sure it really matters. It is crazy in a country as developed as the USA that there is so many regular shootings that for it to be national news it has to be a "mass shooting", and that still happens far far too often. I expect this to change nothing. I guess Americans are just accepting that this is part of their lives. https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/california-shooting-intl/index.htmlI think it is time to focus on the "well regulated" part of the second amendment that everyone ignores, but it appears to me like most people have given up on finding a solution. The "well regulated" part of the amendment only matters in relation to a militia. If you want to argue how we should regulate militias in America that's cool but I don't see how that really relates to gun violence. This is untrue. The words “well regulated” and what they pertain to have been the subject of endless legal debate and is no way settled in the decisive manner you depict.
My understanding is that they meant it in the usage of the time, the way a working clock is well regulated. So internally well organized, but not subject to modern gov regulations.
|
Surely 'what would be best?' is a better question than 'what did they mean?'
|
United States43533 Posts
On November 09 2018 04:04 Jockmcplop wrote:
Surely 'what would be best?' is a better question than 'what did they mean?'
Only if you assume the second amendment can be changed. If not you have to reinterpret it.
|
Only if you consider the court to be legislators of the law, instead of merely interpreters, Jockmcplop. I ask my national and state representatives to carry my wishes and those of my area to government to help decide what would be the best way to handle the regulation of guns in the minutiae, or if the second amendment is in need of a fresh constitutional amendment by Congress or States. Any further presumption on the parts of the courts makes them your king.
|
|
|
On November 09 2018 04:04 Jockmcplop wrote:
Surely 'what would be best?' is a better question than 'what did they mean?'
You have come to the eternal debate over the Constitution and how to apply it. Though I would reframe it by in saying “What is best?” vs “What is allowed?”
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
