|
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 11 2018 09:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 05:33 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 04:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 00:40 superstartran wrote:
I would think Europe would be on the level of the United States in regards to safety versus radical Islamic terrorism, but you don't see me going into the EU thread shitting on them relentlessly (you know, considering for the past 14ish years Europe has seen more wide scale radical Islamic terrorist attacks as a whole) with my own 'agenda'. If only USA had the same level of safety from "Islamic" terrorism as Europe does then the level of violent gun safety as USA does, would USA be a lot safer. Also this is literally a gun thread. If you want to go discuss heart attack go make a thread on it. I hope you realize that in some years more people die from radical Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe than people die of mass shootings in the United States. But why argue with facts when you can just moral grand stand and say guns are bad? My point was that just because a country has an issue, doesn't mean you can't debate it in a calm manner. I could moral grand stand on the issue of how European countries would rather see their own citizens die in radical terrorist attacks due to their lax immigration policies. But I don't do that. Why is it ok for your side to come in here and try to hold the moral high ground against gun rights activists and say they are complicit in the murders of innocent people? That's not even arguing with facts, that's just going to piss people off and justifiably so. If your goal is to have a reasonable debate on what the United States can realistically do in terms of gun control, then we can have that debate. If your goal is to come in here and shit on the United States and say it's a terrible place due to its gun culture, etc. then why are you even here in the first place. Replying to each individual point: You know that you are factually wrong? Proportionally speaking, more people in USA die in mass shooting in USA than the whole of Europe? Maybe that's a problem? You don't get to pretend that your facts are more correct than others, when they are wrong. The tone I am using is clearly calm, since is is severly tongue in cheek, but it appears that you are using your favourite tactic of claiming that people who are arguing against you are being emotional. Again. Usually you claim they are being hysterical, so that's a small improvement. Don't you get tired of this? If you don't like my country's immigration policy, you are welcome to go to this thread: https://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/419575-uk-politics-mega-thread, so you can now stop your attempts to derail off topic, now you can stop deliberately bringing it over and over again. I've never shit on the United States, that's just you. As for myself, I love to criticise my country. I want the best laws and culture that my Great country can have. That's because I want my country and the people living in it to be the best it can be. Well, I am here, discussing mass shootings, because this is the mass shootings thread. I don't know why you are tryingto shush everyone up from discussing the topic. If you want to go discuss UK immigration and terrorism, I already pointed out a thread for you.
1) It is a statistical fact that in some years more people in Europe die from radical islamic terrorist attacks than mass shootings in the United States. I don't see mass hysteria all over the news about it though. Good attempt at straw manning me though. Point being, you can debate the points without acting like you are holier than thou and somehow Europe is the epitome of the civilized world. Don't try and twist my words. I never said anything about 'proportional.' I was speaking strictly on raw numbers.
2) You have moral grandstanded in this very thread, you yourself have claimed you don't understand how U.S. citizens could possibly feel that self-defense is a justifiable reason to having guns, when so many people are dying around them. That's classic textbook moral grand standing.
3) When I refer to you, I refer to not just you, but many others also in this very thread who have shit on U.S. gun culture, saying that gun rights activists are complicit in the murder of innocence, etc. I'm pretty sick of seeing it.
And please do tell me where my 'murica' beliefs are. I believe in gun control laws such as...
1) Banning Bumpstocks
2) Firearm Registration
3) Red Flag Laws
4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval)
5) Expanded Background Checks
6) Required Firearm Education Classes
7) Wait Times
I think these are all very reasonable regulations that pretty much everyone here can agree with. But for some odd reason, people want to jump on the hate Murica train. Which kind of leads me to believe that it's not really about gun control at all, but rather people would rather just see guns banned.
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On November 11 2018 10:24 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 09:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 05:33 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 04:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 00:40 superstartran wrote:
I would think Europe would be on the level of the United States in regards to safety versus radical Islamic terrorism, but you don't see me going into the EU thread shitting on them relentlessly (you know, considering for the past 14ish years Europe has seen more wide scale radical Islamic terrorist attacks as a whole) with my own 'agenda'. If only USA had the same level of safety from "Islamic" terrorism as Europe does then the level of violent gun safety as USA does, would USA be a lot safer. Also this is literally a gun thread. If you want to go discuss heart attack go make a thread on it. I hope you realize that in some years more people die from radical Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe than people die of mass shootings in the United States. But why argue with facts when you can just moral grand stand and say guns are bad? My point was that just because a country has an issue, doesn't mean you can't debate it in a calm manner. I could moral grand stand on the issue of how European countries would rather see their own citizens die in radical terrorist attacks due to their lax immigration policies. But I don't do that. Why is it ok for your side to come in here and try to hold the moral high ground against gun rights activists and say they are complicit in the murders of innocent people? That's not even arguing with facts, that's just going to piss people off and justifiably so. If your goal is to have a reasonable debate on what the United States can realistically do in terms of gun control, then we can have that debate. If your goal is to come in here and shit on the United States and say it's a terrible place due to its gun culture, etc. then why are you even here in the first place. Replying to each individual point: You know that you are factually wrong? Proportionally speaking, more people in USA die in mass shooting in USA than the whole of Europe? Maybe that's a problem? You don't get to pretend that your facts are more correct than others, when they are wrong. The tone I am using is clearly calm, since is is severly tongue in cheek, but it appears that you are using your favourite tactic of claiming that people who are arguing against you are being emotional. Again. Usually you claim they are being hysterical, so that's a small improvement. Don't you get tired of this? If you don't like my country's immigration policy, you are welcome to go to this thread: https://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/419575-uk-politics-mega-thread, so you can now stop your attempts to derail off topic, now you can stop deliberately bringing it over and over again. I've never shit on the United States, that's just you. As for myself, I love to criticise my country. I want the best laws and culture that my Great country can have. That's because I want my country and the people living in it to be the best it can be. Well, I am here, discussing mass shootings, because this is the mass shootings thread. I don't know why you are tryingto shush everyone up from discussing the topic. If you want to go discuss UK immigration and terrorism, I already pointed out a thread for you. 1) It is a statistical fact that in some years more people in Europe die from radical islamic terrorist attacks than mass shootings in the United States. I don't see mass hysteria all over the news about it though. Good attempt at straw manning me though. Point being, you can debate the points without acting like you are holier than thou and somehow Europe is the epitome of the civilized world. Don't try and twist my words. I never said anything about 'proportional.' I was speaking strictly on raw numbers. 2) You have moral grandstanded in this very thread, you yourself have claimed you don't understand how U.S. citizens could possibly feel that self-defense is a justifiable reason to having guns, when so many people are dying around them. That's classic textbook moral grand standing. 3) When I refer to you, I refer to not just you, but many others also in this very thread who have shit on U.S. gun culture, saying that gun rights activists are complicit in the murder of innocence, etc. I'm pretty sick of seeing it. And please do tell me where my 'murica' beliefs are. I believe in gun control laws such as... 1) Banning Bumpstocks 2) Firearm Registration 3) Red Flag Laws 4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval) 5) Expanded Background Checks 6) Required Firearm Education Classes 7) Wait Times I think these are all very reasonable regulations that pretty much everyone here can agree with. But for some odd reason, people want to jump on the hate Murica train. Which kind of leads me to believe that it's not really about gun control at all, but rather people would rather just see guns banned.
All of those are things that California has to some extent or another. And it does reduce gun crime in the state. I think we could do things better, true. I disagree with the idea that because one mass shooting happened, our current gun law does nothing, and therefore we shouldn't have it at all.
|
On November 10 2018 01:38 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 01:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 10 2018 01:23 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 01:13 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 00:26 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 22:03 Simberto wrote:On November 09 2018 21:09 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 21:04 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
I think you don't know what compromise is. There's no point in compromise if everything believes the same thing to begin with.
The legitimacy of the 2nd amendment in modern America is exactly what needs to be called into question imo. Having people come to the table to discuss that shouldn't be such a taboo idea.
