|
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 November 09 2018 04:21 JimmiC 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. I would like to argue that you have a huge gun violence issue and it might be time to look at interrupting a 200 year old sentence taking into account the modern world and modern technology.
I would argue on the "huge" compared to other ways people die in America. Even you surely aren't blind enough to think that people would actually agree on what the second amendment should be changed to? Best case we get something that is the same as we have now but with updated grammar, and if you think all the fuss of changing the constitution for no real gain is worth it then I don't really understand your sense of scale on issues.
|
|
|
On November 09 2018 04:21 JimmiC 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. I would like to argue that you have a huge gun violence issue and it might be time to look at interrupting a 200 year old sentence taking into account the modern world and modern technology. I would love to hear a solution to all the violence that includes keeping free purchase of any and all weapons. I just have not, I have only heard " It is my right and I want to keep it"
There was the "arm everyone" argument going around for a whole. Luckily I think it's finally been recognised as ridiculous from all sides as I haven't heard much of it lately.
|
|
|
On November 09 2018 04:25 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 04:21 JimmiC wrote: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. I would like to argue that you have a huge gun violence issue and it might be time to look at interrupting a 200 year old sentence taking into account the modern world and modern technology. I would argue on the "huge" compared to other ways people die in America. Even you surely aren't blind enough to think that people would actually agree on what the second amendment should be changed to? Best case we get something that is the same as we have now but with updated grammar, and if you think all the fuss of changing the constitution for no real gain is worth it then I don't really understand your sense of scale on issues.
Recent polls show somewhere between 70 and 80% of all Americans want stricter gun laws. That's pretty one-sided compared to the average political issue. I'm sure not all of those 80% agrees on exactly what should be done, but they all agree about the direction.
|
|
|
On November 09 2018 05:02 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 04:25 Sermokala wrote:On November 09 2018 04:21 JimmiC wrote: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. I would like to argue that you have a huge gun violence issue and it might be time to look at interrupting a 200 year old sentence taking into account the modern world and modern technology. I would argue on the "huge" compared to other ways people die in America. Even you surely aren't blind enough to think that people would actually agree on what the second amendment should be changed to? Best case we get something that is the same as we have now but with updated grammar, and if you think all the fuss of changing the constitution for no real gain is worth it then I don't really understand your sense of scale on issues. Recent polls show somewhere between 70 and 80% of all Americans want stricter gun laws. That's pretty one-sided compared to the average political issue. I'm sure not all of those 80% agrees on exactly what should be done, but they all agree about the direction.
And I agree. There is a lot of things you could do to make things reasonable more safe without just harassing legal gun owners. The problem is the only answers offered in any degree end up vague or petty with either a bad understanding of what guns are or are just an attempt to make laws for people who follow the law.
|
That is untrue. We have had this discussion multiple times, and to just claim that people who are for increased gun control do not offer any good ideas as to what can be done is just false.
There have been very coherent ideas with multiple different levels of seriousness proposed in this thread alone. There have been proposals from simply fixing loopholes in the current system, like gun show sales, to moderate levels of increased control, to simply stealing the (working) system from basically any european nation. If you want the exact proposals, i am sure you can find them in this thread. I am also almost certain that you were involved in at least some of those discussions.
Yet still you claim that "the answers offerend in any degree end up vague or petty with either bad understanding of what guns are or are just an attempt to make laws for people who follow the law".
|
On November 08 2018 23:25 JimmiC wrote:
I 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 Supreme Court has already had a landmark ruling that has decided that the 2nd Amendment does guarantee the right to ownership of firearms, while also stating that regulation of firearms is not unconstitutional. That means that regulations can be placed upon them. With the recent conservative appointments that have already been confirmed, it is likely that any case brought against the right to bear firearms won't go over well either, at least for the foreseeable future.
Not to mention it's realistically impossible to get the 2nd Amendment repealed or done away with. You want a majority of Congress to agree on any kind of proposal, and then have 3/4 of the States ratify it? Good luck. Mentioning the 2nd Amendment and trying to get rid of it/amend it is absolutely useless, even the most prominent gun control advocates will tell you that. Not only is it a colossal waste of time since you can't even get Congress to agree on things like a bump stock ban or a more robust background check, but you also show that you are more than willing to go after the guaranteed rights of law abiding gun owners, which will turn many of them against your position, which could have had success if you took a more moderate and sensible approach.
|
Washington was the only state to have gun regulation legislation on the ballot for midterms and it won 60% (even with me voting against it).
Problem is they, like many liberals, ignored the calls for not being grossly ignorant and it's probably going to get thrown out by a Supreme Court.
|
|
|
On November 09 2018 05:08 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 05:02 Excludos wrote:On November 09 2018 04:25 Sermokala wrote:On November 09 2018 04:21 JimmiC wrote: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. I would like to argue that you have a huge gun violence issue and it might be time to look at interrupting a 200 year old sentence taking into account the modern world and modern technology. I would argue on the "huge" compared to other ways people die in America. Even you surely aren't blind enough to think that people would actually agree on what the second amendment should be changed to? Best case we get something that is the same as we have now but with updated grammar, and if you think all the fuss of changing the constitution for no real gain is worth it then I don't really understand your sense of scale on issues. Recent polls show somewhere between 70 and 80% of all Americans want stricter gun laws. That's pretty one-sided compared to the average political issue. I'm sure not all of those 80% agrees on exactly what should be done, but they all agree about the direction. And I agree. There is a lot of things you could do to make things reasonable more safe without just harassing legal gun owners. The problem is the only answers offered in any degree end up vague or petty with either a bad understanding of what guns are or are just an attempt to make laws for people who follow the law.
Your answer and most the ones given on this thread are complete bullshit.
The only reason you speak the same apathetic bullshit is because you or your family weren't at the bar that night.
You would never have the balls to say that to the face of this man or any other person that lost someone in a shooting.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/jason-coffman-california-shooting-borderline/index.html
Take a look at that, then tell him there are no good answers for the problem.
Here's a few... None of them are vague.
Close the gun show loophole, ban bump stocks, ban extended mags (which was used this time), background checks (for ptsd in this case), assault weapons ban (come up with a reasonable fucking definition, though I know everyone in this thread loves to get hung up on "definitions"), require a license and training to purchase a gun (like a car), require insurance for guns...
There are more, and none of the others are vague either. Guns are your culture if you're a gun owner... and your responsibility to do something about, because your hobby is bleeding the rest of the fucking country.
|
|
|
On November 09 2018 08:33 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 08:29 superstartran wrote:On November 08 2018 23:25 JimmiC wrote:
I 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 Supreme Court has already had a landmark ruling that has decided that the 2nd Amendment does guarantee the right to ownership of firearms, while also stating that regulation of firearms is not unconstitutional. That means that regulations can be placed upon them. With the recent conservative appointments that have already been confirmed, it is likely that any case brought against the right to bear firearms won't go over well either, at least for the foreseeable future. Not to mention it's realistically impossible to get the 2nd Amendment repealed or done away with. You want a majority of Congress to agree on any kind of proposal, and then have 3/4 of the States ratify it? Good luck. Mentioning the 2nd Amendment and trying to get rid of it/amend it is absolutely useless, even the most prominent gun control advocates will tell you that. Not only is it a colossal waste of time since you can't even get Congress to agree on things like a bump stock ban or a more robust background check, but you also show that you are more than willing to go after the guaranteed rights of law abiding gun owners, which will turn many of them against your position, which could have had success if you took a more moderate and sensible approach. Not that I would be personally against what you stated, but in asking to focus on one part I was not suggesting to repeal or do away with the second amendment. I was suggesting people focus on regulating guns. And pointing out how hard that is to get done is a little like pointing out the grass is green, because if it was easy some thing would already be done after the numerous mass shootings.
And how should it be regulated? See, that's the issue. The vast majority of posters in this thread for example are not very well educated on why someone needs a .223/5.56 round to defend themselves (aka the same caliber round fired from the AR-15). I could explain until my face is blue as to the realistic nature as to why you would want a center fire, low recoil firearm, but most people wouldn't understand nor want to understand that. They'll just completely ignore it and just argue their agenda.