Its like saying that you refuse to talk about moral issues with anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible is the word of God. ^ Hence why this is never going to get anywhere. Calling into question the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment already calls into question your actual motives. Not recognizing that citizens should have the right to firearms as a form of self-defense, particularly in rural America, is going to not win you over any favors when it comes to compromise. I've already laid out what SHOULD be done in terms of gun control. All which are very reasonable measures that most people would agree upon. What you're asking for is not just realistically impossible, but it also alienates gun owners big time, many who you need to get passage of reasonable gun control. But that is exactly the point. If you say "2nd amendment", there can not be any discussion. The question of whether and to what extent guns should be part of a contemporary society should not be based on what some people wrote down more than 200 years ago, but about what the situation is right now. If you can make a compelling argument about guns now, make that argument. Don't stand on the "2nd amendment". That is not an argument, it is dogma. If you say "guns are needed for self defense", that is an argument that people can actually debate, and there might be an open end. Because it is possible that someone could convince you that they are not necessary, and it is possible that you convince someone that they are necessary. That is a fruitful argument, that can lead to reasonable discussion. "2nd amendment says" does none of that. Because it is not actually an argument. The question is not really about what the 2nd amendment says, but about whether you accept the dogma as reason enough to comply. And saying that you must accept the 2nd amendment before even talking about this limits the discussion greatly, and the only argument is "200 years ago some people wrote this down". A rational society should approach policy on a rational basis, not on the basis of doctrine. (I am not saying that you should immediately throw out anything old, a lot of it is working well. But something should not be immune to criticism just because it has been that way for a long time. That is evidence that it might be useful and working, which can be used in a discussion, but not a reason to completely shut down the argument.) It is similar to discussing with someone that uses their holy book as a basis of an argument. "The quran says" or "the bible says" are not rational arguments that can be debated on a rational basis, and there is no discussion to be had here. You can either accept the moral authority of the book and comply, or not accept it, but you can still not actually change anyones mind about this. Do you not see how self-defeating this actually is? You want compromise but then you go after the one piece of legislation that guarantees the rights of gun owners. Whether or not the 2nd Amendment's interpretation is correct or not is not even what I am debating. What I am debating is your intent. You ask for people to compromise, but then put forth a completely unrealistic proposition. Even the most prominent gun control advocates currently scoff at the notion of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. Realistically rewriting or getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would take a herculean effort that is currently not realistically possible under current conditions. You need 2/3 of Congress to agree, which would take a miracle under the current political climate. Then you'd need 3/4 of the States to ratify said Amendment to make it a law. Even the current interpretation of the law is a relatively moderate position. Gun owners have a right to own guns, but that does not mean they are not subject to regulation. Heller vs DC 2008. That's about as moderate as a position as you are going to get. So even going after guns from a Supreme Court stance would take an almost herculean effort, as the Supreme Court has given a fairly reasonable and moderate position on the legality of private firearms. It's very easy to see your intent is not to debate what measures can we put in place to prevent gun violence, but how do we get rid of firearms as a whole in the United States of America. The fact that you are unrealistically arguing about changing/rewriting/removing the 2nd Amendment is evidence of that, especially since you've in no way suggested any kind of 'alternative' to the removal of the 2nd Amendment. I don't understand why you think its not possible to debate measures for preventing gun violence whilst also debating the validity and relevance of gun culture. The fact is that in this thread most people are agreed on what would be good legislation to put in place to prevent gun violence - mandatory waiting periods etc. - We all think that these things are good ideas. When I have suggested other legislation those posts are ignored in favour of this ranting about intentions. This would be an interesting discussion to have. Another interesting debate is why that legislation won't happen (a minority of weapon owners/sellers with extreme views/bad proposed legislation and overreach are good candidates - as well as those in the middle who own guns and would like to seem reasonable but actually don't really want any gun control legislation at all). Blaming people who don't want to live in a society that is saturated with deadly weapons for the fact that no-one will entertain the possibility of getting rid of the weapons isn't a particularly coherent way to go about it. How is this ranting? Your side says 'we should compromise' but don't even recognize the validity of a very moderate position on guns in general. Private ownership is allowed, however firearms can be regulated. If you want to get rid of all guns just state that is your position, rather than trying to moral grandstand and say that 'we aren't here to take away your guns.' There's no moral grandstanding here ( I actually said nothing about morality and asked someone above not to make the moral argument - so I have no idea at all where this came from lol), and I've made my position clear many times. In the short term some legislation needs to be put in place to curb the excessive levels of gun violence. In the long term I'd like to see the second amendment revoked because I don't believe gun rights should be a thing. Does this mean I'm coming for your guns? No. For a start nothing I say or do can have any effect on your guns, because I'm not in America. I'm just stating what I believe in and trying to have a discussion about it. Not talking about you specifically; talking about others who like to moral grandstand as though they are taking a moderate position on firearms, then turn around and say that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed or done away with despite the fact that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is very reasonable and moderate. How about we do what Australia did, how would you feel about that? Australia is very different from our country. Stating that would be like me saying why don't we just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now. I've already gone over why Australia's laws had little to no impact. For one, a buyback program isn't going to go over very well here in the U.S. for a truckload of reasons.
I would argue the major difference between our two countries are the gun laws.
I would say the fact that they had any mass shootings and changed the laws and then had none... is pretty strong evidence that the laws work.
Clearly you cannot argue in America that the problem isn't availability. Guns are abundant, and easy as hell to get. Anyone can get a AR. Doesn't matter if you have good mental health or not, there is no regulation.
So when someone hits bottom, they don't have to struggle to get the gun... it's already there. Then they just hop in the car at their low point and go commit suicide by brings 10-20 people with them.
If the guns aren't there, then the amount of damage they can inflict is drastically less.
It's that simple.
I would respect gun advocates if they stood behind their convictions of getting the laws changed in a reasonable way, so that gun ownership is safe in America... But gun advocates aren't marching... or lobbying for change... they are just talking in forums... it isn't enough.
|
On November 10 2018 02:40 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 02:22 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 02:13 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 01:38 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 10 2018 01:23 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 01:13 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 00:26 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
Do you not see how self-defeating this actually is? You want compromise but then you go after the one piece of legislation that guarantees the rights of gun owners. Whether or not the 2nd Amendment's interpretation is correct or not is not even what I am debating. What I am debating is your intent. You ask for people to compromise, but then put forth a completely unrealistic proposition. Even the most prominent gun control advocates currently scoff at the notion of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment.
Realistically rewriting or getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would take a herculean effort that is currently not realistically possible under current conditions. You need 2/3 of Congress to agree, which would take a miracle under the current political climate. Then you'd need 3/4 of the States to ratify said Amendment to make it a law. Even the current interpretation of the law is a relatively moderate position. Gun owners have a right to own guns, but that does not mean they are not subject to regulation. Heller vs DC 2008. That's about as moderate as a position as you are going to get. So even going after guns from a Supreme Court stance would take an almost herculean effort, as the Supreme Court has given a fairly reasonable and moderate position on the legality of private firearms.
It's very easy to see your intent is not to debate what measures can we put in place to prevent gun violence, but how do we get rid of firearms as a whole in the United States of America. The fact that you are unrealistically arguing about changing/rewriting/removing the 2nd Amendment is evidence of that, especially since you've in no way suggested any kind of 'alternative' to the removal of the 2nd Amendment. I don't understand why you think its not possible to debate measures for preventing gun violence whilst also debating the validity and relevance of gun culture. The fact is that in this thread most people are agreed on what would be good legislation to put in place to prevent gun violence - mandatory waiting periods etc. - We all think that these things are good ideas. When I have suggested other legislation those posts are ignored in favour of this ranting about intentions. This would be an interesting discussion to have. Another interesting debate is why that legislation won't happen (a minority of weapon owners/sellers with extreme views/bad proposed legislation and overreach are good candidates - as well as those in the middle who own guns and would like to seem reasonable but actually don't really want any gun control legislation at all). Blaming people who don't want to live in a society that is saturated with deadly weapons for the fact that no-one will entertain the possibility of getting rid of the weapons isn't a particularly coherent way to go about it. How is this ranting? Your side says 'we should compromise' but don't even recognize the validity of a very moderate position on guns in general. Private ownership is allowed, however firearms can be regulated. If you want to get rid of all guns just state that is your position, rather than trying to moral grandstand and say that 'we aren't here to take away your guns.' There's no moral grandstanding here ( I actually said nothing about morality and asked someone above not to make the moral argument - so I have no idea at all where this came from lol), and I've made my position clear many times. In the short term some legislation needs to be put in place to curb the excessive levels of gun violence. In the long term I'd like to see the second amendment revoked because I don't believe gun rights should be a thing. Does this mean I'm coming for your guns? No. For a start nothing I say or do can have any effect on your guns, because I'm not in America. I'm just stating what I believe in and trying to have a discussion about it. Not talking about you specifically; talking about others who like to moral grandstand as though they are taking a moderate position on firearms, then turn around and say that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed or done away with despite the fact that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is very reasonable and moderate. How about we do what Australia did, how would you feel about that? Australia is very different from our country. Stating that would be like me saying why don't we just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now. I've already gone over why Australia's laws had little to no impact. For one, a buyback program isn't going to go over very well here in the U.S. for a truckload of reasons. ...Why don't you just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now? I don't think that argument went the way you wanted it to. It went perfectly how I wanted it to. Using someone else's laws and superficially applying it across the board isn't going to just magically work. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you mean? Every first world country who have adopted these laws have seen massive decrease in gun violence (for obvious reasons. Difficult to have gun violence without guns). The reason people like to bring up Australia is because, despite what some people like to think, they were exactly like America is now. They had a problem with gun violence and mass murders, and conservatives kept yelling that they shouldn't do anything because "Their country has a different culture, it just won't work". Politicians bet their careers pushing these legislations through..and guess what? It did work. Gun violence reduced drastically, murder rate reduced quite a bit, and mass shootings are now basically non existent. Can people still buy guns for hunting and/or self protection in case you live in a rural area with 2 hour ride to the nearest police office? You bet. The problem isn't culture. You're not as different as you'd like to think. The problem is willpower. As long as people (and especially politicians who by now are largely ignoring the majority of the people's will on this subject) don't want to do anything because <insert excuse here>, nothing will happen.
I would piggy back on your point... the problem isn't the people. Statistically our people, almost universally want the change, it's only our congress that stops it.
They only stop it because they are paid by the gun lobby to not act. Maybe some other big money lobby also stops it, because they would rather have us killing and fighting each other over it, rather than fight them and decrease their profit margins.
That's it. So simple, that it always comes back to money.
Profiting on peoples' pain or anyway corporations can.
|
United States24690 Posts
On November 11 2018 11:18 ShambhalaWar wrote:
I would respect gun advocates if they stood behind their convictions of getting the laws changed in a reasonable way, so that gun ownership is safe in America... But gun advocates aren't marching... or lobbying for change... they are just talking in forums... it isn't enough.
One thing I'm doing is not voting for people that are satisfied with status quo when it comes to gun issues. Based on where I vote it didn't really matter this year, but for many people that can have a big influence.
With respect to the bold above, what have you done aside from 'just talking in forums'?
|
On November 10 2018 21:13 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 20:17 Blazinghand wrote:On November 10 2018 14:22 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 08:09 Simberto wrote:
And still, criminals in other first world countries are far less well armed than US criminals. Probably less well armed than the average US citizen. So your theoretic point that you so love does not really fit reality. I like how it's simply 'first world countries' because other countries with extremely strict gun laws still have serious homicide issues. It's like gun control laws simply aren't the determining factor, or even a major factor in what causes homicide. Gasp. Riddle me this. California has arguably the toughest gun control laws in the entire United States. Firearm registry, red flag laws, magazine limitations, assault weapon bans, restrictions on ammunition type, highly restricted concealed carry (must be approved by local law enforcement and can be denied for any reason), NFA restrictions (suppressors, etc), waiting periods, background checks on private sells, permits, etc. And yet a mass shooting still took place there. Despite every single fucking gun control law under the sun short of banning firearms. The recent incident alone proves that gun control alone cannot be the only solution. But obviously, it's gotta be guns right? Can't possibly be the fact that sometimes, it's just the fact that people make bad choices sometimes. Remember, personal responsibility doesn't matter anymore! California actually has far laxer laws than certain states like Massachusetts, where the application process to own a firearm takes months and is subject to approval and various training courses. Generally speaking, though, if your goal is to prevent firearm deaths in general, most of the polices you adopt will not have a big impact on mass shootings. This is because mass shootings are pretty unusual and account for a tiny fraction of firearm deaths: most gun deaths are suicides. For gun crime, most gun crime is committed with illegal guns. California's aggressive stance on black market guns and illicit ownership of firearms has helped deal with this, but won't stop someone who has not yet committed any crimes and wants to go on a mass shooting. In practice, even a well-run state with good gun control laws won't stop mass shootings. But this is because stopping mass shootings is just a tiny, relatively small portion of gun deaths, a small stream of blood compared to the sea of blood that is gun suicide and regular gun homicide. If a state chooses to aim its policies mostly at stopping the vast majority of gun deaths rather than stopping mass shootings, this is actually very reasonable - but few on either side of the gun control debate really stop to think about this. Not to mention (i understand this an appeal to relative privation logical fallacy) that gun crimes and deaths are literally one of the least concerns of problems regarding deaths in this country. If we really care about people living or dying, we should be talking about the opiate and drug epidemic. Or maybe even the fact that cars literally kill people in much greater numbers than guns. And you can argue that both of these are choices and random or whatever in relation to who dies or who kills. Seriously, who the fuck cares about the minuscule percent of deaths each year from guns when we have majority of deaths coming from a couple of other things that could easily be halved or reduced to minimal numbers? I mean yea it sucks, but lets prioritize here. News is perpetuating this kinda thing with their overhyping, same shit happened with high speed pursuits. They tried the shit with terrorism alerts and color chart every day, but that wasn't as scary. This is just manipulation by the media to get eyeballs to get ad $$$ and should be regulated in some way. Its also politicians pandering to this bullshit to the most gullible, uninformed, or non fact based/more feelings based populace. Kinda like how everyone lives in dire fear of 'stranger danger' when in reality we know that statistically its someone you know that will fuck with a kid. Or how Anti Vaxxers will say 0.000007 percent of kids will have seizure or develop autoimmune disease or whatever from a vaccine yet they will let their kid play in the ocean where they have a much greater chance of dying from a whole host of shit that is random in there, shit you have a greater chance of being struck by lightning or bitten by a shark. The actual problem is drug addicts are stigmatized and they are not sensational enough for the news or politicians. And guns and random acts of violence are hip. Fuck you. There are EPIDEMICS KILLING people by the HUNDREDS AND DOZENS OF THOUSANDS EVERY YEAR. Most guns deaths are: handguns, suicides, men, middle aged. Which is still a small number compared to other causes of death. TL;DR statistically speaking, we shouldn't even be talking about guns. Much bigger problems to deal with. PS- We've had an ever growing homeless population growing in so cal, to which most of these news and politicians claim is due to jobs, cost of living etc. Which is entirely bullshit. Its a statistical majority because of lack of care for addiction and mental health. There are diseases brewing off their trash and feces and rats multiplying in ridiculous rates that we are already seeing diseases that civilized and sanitized cities have not seen in decades, and they probably won't even get serious about it until we start seeing actual brutal shit we haven't seen since the civil war when the media starts sensationalizing it when they decide to use the word 'plague'. Meanwhile, people are dying and living poorly and painfully by the 100s of thousands. And let's talk about some guns and a few deaths every couple of months between the constant stream of Trump said/did nonsense. homeless shit
You are also not at all including, the traumatic effect inflicted on the ENTIRE country. After the colorado movie theater killings... millions of people now think, not just about going to see a movie, but... will some crazy fuck with a machine gun come in during this movie and kill half the people in here.
This effect happens every time... After Vegas people think, "Am I going to die at this show?"
or "in this bar?"
"At this gaming convention?"
The effect is far larger than just numbers.
|
On November 11 2018 11:28 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 11:18 ShambhalaWar wrote:
I would respect gun advocates if they stood behind their convictions of getting the laws changed in a reasonable way, so that gun ownership is safe in America... But gun advocates aren't marching... or lobbying for change... they are just talking in forums... it isn't enough. One thing I'm doing is not voting for people that are satisfied with status quo when it comes to gun issues. Based on where I vote it didn't really matter this year, but for many people that can have a big influence. With respect to the bold above, what have you done aside from 'just talking in forums'?
I've been at all the major marches including the march for life. I've volunteered with organizations to primary out more corporate dems.
And really if you do anything to get republicans out of power, you are advocating for gun reform.
It's no big secret who in power is preventing gun legislation from happening.