Another great example of this is that almost 9/10 'gun control' advocates in this thread completely ignored the fact that the vast majority of non-suicide gun violence is urban gang related. Notice how almost all of the gun control posts are geared towards mass shootings? Everyone loves to talk about mass shootings, but no one talks about how urban gang member A killed urban gang member B. The media doesn't even cover this, because none of that really matters on the national news. When someone shoots up a night club of white folks though? All over the news. I'm not saying that to be insensitive, but it's very obvious that the media and a ton of posters here really doesn't care about gun violence in general, rather they care about mass shootings. I'm not saying that we shouldn't solve mass shootings either; I'm making the point that most of the gun control laws that have been proposed here probably wouldn't really have prevented or reduced the death tolls in many of the mass shootings, outside of the bump stock ban which I am completely on board with.
|
United States24779 Posts
On November 09 2018 08:38 ShambhalaWar wrote:
assault weapons ban (come up with a reasonable fucking definition, though I know everyone in this thread loves to get hung up on "definitions"),
I think I agree with all of your other suggestions, but why throw your credibility out with this? Poorly defining what gets banned is just about the easiest way to make a terrible law.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that was just to prevent the inevitable "OMG your definition is bad" discussion that starts every single fucking time that someone talks about banning anything related to firearms, and which only has the goal of grinding people down until they stop caring and stop discussing this stuff.
Because it is easier to attack a single tangential and keep hitting it then dealing with the overarcing problem that a lot of people in the US die by getting shot, and especially a lot more people than in any other first-world country.
It is a tactic that gun people love to use. "Sure, sure, we would totally be for regulation to prevent bad things, just THIS regulation that you propose is bad, and instead of talking about how to improve it, why don't we just throw out all of the things you proposed, even those that are not linked to that proposition which i critiqued, and start again completely from scratch. Make a new proposal that solves everything and satisfies all of my many, many additional conditions that i will never state, but which you nonetheless have to guess correctly, please. Or we can talk forever about ever increasing minor details of that proposition until you get tired and stop talking, that also works."
It is a strategy to grind down opposition. Because gun people don't actually want anything to change, and they are in fact completely fine with the amount of people who die due to guns in the US, they see that as a reasonable price for their ability to own a gun. But they don't want to say that, because that makes them seem like heartless assholes. So they do this grinding, grinding, grinding until people stop talking about regulations for a while.
And honestly, it seems to be working. I notice that i am mostly at the point where i am just happy that you keep that shit contained in the US, and am less and less willing to talk about it, because it is honestly exhausting. And there does not seem to be any push for gun control in the US that is actually working. So i guess good job?
|
On November 09 2018 08:52 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 08:38 ShambhalaWar wrote:
assault weapons ban (come up with a reasonable fucking definition, though I know everyone in this thread loves to get hung up on "definitions"), I think I agree with all of your other suggestions, but why throw your credibility out with this? Poorly defining what gets banned is just about the easiest way to make a terrible law.
OK. I think I get your point, but to say my credibly goes out the window... is laughable and bullshit.
You shouldn't be worrying about the technicalities of a law that can't even be a consideration yet, because of the gun lobby.