|
On November 11 2018 10:44 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 10:24 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 09:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 05:33 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 04:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 00:40 superstartran wrote:
I would think Europe would be on the level of the United States in regards to safety versus radical Islamic terrorism, but you don't see me going into the EU thread shitting on them relentlessly (you know, considering for the past 14ish years Europe has seen more wide scale radical Islamic terrorist attacks as a whole) with my own 'agenda'. If only USA had the same level of safety from "Islamic" terrorism as Europe does then the level of violent gun safety as USA does, would USA be a lot safer. Also this is literally a gun thread. If you want to go discuss heart attack go make a thread on it. I hope you realize that in some years more people die from radical Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe than people die of mass shootings in the United States. But why argue with facts when you can just moral grand stand and say guns are bad? My point was that just because a country has an issue, doesn't mean you can't debate it in a calm manner. I could moral grand stand on the issue of how European countries would rather see their own citizens die in radical terrorist attacks due to their lax immigration policies. But I don't do that. Why is it ok for your side to come in here and try to hold the moral high ground against gun rights activists and say they are complicit in the murders of innocent people? That's not even arguing with facts, that's just going to piss people off and justifiably so. If your goal is to have a reasonable debate on what the United States can realistically do in terms of gun control, then we can have that debate. If your goal is to come in here and shit on the United States and say it's a terrible place due to its gun culture, etc. then why are you even here in the first place. Replying to each individual point: You know that you are factually wrong? Proportionally speaking, more people in USA die in mass shooting in USA than the whole of Europe? Maybe that's a problem? You don't get to pretend that your facts are more correct than others, when they are wrong. The tone I am using is clearly calm, since is is severly tongue in cheek, but it appears that you are using your favourite tactic of claiming that people who are arguing against you are being emotional. Again. Usually you claim they are being hysterical, so that's a small improvement. Don't you get tired of this? If you don't like my country's immigration policy, you are welcome to go to this thread: https://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/419575-uk-politics-mega-thread, so you can now stop your attempts to derail off topic, now you can stop deliberately bringing it over and over again. I've never shit on the United States, that's just you. As for myself, I love to criticise my country. I want the best laws and culture that my Great country can have. That's because I want my country and the people living in it to be the best it can be. Well, I am here, discussing mass shootings, because this is the mass shootings thread. I don't know why you are tryingto shush everyone up from discussing the topic. If you want to go discuss UK immigration and terrorism, I already pointed out a thread for you. 1) It is a statistical fact that in some years more people in Europe die from radical islamic terrorist attacks than mass shootings in the United States. I don't see mass hysteria all over the news about it though. Good attempt at straw manning me though. Point being, you can debate the points without acting like you are holier than thou and somehow Europe is the epitome of the civilized world. Don't try and twist my words. I never said anything about 'proportional.' I was speaking strictly on raw numbers. 2) You have moral grandstanded in this very thread, you yourself have claimed you don't understand how U.S. citizens could possibly feel that self-defense is a justifiable reason to having guns, when so many people are dying around them. That's classic textbook moral grand standing. 3) When I refer to you, I refer to not just you, but many others also in this very thread who have shit on U.S. gun culture, saying that gun rights activists are complicit in the murder of innocence, etc. I'm pretty sick of seeing it. And please do tell me where my 'murica' beliefs are. I believe in gun control laws such as... 1) Banning Bumpstocks 2) Firearm Registration 3) Red Flag Laws 4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval) 5) Expanded Background Checks 6) Required Firearm Education Classes 7) Wait Times I think these are all very reasonable regulations that pretty much everyone here can agree with. But for some odd reason, people want to jump on the hate Murica train. Which kind of leads me to believe that it's not really about gun control at all, but rather people would rather just see guns banned. All of those are things that California has to some extent or another. And it does reduce gun crime in the state. I think we could do things better, true. I disagree with the idea that because one mass shooting happened, our current gun law does nothing, and therefore we shouldn't have it at all.
That really wasn't my point; my point was to point out that despite California having all these laws that have been clamored for years by gun control activists, it still did not prevent the mass shooting. Because like you said, mass shootings only make up about 1% of the firearm homicide rates. That's not to say gun control laws shouldn't be passed; it's only demonstrating that many gun control activists don't care about gun control as a whole, but only when shit doesn't go 'according to plan.' Cops get shot or urban gangsters die? NBD. Some middle class white people die? Fuck, we gotta do something. See why I'm skeptical as to motive and reasoning?
California has made some progress in that it has much better social programs than states like say Mississippi or Louisiana, along with strong gun control laws. It's also a much larger state as you mentioned so it can afford many of these programs.
For other states to really be able to get such programs, better enforcement of gun control laws, etc. you'd need the Federal government to step in. That's only going to happen when people stop doing things like shaming law abiding gun owners, stop suggesting ridiculous shit like 'we should look at the 2nd amendment' etc.
On November 11 2018 11:18 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 01:38 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 10 2018 01:23 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 01:13 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 00:26 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 22:03 Simberto wrote:On November 09 2018 21:09 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
^
Hence why this is never going to get anywhere. Calling into question the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment already calls into question your actual motives. Not recognizing that citizens should have the right to firearms as a form of self-defense, particularly in rural America, is going to not win you over any favors when it comes to compromise. I've already laid out what SHOULD be done in terms of gun control. All which are very reasonable measures that most people would agree upon. What you're asking for is not just realistically impossible, but it also alienates gun owners big time, many who you need to get passage of reasonable gun control.
But that is exactly the point. If you say "2nd amendment", there can not be any discussion. The question of whether and to what extent guns should be part of a contemporary society should not be based on what some people wrote down more than 200 years ago, but about what the situation is right now. If you can make a compelling argument about guns now, make that argument. Don't stand on the "2nd amendment". That is not an argument, it is dogma. If you say "guns are needed for self defense", that is an argument that people can actually debate, and there might be an open end. Because it is possible that someone could convince you that they are not necessary, and it is possible that you convince someone that they are necessary. That is a fruitful argument, that can lead to reasonable discussion. "2nd amendment says" does none of that. Because it is not actually an argument. The question is not really about what the 2nd amendment says, but about whether you accept the dogma as reason enough to comply. And saying that you must accept the 2nd amendment before even talking about this limits the discussion greatly, and the only argument is "200 years ago some people wrote this down". A rational society should approach policy on a rational basis, not on the basis of doctrine. (I am not saying that you should immediately throw out anything old, a lot of it is working well. But something should not be immune to criticism just because it has been that way for a long time. That is evidence that it might be useful and working, which can be used in a discussion, but not a reason to completely shut down the argument.) It is similar to discussing with someone that uses their holy book as a basis of an argument. "The quran says" or "the bible says" are not rational arguments that can be debated on a rational basis, and there is no discussion to be had here. You can either accept the moral authority of the book and comply, or not accept it, but you can still not actually change anyones mind about this. Do you not see how self-defeating this actually is? You want compromise but then you go after the one piece of legislation that guarantees the rights of gun owners. Whether or not the 2nd Amendment's interpretation is correct or not is not even what I am debating. What I am debating is your intent. You ask for people to compromise, but then put forth a completely unrealistic proposition. Even the most prominent gun control advocates currently scoff at the notion of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. Realistically rewriting or getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would take a herculean effort that is currently not realistically possible under current conditions. You need 2/3 of Congress to agree, which would take a miracle under the current political climate. Then you'd need 3/4 of the States to ratify said Amendment to make it a law. Even the current interpretation of the law is a relatively moderate position. Gun owners have a right to own guns, but that does not mean they are not subject to regulation. Heller vs DC 2008. That's about as moderate as a position as you are going to get. So even going after guns from a Supreme Court stance would take an almost herculean effort, as the Supreme Court has given a fairly reasonable and moderate position on the legality of private firearms. It's very easy to see your intent is not to debate what measures can we put in place to prevent gun violence, but how do we get rid of firearms as a whole in the United States of America. The fact that you are unrealistically arguing about changing/rewriting/removing the 2nd Amendment is evidence of that, especially since you've in no way suggested any kind of 'alternative' to the removal of the 2nd Amendment. I don't understand why you think its not possible to debate measures for preventing gun violence whilst also debating the validity and relevance of gun culture. The fact is that in this thread most people are agreed on what would be good legislation to put in place to prevent gun violence - mandatory waiting periods etc. - We all think that these things are good ideas. When I have suggested other legislation those posts are ignored in favour of this ranting about intentions. This would be an interesting discussion to have. Another interesting debate is why that legislation won't happen (a minority of weapon owners/sellers with extreme views/bad proposed legislation and overreach are good candidates - as well as those in the middle who own guns and would like to seem reasonable but actually don't really want any gun control legislation at all). Blaming people who don't want to live in a society that is saturated with deadly weapons for the fact that no-one will entertain the possibility of getting rid of the weapons isn't a particularly coherent way to go about it. How is this ranting? Your side says 'we should compromise' but don't even recognize the validity of a very moderate position on guns in general. Private ownership is allowed, however firearms can be regulated. If you want to get rid of all guns just state that is your position, rather than trying to moral grandstand and say that 'we aren't here to take away your guns.' There's no moral grandstanding here ( I actually said nothing about morality and asked someone above not to make the moral argument - so I have no idea at all where this came from lol), and I've made my position clear many times. In the short term some legislation needs to be put in place to curb the excessive levels of gun violence. In the long term I'd like to see the second amendment revoked because I don't believe gun rights should be a thing. Does this mean I'm coming for your guns? No. For a start nothing I say or do can have any effect on your guns, because I'm not in America. I'm just stating what I believe in and trying to have a discussion about it. Not talking about you specifically; talking about others who like to moral grandstand as though they are taking a moderate position on firearms, then turn around and say that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed or done away with despite the fact that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is very reasonable and moderate. How about we do what Australia did, how would you feel about that? Australia is very different from our country. Stating that would be like me saying why don't we just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now. I've already gone over why Australia's laws had little to no impact. For one, a buyback program isn't going to go over very well here in the U.S. for a truckload of reasons. I would argue the major difference between our two countries are the gun laws. I would say the fact that they had any mass shootings and changed the laws and then had none... is pretty strong evidence that the laws work. Clearly you cannot argue in America that the problem isn't availability. Guns are abundant, and easy as hell to get. Anyone can get a AR. Doesn't matter if you have good mental health or not, there is no regulation. So when someone hits bottom, they don't have to struggle to get the gun... it's already there. Then they just hop in the car at their low point and go commit suicide by brings 10-20 people with them. If the guns aren't there, then the amount of damage they can inflict is drastically less. It's that simple. I would respect gun advocates if they stood behind their convictions of getting the laws changed in a reasonable way, so that gun ownership is safe in America... But gun advocates aren't marching... or lobbying for change... they are just talking in forums... it isn't enough.
1) Availability of firearms isn't what matters. Switzerland has plenty of guns, 0 mass shootings. Go figure.
2) I've already conceded that firearm regulation should be tougher and what should be done, that's not an issue
3) You're still focused solely on gun laws somehow stopping mass shootings. They don't. California is a textbook example of that. Has every law under the sun. Still didn't prevent it.
4) So you're claim is now that you'd rather get rid of guns rather than advocate for gun control. Ok. Just say that rather than pretending to have some middle ground on the subject.
5) Gun control laws generally aren't getting passed because your side is much smaller then you realize. No one wants to outright say it because they don't want to get called the terrible gun owner that would rather see innocents die over their rights, but the truth is that the vast majority of Americans actually support the 2nd Amendment contrary to popular opinion. Need proof?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/27/one-in-five-americans-want-the-second-amendment-to-be-repealed-national-survey-finds/?utm_term=.245a3e2e2916
Edit : Misread the poll. 39% of Democrats of that 21% favor the repealing of the 2nd Amendment, which would lead you to believe that a pretty large chunk of Democrats actually support the 2nd Amendment.
|
On November 11 2018 10:44 Blazinghand wrote:
All of those are things that California has to some extent or another. And it does reduce gun crime in the state. I think we could do things better, true. I disagree with the idea that because one mass shooting happened, our current gun law does nothing, and therefore we shouldn't have it at all. On November 11 2018 11:54 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 10:44 Blazinghand wrote:On November 11 2018 10:24 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 09:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 05:33 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 04:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 00:40 superstartran wrote:
I would think Europe would be on the level of the United States in regards to safety versus radical Islamic terrorism, but you don't see me going into the EU thread shitting on them relentlessly (you know, considering for the past 14ish years Europe has seen more wide scale radical Islamic terrorist attacks as a whole) with my own 'agenda'. If only USA had the same level of safety from "Islamic" terrorism as Europe does then the level of violent gun safety as USA does, would USA be a lot safer. Also this is literally a gun thread. If you want to go discuss heart attack go make a thread on it. I hope you realize that in some years more people die from radical Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe than people die of mass shootings in the United States. But why argue with facts when you can just moral grand stand and say guns are bad? My point was that just because a country has an issue, doesn't mean you can't debate it in a calm manner. I could moral grand stand on the issue of how European countries would rather see their own citizens die in radical terrorist attacks due to their lax immigration policies. But I don't do that. Why is it ok for your side to come in here and try to hold the moral high ground against gun rights activists and say they are complicit in the murders of innocent people? That's not even arguing with facts, that's just going to piss people off and justifiably so. If your goal is to have a reasonable debate on what the United States can realistically do in terms of gun control, then we can have that debate. If your goal is to come in here and shit on the United States and say it's a terrible place due to its gun culture, etc. then why are you even here in the first place. Replying to each individual point: You know that you are factually wrong? Proportionally speaking, more people in USA die in mass shooting in USA than the whole of Europe? Maybe that's a problem? You don't get to pretend that your facts are more correct than others, when they are wrong. The tone I am using is clearly calm, since is is severly tongue in cheek, but it appears that you are using your favourite tactic of claiming that people who are arguing against you are being emotional. Again. Usually you claim they are being hysterical, so that's a small improvement. Don't you get tired of this? If you don't like my country's immigration policy, you are welcome to go to this thread: https://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/419575-uk-politics-mega-thread, so you can now stop your attempts to derail off topic, now you can stop deliberately bringing it over and over again. I've never shit on the United States, that's just you. As for myself, I love to criticise my country. I want the best laws and culture that my Great country can have. That's because I want my country and the people living in it to be the best it can be. Well, I am here, discussing mass shootings, because this is the mass shootings thread. I don't know why you are tryingto shush everyone up from discussing the topic. If you want to go discuss UK immigration and terrorism, I already pointed out a thread for you. 1) It is a statistical fact that in some years more people in Europe die from radical islamic terrorist attacks than mass shootings in the United States. I don't see mass hysteria all over the news about it though. Good attempt at straw manning me though. Point being, you can debate the points without acting like you are holier than thou and somehow Europe is the epitome of the civilized world. Don't try and twist my words. I never said anything about 'proportional.' I was speaking strictly on raw numbers. 2) You have moral grandstanded in this very thread, you yourself have claimed you don't understand how U.S. citizens could possibly feel that self-defense is a justifiable reason to having guns, when so many people are dying around them. That's classic textbook moral grand standing. 3) When I refer to you, I refer to not just you, but many others also in this very thread who have shit on U.S. gun culture, saying that gun rights activists are complicit in the murder of innocence, etc. I'm pretty sick of seeing it. And please do tell me where my 'murica' beliefs are. I believe in gun control laws such as... 1) Banning Bumpstocks 2) Firearm Registration 3) Red Flag Laws 4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval) 5) Expanded Background Checks 6) Required Firearm Education Classes 7) Wait Times I think these are all very reasonable regulations that pretty much everyone here can agree with. But for some odd reason, people want to jump on the hate Murica train. Which kind of leads me to believe that it's not really about gun control at all, but rather people would rather just see guns banned. All of those are things that California has to some extent or another. And it does reduce gun crime in the state. I think we could do things better, true. I disagree with the idea that because one mass shooting happened, our current gun law does nothing, and therefore we shouldn't have it at all. That really wasn't my point; my point was to point out that despite California having all these laws that have been clamored for years by gun control activists, it still did not prevent the mass shooting. Because like you said, mass shootings only make up about 1% of the firearm homicide rates. That's not to say gun control laws shouldn't be passed; it's only demonstrating that many gun control activists don't care about gun control as a whole, but only when shit doesn't go 'according to plan.' Cops get shot or urban gangsters die? NBD. Some middle class white people die? Fuck, we gotta do something. See why I'm skeptical as to motive and reasoning? California has made some progress in that it has much better social programs than states like say Mississippi or Louisiana, along with strong gun control laws. It's also a much larger state as you mentioned so it can afford many of these programs. For other states to really be able to get such programs, better enforcement of gun control laws, etc. you'd need the Federal government to step in. That's only going to happen when people stop doing things like shaming law abiding gun owners, stop suggesting ridiculous shit like 'we should look at the 2nd amendment' etc.
Just to both of your two points: One mass shooting does not either point out our current gun laws do nothing, nor does it argue for more gun laws. The "do something!" trend is absolutely the wrong approach. These laws should work on their merits. It should impact crime without unduly punishing lawful gun owners, and be shown to actually have some effect on criminals rather than just burdening the law abiding.
I don't speak for either of you, but for myself, it's these "activists for a day" types that want to allege complicity in murder and inadequacy and total ignorance of all past legislation that really hinder progressive compromise in this area (and repeal of bad legislation masquerading as gun control legislation).