|
On November 09 2018 08:59 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 08:52 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 08:33 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 08:29 superstartran wrote:On November 08 2018 23:25 JimmiC wrote:
I 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 Supreme Court has already had a landmark ruling that has decided that the 2nd Amendment does guarantee the right to ownership of firearms, while also stating that regulation of firearms is not unconstitutional. That means that regulations can be placed upon them. With the recent conservative appointments that have already been confirmed, it is likely that any case brought against the right to bear firearms won't go over well either, at least for the foreseeable future. Not to mention it's realistically impossible to get the 2nd Amendment repealed or done away with. You want a majority of Congress to agree on any kind of proposal, and then have 3/4 of the States ratify it? Good luck. Mentioning the 2nd Amendment and trying to get rid of it/amend it is absolutely useless, even the most prominent gun control advocates will tell you that. Not only is it a colossal waste of time since you can't even get Congress to agree on things like a bump stock ban or a more robust background check, but you also show that you are more than willing to go after the guaranteed rights of law abiding gun owners, which will turn many of them against your position, which could have had success if you took a more moderate and sensible approach. Not that I would be personally against what you stated, but in asking to focus on one part I was not suggesting to repeal or do away with the second amendment. I was suggesting people focus on regulating guns. And pointing out how hard that is to get done is a little like pointing out the grass is green, because if it was easy some thing would already be done after the numerous mass shootings. And how should it be regulated? See, that's the issue. The vast majority of posters in this thread for example are not very well educated on why someone needs a .223/5.56 round to defend themselves (aka the same caliber round fired from the AR-15). I could explain until my face is blue as to the realistic nature as to why you would want a center fire, low recoil firearm, but most people wouldn't understand nor want to understand that. They'll just completely ignore it and just argue their agenda. Another great example of this is that almost 9/10 'gun control' advocates in this thread completely ignored the fact that the vast majority of non-suicide gun violence is urban gang related. Notice how almost all of the gun control posts are geared towards mass shootings? Everyone loves to talk about mass shootings, but no one talks about how urban gang member A killed urban gang member B. The media doesn't even cover this, because none of that really matters on the national news. When someone shoots up a night club of white folks though? All over the news. I'm not saying that to be insensitive, but it's very obvious that the media and a ton of posters here really doesn't care about gun violence in general, rather they care about mass shootings. I'm not saying that we shouldn't solve mass shootings either; I'm making the point that most of the gun control laws that have been proposed here probably wouldn't really have prevented or reduced the death tolls in many of the mass shootings, outside of the bump stock ban which I am completely on board with. I'm fully aware about how most of the killings are not mass shootings, I think most are aware, the reason they key on mass shootings is people are not as numb to it as they are to the day to day killing you mention. Most countries have gang problems, most countries do not have the level of gun violence that you have. As for your first paragraph, I'm not sure that your knowledge on the best and most effective way to kill someone is that relevant. The point of gun control is to make the chances that you would "need to" be so statistically irrelevant that it doesn't make sense. I mean, that is really the way it is now even in the USA the chances of you being shot by your own weapon are way higher then being shot by anyone elses. I'm fully aware that the AR/15 is extremely effective at killing people, it is just that I see this as a problem not a benefit.
See, your reaction instantly shows your ignorance on the matter.
The AR-15 is no more effective at killing than a 12 gauge shotgun or a 9mm pistol at close range within a home on a single person. The reason why you want an AR-15 is because you have a combination of stopping power, low recoil, easy to use in a ready position, and a significantly less chance of over penetration and causing collateral damage (aka hitting your neighbor or someone in another room). The last part is crucial and the primary reason why you'd actually want to use an AR-15 over something like a 9mm Glock.
See what most gun owners mean about how they would be extremely uneasy in allowing some politicians dictate what I can and cannot use? You didn't even know that the AR-15 would be the primary choice as a self-defense weapon because of the fact that you'd have less chance of collateral damage, rather than it's 'awesome stopping power'.
In regards to the last point, there are many countries who have high levels of gun violence and have very strict gun laws. Most of those have huge issues with socioeconomic problems i.e. Mexico and Russia. The vast majority of the U.S. gun related violence occurs within these areas also. If we were comparing similar geographic areas then you'd probably see that parts of the U.S. match up quite well with other parts of Europe (i.e. comparing NYC to London). The real problem is that most posters here love to compare Apples to Oranges and then say that our country is shitty, because hating on Murica is the in thing to do right now.
On November 09 2018 09:07 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 08:52 micronesia wrote:On November 09 2018 08:38 ShambhalaWar wrote:
assault weapons ban (come up with a reasonable fucking definition, though I know everyone in this thread loves to get hung up on "definitions"), I think I agree with all of your other suggestions, but why throw your credibility out with this? Poorly defining what gets banned is just about the easiest way to make a terrible law. OK. I think I get your point, but to say my credibly goes out the window... is laughable and bullshit. You shouldn't be worrying about the technicalities of a law that can't even be a consideration yet, because of the gun lobby.
The NRA's influence comes from the fact that they also have the support of the vast majority of center right conservatives, not from the NRA's minuscule 2 million members or the amount of money they donate. They donate absolute pennies compared to pharmaceutical companies, medical insurance companies, tobacco, and tech companies. It's populism; aka how democracy is supposed to work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