|
On November 11 2018 11:54 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 10:44 Blazinghand wrote:On November 11 2018 10:24 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 09:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 05:33 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 04:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 00:40 superstartran wrote:
I would think Europe would be on the level of the United States in regards to safety versus radical Islamic terrorism, but you don't see me going into the EU thread shitting on them relentlessly (you know, considering for the past 14ish years Europe has seen more wide scale radical Islamic terrorist attacks as a whole) with my own 'agenda'. If only USA had the same level of safety from "Islamic" terrorism as Europe does then the level of violent gun safety as USA does, would USA be a lot safer. Also this is literally a gun thread. If you want to go discuss heart attack go make a thread on it. I hope you realize that in some years more people die from radical Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe than people die of mass shootings in the United States. But why argue with facts when you can just moral grand stand and say guns are bad? My point was that just because a country has an issue, doesn't mean you can't debate it in a calm manner. I could moral grand stand on the issue of how European countries would rather see their own citizens die in radical terrorist attacks due to their lax immigration policies. But I don't do that. Why is it ok for your side to come in here and try to hold the moral high ground against gun rights activists and say they are complicit in the murders of innocent people? That's not even arguing with facts, that's just going to piss people off and justifiably so. If your goal is to have a reasonable debate on what the United States can realistically do in terms of gun control, then we can have that debate. If your goal is to come in here and shit on the United States and say it's a terrible place due to its gun culture, etc. then why are you even here in the first place. Replying to each individual point: You know that you are factually wrong? Proportionally speaking, more people in USA die in mass shooting in USA than the whole of Europe? Maybe that's a problem? You don't get to pretend that your facts are more correct than others, when they are wrong. The tone I am using is clearly calm, since is is severly tongue in cheek, but it appears that you are using your favourite tactic of claiming that people who are arguing against you are being emotional. Again. Usually you claim they are being hysterical, so that's a small improvement. Don't you get tired of this? If you don't like my country's immigration policy, you are welcome to go to this thread: https://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/419575-uk-politics-mega-thread, so you can now stop your attempts to derail off topic, now you can stop deliberately bringing it over and over again. I've never shit on the United States, that's just you. As for myself, I love to criticise my country. I want the best laws and culture that my Great country can have. That's because I want my country and the people living in it to be the best it can be. Well, I am here, discussing mass shootings, because this is the mass shootings thread. I don't know why you are tryingto shush everyone up from discussing the topic. If you want to go discuss UK immigration and terrorism, I already pointed out a thread for you. 1) It is a statistical fact that in some years more people in Europe die from radical islamic terrorist attacks than mass shootings in the United States. I don't see mass hysteria all over the news about it though. Good attempt at straw manning me though. Point being, you can debate the points without acting like you are holier than thou and somehow Europe is the epitome of the civilized world. Don't try and twist my words. I never said anything about 'proportional.' I was speaking strictly on raw numbers. 2) You have moral grandstanded in this very thread, you yourself have claimed you don't understand how U.S. citizens could possibly feel that self-defense is a justifiable reason to having guns, when so many people are dying around them. That's classic textbook moral grand standing. 3) When I refer to you, I refer to not just you, but many others also in this very thread who have shit on U.S. gun culture, saying that gun rights activists are complicit in the murder of innocence, etc. I'm pretty sick of seeing it. And please do tell me where my 'murica' beliefs are. I believe in gun control laws such as... 1) Banning Bumpstocks 2) Firearm Registration 3) Red Flag Laws 4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval) 5) Expanded Background Checks 6) Required Firearm Education Classes 7) Wait Times I think these are all very reasonable regulations that pretty much everyone here can agree with. But for some odd reason, people want to jump on the hate Murica train. Which kind of leads me to believe that it's not really about gun control at all, but rather people would rather just see guns banned. All of those are things that California has to some extent or another. And it does reduce gun crime in the state. I think we could do things better, true. I disagree with the idea that because one mass shooting happened, our current gun law does nothing, and therefore we shouldn't have it at all. That really wasn't my point; my point was to point out that despite California having all these laws that have been clamored for years by gun control activists, it still did not prevent the mass shooting. Because like you said, mass shootings only make up about 1% of the firearm homicide rates. That's not to say gun control laws shouldn't be passed; it's only demonstrating that many gun control activists don't care about gun control as a whole, but only when shit doesn't go 'according to plan.' Cops get shot or urban gangsters die? NBD. Some middle class white people die? Fuck, we gotta do something. See why I'm skeptical as to motive and reasoning? California has made some progress in that it has much better social programs than states like say Mississippi or Louisiana, along with strong gun control laws. It's also a much larger state as you mentioned so it can afford many of these programs. For other states to really be able to get such programs, better enforcement of gun control laws, etc. you'd need the Federal government to step in. That's only going to happen when people stop doing things like shaming law abiding gun owners, stop suggesting ridiculous shit like 'we should look at the 2nd amendment' etc. Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 11:18 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 10 2018 01:38 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 10 2018 01:23 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 01:13 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 00:26 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 22:03 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
But that is exactly the point. If you say "2nd amendment", there can not be any discussion. The question of whether and to what extent guns should be part of a contemporary society should not be based on what some people wrote down more than 200 years ago, but about what the situation is right now. If you can make a compelling argument about guns now, make that argument. Don't stand on the "2nd amendment". That is not an argument, it is dogma.
If you say "guns are needed for self defense", that is an argument that people can actually debate, and there might be an open end. Because it is possible that someone could convince you that they are not necessary, and it is possible that you convince someone that they are necessary. That is a fruitful argument, that can lead to reasonable discussion.
"2nd amendment says" does none of that. Because it is not actually an argument. The question is not really about what the 2nd amendment says, but about whether you accept the dogma as reason enough to comply. And saying that you must accept the 2nd amendment before even talking about this limits the discussion greatly, and the only argument is "200 years ago some people wrote this down". A rational society should approach policy on a rational basis, not on the basis of doctrine. (I am not saying that you should immediately throw out anything old, a lot of it is working well. But something should not be immune to criticism just because it has been that way for a long time. That is evidence that it might be useful and working, which can be used in a discussion, but not a reason to completely shut down the argument.)
It is similar to discussing with someone that uses their holy book as a basis of an argument. "The quran says" or "the bible says" are not rational arguments that can be debated on a rational basis, and there is no discussion to be had here. You can either accept the moral authority of the book and comply, or not accept it, but you can still not actually change anyones mind about this. Do you not see how self-defeating this actually is? You want compromise but then you go after the one piece of legislation that guarantees the rights of gun owners. Whether or not the 2nd Amendment's interpretation is correct or not is not even what I am debating. What I am debating is your intent. You ask for people to compromise, but then put forth a completely unrealistic proposition. Even the most prominent gun control advocates currently scoff at the notion of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. Realistically rewriting or getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would take a herculean effort that is currently not realistically possible under current conditions. You need 2/3 of Congress to agree, which would take a miracle under the current political climate. Then you'd need 3/4 of the States to ratify said Amendment to make it a law. Even the current interpretation of the law is a relatively moderate position. Gun owners have a right to own guns, but that does not mean they are not subject to regulation. Heller vs DC 2008. That's about as moderate as a position as you are going to get. So even going after guns from a Supreme Court stance would take an almost herculean effort, as the Supreme Court has given a fairly reasonable and moderate position on the legality of private firearms. It's very easy to see your intent is not to debate what measures can we put in place to prevent gun violence, but how do we get rid of firearms as a whole in the United States of America. The fact that you are unrealistically arguing about changing/rewriting/removing the 2nd Amendment is evidence of that, especially since you've in no way suggested any kind of 'alternative' to the removal of the 2nd Amendment. I don't understand why you think its not possible to debate measures for preventing gun violence whilst also debating the validity and relevance of gun culture. The fact is that in this thread most people are agreed on what would be good legislation to put in place to prevent gun violence - mandatory waiting periods etc. - We all think that these things are good ideas. When I have suggested other legislation those posts are ignored in favour of this ranting about intentions. This would be an interesting discussion to have. Another interesting debate is why that legislation won't happen (a minority of weapon owners/sellers with extreme views/bad proposed legislation and overreach are good candidates - as well as those in the middle who own guns and would like to seem reasonable but actually don't really want any gun control legislation at all). Blaming people who don't want to live in a society that is saturated with deadly weapons for the fact that no-one will entertain the possibility of getting rid of the weapons isn't a particularly coherent way to go about it. How is this ranting? Your side says 'we should compromise' but don't even recognize the validity of a very moderate position on guns in general. Private ownership is allowed, however firearms can be regulated. If you want to get rid of all guns just state that is your position, rather than trying to moral grandstand and say that 'we aren't here to take away your guns.' There's no moral grandstanding here ( I actually said nothing about morality and asked someone above not to make the moral argument - so I have no idea at all where this came from lol), and I've made my position clear many times. In the short term some legislation needs to be put in place to curb the excessive levels of gun violence. In the long term I'd like to see the second amendment revoked because I don't believe gun rights should be a thing. Does this mean I'm coming for your guns? No. For a start nothing I say or do can have any effect on your guns, because I'm not in America. I'm just stating what I believe in and trying to have a discussion about it. Not talking about you specifically; talking about others who like to moral grandstand as though they are taking a moderate position on firearms, then turn around and say that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed or done away with despite the fact that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is very reasonable and moderate. How about we do what Australia did, how would you feel about that? Australia is very different from our country. Stating that would be like me saying why don't we just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now. I've already gone over why Australia's laws had little to no impact. For one, a buyback program isn't going to go over very well here in the U.S. for a truckload of reasons. I would argue the major difference between our two countries are the gun laws. I would say the fact that they had any mass shootings and changed the laws and then had none... is pretty strong evidence that the laws work. Clearly you cannot argue in America that the problem isn't availability. Guns are abundant, and easy as hell to get. Anyone can get a AR. Doesn't matter if you have good mental health or not, there is no regulation. So when someone hits bottom, they don't have to struggle to get the gun... it's already there. Then they just hop in the car at their low point and go commit suicide by brings 10-20 people with them. If the guns aren't there, then the amount of damage they can inflict is drastically less. It's that simple. I would respect gun advocates if they stood behind their convictions of getting the laws changed in a reasonable way, so that gun ownership is safe in America... But gun advocates aren't marching... or lobbying for change... they are just talking in forums... it isn't enough. 1) Availability of firearms isn't what matters. Switzerland has plenty of guns, 0 mass shootings. Go figure. 2) I've already conceded that firearm regulation should be tougher and what should be done, that's not an issue 3) You're still focused solely on gun laws somehow stopping mass shootings. They don't. California is a textbook example of that. Has every law under the sun. Still didn't prevent it. 4) So you're claim is now that you'd rather get rid of guns rather than advocate for gun control. Ok. Just say that rather than pretending to have some middle ground on the subject. 5) Gun control laws generally aren't getting passed because your side is much smaller then you realize. No one wants to outright say it because they don't want to get called the terrible gun owner that would rather see innocents die over their rights, but the truth is that the vast majority of Americans actually support the 2nd Amendment contrary to popular opinion. Need proof? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/27/one-in-five-americans-want-the-second-amendment-to-be-repealed-national-survey-finds/?utm_term=.245a3e2e2916Edit : Misread the poll. 39% of Democrats of that 21% favor the repealing of the 2nd Amendment, which would lead you to believe that a pretty large chunk of Democrats actually support the 2nd Amendment.
Guns themselves don't drive people to shootings... The way our country treats is citizens drives them to killing.
I'm a firm believer in that. Clearly nobody with good mental health living a happy life decides they want to get up one day and kill everyone on their block.
As a country, we generally treat our people like shit. It's an everyone for themselves mentality, and if you didn't do good or get rich, it's because you're a lazy piece of shit, not because of your circumstances. There is the American delusion we are all on an equal playing field.
In America we spend an insane about of money on defense and a standing army. In Switzerland I'm pretty sure their social welfare spending is 3 times what they spend on defense.
Income inequality in the US is insane and only getting worse. Tax cuts for large corporations that were already not paying hardly any taxes (yet making tons of money on US citizens) while everyone else get small cuts that expire in a couple years.
Meanwhile, wages aren't growing (shit minimum wage for decades) and yet inflation keeps blowing up the price of everything else.
I would say that is the root...
But I say you restrict the gun access with laws and then work on the mental health. Sadly, our system is so corrupt now that I'm not sure home much other stuff you have to deal with before the mental health issue can really be reached.
or maybe if you deal with the corruption, wealth inequality will balance back out and bring mental health with it.
|
On November 11 2018 12:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 10:44 Blazinghand wrote:
All of those are things that California has to some extent or another. And it does reduce gun crime in the state. I think we could do things better, true. I disagree with the idea that because one mass shooting happened, our current gun law does nothing, and therefore we shouldn't have it at all. Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 11:54 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 10:44 Blazinghand wrote:On November 11 2018 10:24 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 09:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 05:33 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 04:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 00:40 superstartran wrote:
I would think Europe would be on the level of the United States in regards to safety versus radical Islamic terrorism, but you don't see me going into the EU thread shitting on them relentlessly (you know, considering for the past 14ish years Europe has seen more wide scale radical Islamic terrorist attacks as a whole) with my own 'agenda'. If only USA had the same level of safety from "Islamic" terrorism as Europe does then the level of violent gun safety as USA does, would USA be a lot safer. Also this is literally a gun thread. If you want to go discuss heart attack go make a thread on it. I hope you realize that in some years more people die from radical Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe than people die of mass shootings in the United States. But why argue with facts when you can just moral grand stand and say guns are bad? My point was that just because a country has an issue, doesn't mean you can't debate it in a calm manner. I could moral grand stand on the issue of how European countries would rather see their own citizens die in radical terrorist attacks due to their lax immigration policies. But I don't do that. Why is it ok for your side to come in here and try to hold the moral high ground against gun rights activists and say they are complicit in the murders of innocent people? That's not even arguing with facts, that's just going to piss people off and justifiably so. If your goal is to have a reasonable debate on what the United States can realistically do in terms of gun control, then we can have that debate. If your goal is to come in here and shit on the United States and say it's a terrible place due to its gun culture, etc. then why are you even here in the first place. Replying to each individual point: You know that you are factually wrong? Proportionally speaking, more people in USA die in mass shooting in USA than the whole of Europe? Maybe that's a problem? You don't get to pretend that your facts are more correct than others, when they are wrong. The tone I am using is clearly calm, since is is severly tongue in cheek, but it appears that you are using your favourite tactic of claiming that people who are arguing against you are being emotional. Again. Usually you claim they are being hysterical, so that's a small improvement. Don't you get tired of this? If you don't like my country's immigration policy, you are welcome to go to this thread: https://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/419575-uk-politics-mega-thread, so you can now stop your attempts to derail off topic, now you can stop deliberately bringing it over and over again. I've never shit on the United States, that's just you. As for myself, I love to criticise my country. I want the best laws and culture that my Great country can have. That's because I want my country and the people living in it to be the best it can be. Well, I am here, discussing mass shootings, because this is the mass shootings thread. I don't know why you are tryingto shush everyone up from discussing the topic. If you want to go discuss UK immigration and terrorism, I already pointed out a thread for you. 1) It is a statistical fact that in some years more people in Europe die from radical islamic terrorist attacks than mass shootings in the United States. I don't see mass hysteria all over the news about it though. Good attempt at straw manning me though. Point being, you can debate the points without acting like you are holier than thou and somehow Europe is the epitome of the civilized world. Don't try and twist my words. I never said anything about 'proportional.' I was speaking strictly on raw numbers. 2) You have moral grandstanded in this very thread, you yourself have claimed you don't understand how U.S. citizens could possibly feel that self-defense is a justifiable reason to having guns, when so many people are dying around them. That's classic textbook moral grand standing. 3) When I refer to you, I refer to not just you, but many others also in this very thread who have shit on U.S. gun culture, saying that gun rights activists are complicit in the murder of innocence, etc. I'm pretty sick of seeing it. And please do tell me where my 'murica' beliefs are. I believe in gun control laws such as... 1) Banning Bumpstocks 2) Firearm Registration 3) Red Flag Laws 4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval) 5) Expanded Background Checks 6) Required Firearm Education Classes 7) Wait Times I think these are all very reasonable regulations that pretty much everyone here can agree with. But for some odd reason, people want to jump on the hate Murica train. Which kind of leads me to believe that it's not really about gun control at all, but rather people would rather just see guns banned. All of those are things that California has to some extent or another. And it does reduce gun crime in the state. I think we could do things better, true. I disagree with the idea that because one mass shooting happened, our current gun law does nothing, and therefore we shouldn't have it at all. That really wasn't my point; my point was to point out that despite California having all these laws that have been clamored for years by gun control activists, it still did not prevent the mass shooting. Because like you said, mass shootings only make up about 1% of the firearm homicide rates. That's not to say gun control laws shouldn't be passed; it's only demonstrating that many gun control activists don't care about gun control as a whole, but only when shit doesn't go 'according to plan.' Cops get shot or urban gangsters die? NBD. Some middle class white people die? Fuck, we gotta do something. See why I'm skeptical as to motive and reasoning? California has made some progress in that it has much better social programs than states like say Mississippi or Louisiana, along with strong gun control laws. It's also a much larger state as you mentioned so it can afford many of these programs. For other states to really be able to get such programs, better enforcement of gun control laws, etc. you'd need the Federal government to step in. That's only going to happen when people stop doing things like shaming law abiding gun owners, stop suggesting ridiculous shit like 'we should look at the 2nd amendment' etc. Just to both of your two points: One mass shooting does not either point out our current gun laws do nothing, nor does it argue for more gun laws. The "do something!" trend is absolutely the wrong approach. These laws should work on their merits. It should impact crime without unduly punishing lawful gun owners, and be shown to actually have some effect on criminals rather than just burdening the law abiding. I don't speak for either of you, but for myself, it's these "activists for a day" types that want to allege complicity in murder and inadequacy and total ignorance of all past legislation that really hinder progressive compromise in this area (and repeal of bad legislation masquerading as gun control legislation).
My point was always the fact that most people are really 'activists for a day' or 'gun abolitionists' masquerading as gun control advocates. It's not about whether I disagree whether those laws work or not, it's the fact that the most recent shooting demonstrated how the liberal media and many 'activists' didn't have a whole lot of material to work from in order to push their anti-gun agenda. But if the same shooter performed the shooting with say an AR-15, it would be like all hell broke loose.
And just as a side note, for people who keep talking shit about the 2nd Amendment and how it is a loose interpretation of it, I'm fairly certain that earlier drafts of the 2nd Amendment did actually explicitly state the right to private firearms. So the idea that the Founding Father's did not intend for the 2nd Amendment to guarantee private citizens ownership of firearms is abit asinine, especially when you're looking at the historical context of the Constitution, and earlier drafts of the 2nd Amendment, along with the history of firearms, firearm laws, and how the courts have generally ruled in favor of firearm ownership in the United States.
|
On November 11 2018 10:24 superstartran wrote:
1) It is a statistical fact that in some years more people in Europe die from radical islamic terrorist attacks than mass shootings in the United States. I don't see mass hysteria all over the news about it though.
You are joking, right? The hysteria over islamic terrorism in Europe has not only dominated headlines, but also immigration and foreign policies over the last decade. And in internet discussions it has been one of the most debated topics, not least by US Americans.
|
On November 11 2018 16:08 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 12:32 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2018 10:44 Blazinghand wrote:
All of those are things that California has to some extent or another. And it does reduce gun crime in the state. I think we could do things better, true. I disagree with the idea that because one mass shooting happened, our current gun law does nothing, and therefore we shouldn't have it at all. On November 11 2018 11:54 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 10:44 Blazinghand wrote:On November 11 2018 10:24 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 09:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 05:33 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 04:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 00:40 superstartran wrote:
I would think Europe would be on the level of the United States in regards to safety versus radical Islamic terrorism, but you don't see me going into the EU thread shitting on them relentlessly (you know, considering for the past 14ish years Europe has seen more wide scale radical Islamic terrorist attacks as a whole) with my own 'agenda'. If only USA had the same level of safety from "Islamic" terrorism as Europe does then the level of violent gun safety as USA does, would USA be a lot safer. Also this is literally a gun thread. If you want to go discuss heart attack go make a thread on it. I hope you realize that in some years more people die from radical Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe than people die of mass shootings in the United States. But why argue with facts when you can just moral grand stand and say guns are bad? My point was that just because a country has an issue, doesn't mean you can't debate it in a calm manner. I could moral grand stand on the issue of how European countries would rather see their own citizens die in radical terrorist attacks due to their lax immigration policies. But I don't do that. Why is it ok for your side to come in here and try to hold the moral high ground against gun rights activists and say they are complicit in the murders of innocent people? That's not even arguing with facts, that's just going to piss people off and justifiably so. If your goal is to have a reasonable debate on what the United States can realistically do in terms of gun control, then we can have that debate. If your goal is to come in here and shit on the United States and say it's a terrible place due to its gun culture, etc. then why are you even here in the first place. Replying to each individual point: You know that you are factually wrong? Proportionally speaking, more people in USA die in mass shooting in USA than the whole of Europe? Maybe that's a problem? You don't get to pretend that your facts are more correct than others, when they are wrong. The tone I am using is clearly calm, since is is severly tongue in cheek, but it appears that you are using your favourite tactic of claiming that people who are arguing against you are being emotional. Again. Usually you claim they are being hysterical, so that's a small improvement. Don't you get tired of this? If you don't like my country's immigration policy, you are welcome to go to this thread: https://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/419575-uk-politics-mega-thread, so you can now stop your attempts to derail off topic, now you can stop deliberately bringing it over and over again. I've never shit on the United States, that's just you. As for myself, I love to criticise my country. I want the best laws and culture that my Great country can have. That's because I want my country and the people living in it to be the best it can be. Well, I am here, discussing mass shootings, because this is the mass shootings thread. I don't know why you are tryingto shush everyone up from discussing the topic. If you want to go discuss UK immigration and terrorism, I already pointed out a thread for you. 1) It is a statistical fact that in some years more people in Europe die from radical islamic terrorist attacks than mass shootings in the United States. I don't see mass hysteria all over the news about it though. Good attempt at straw manning me though. Point being, you can debate the points without acting like you are holier than thou and somehow Europe is the epitome of the civilized world. Don't try and twist my words. I never said anything about 'proportional.' I was speaking strictly on raw numbers. 2) You have moral grandstanded in this very thread, you yourself have claimed you don't understand how U.S. citizens could possibly feel that self-defense is a justifiable reason to having guns, when so many people are dying around them. That's classic textbook moral grand standing. 3) When I refer to you, I refer to not just you, but many others also in this very thread who have shit on U.S. gun culture, saying that gun rights activists are complicit in the murder of innocence, etc. I'm pretty sick of seeing it. And please do tell me where my 'murica' beliefs are. I believe in gun control laws such as... 1) Banning Bumpstocks 2) Firearm Registration 3) Red Flag Laws 4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval) 5) Expanded Background Checks 6) Required Firearm Education Classes 7) Wait Times I think these are all very reasonable regulations that pretty much everyone here can agree with. But for some odd reason, people want to jump on the hate Murica train. Which kind of leads me to believe that it's not really about gun control at all, but rather people would rather just see guns banned. All of those are things that California has to some extent or another. And it does reduce gun crime in the state. I think we could do things better, true. I disagree with the idea that because one mass shooting happened, our current gun law does nothing, and therefore we shouldn't have it at all. That really wasn't my point; my point was to point out that despite California having all these laws that have been clamored for years by gun control activists, it still did not prevent the mass shooting. Because like you said, mass shootings only make up about 1% of the firearm homicide rates. That's not to say gun control laws shouldn't be passed; it's only demonstrating that many gun control activists don't care about gun control as a whole, but only when shit doesn't go 'according to plan.' Cops get shot or urban gangsters die? NBD. Some middle class white people die? Fuck, we gotta do something. See why I'm skeptical as to motive and reasoning? California has made some progress in that it has much better social programs than states like say Mississippi or Louisiana, along with strong gun control laws. It's also a much larger state as you mentioned so it can afford many of these programs. For other states to really be able to get such programs, better enforcement of gun control laws, etc. you'd need the Federal government to step in. That's only going to happen when people stop doing things like shaming law abiding gun owners, stop suggesting ridiculous shit like 'we should look at the 2nd amendment' etc. Just to both of your two points: One mass shooting does not either point out our current gun laws do nothing, nor does it argue for more gun laws. The "do something!" trend is absolutely the wrong approach. These laws should work on their merits. It should impact crime without unduly punishing lawful gun owners, and be shown to actually have some effect on criminals rather than just burdening the law abiding. I don't speak for either of you, but for myself, it's these "activists for a day" types that want to allege complicity in murder and inadequacy and total ignorance of all past legislation that really hinder progressive compromise in this area (and repeal of bad legislation masquerading as gun control legislation). My point was always the fact that most people are really 'activists for a day' or 'gun abolitionists' masquerading as gun control advocates. It's not about whether I disagree whether those laws work or not, it's the fact that the most recent shooting demonstrated how the liberal media and many 'activists' didn't have a whole lot of material to work from in order to push their anti-gun agenda. But if the same shooter performed the shooting with say an AR-15, it would be like all hell broke loose. And just as a side note, for people who keep talking shit about the 2nd Amendment and how it is a loose interpretation of it, I'm fairly certain that earlier drafts of the 2nd Amendment did actually explicitly state the right to private firearms. So the idea that the Founding Father's did not intend for the 2nd Amendment to guarantee private citizens ownership of firearms is abit asinine, especially when you're looking at the historical context of the Constitution, and earlier drafts of the 2nd Amendment, along with the history of firearms, firearm laws, and how the courts have generally ruled in favor of firearm ownership in the United States.
I wholeheartedly agree. Honest to God, the slice of debate present here is just the kind I observe in town halls and debates and news articles. Just do something! Doesn't make a lick of difference if it would've affected today's tragedy ... hell, it doesn't even matter if it stops even one guy intent on doing crime from getting a gun. What matters is we did something for gun control, there's a new law on the books we can feel good about, and to hell with what it does to lawful gun owners just trying to defend themselves, their family, and their stuff. It's all just that ratcheting wrench. It only goes one way: your lawful purchase, carry, and use in self defense of a firearm goes down. No repeals back the other way if it didn't work or just made the whole thing more expensive. One more quarter turn towards your second amendment rights going poof. Second amendment rights that we're going to not-so-subtly pretend never existed in the amendment.
Yesterday's cabal of gun haters got their laws, like the DC gun laws preventing guns at home from being operable. It took the Court of Appeals/Supreme Court to step in and hold everybody up on rending it impossible to use them in the absolutely lawful purpose of self-defense. Today's gang is heading in the same direction. Why do you need that gun at home, don't you know it just increases the chance of death by gun? Don't you know American gun culture is bad? Don't you know about the traumatic effect inflicted on the ENTIRE country? Don't you know the NRA really are the devil, and aligned politicians actually don't care about dead kids? If those kind of arguments worked, the 2nd amendment would have been fully repealed by now.
I'm not going to agree with you on some of your favored gun control measures, particularly on magazines and required classes. I do somewhat agree on pointing out the moral granstanding/moral issues behind it all. If no preservation of gun freedom is worth even one more death, then you set a high moral bar for the rest to debate around.
|
|
|
On November 11 2018 19:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 16:08 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 12:32 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2018 10:44 Blazinghand wrote:
All of those are things that California has to some extent or another. And it does reduce gun crime in the state. I think we could do things better, true. I disagree with the idea that because one mass shooting happened, our current gun law does nothing, and therefore we shouldn't have it at all. On November 11 2018 11:54 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 10:44 Blazinghand wrote:On November 11 2018 10:24 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 09:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 05:33 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 04:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 00:40 superstartran wrote:
I would think Europe would be on the level of the United States in regards to safety versus radical Islamic terrorism, but you don't see me going into the EU thread shitting on them relentlessly (you know, considering for the past 14ish years Europe has seen more wide scale radical Islamic terrorist attacks as a whole) with my own 'agenda'. If only USA had the same level of safety from "Islamic" terrorism as Europe does then the level of violent gun safety as USA does, would USA be a lot safer. Also this is literally a gun thread. If you want to go discuss heart attack go make a thread on it. I hope you realize that in some years more people die from radical Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe than people die of mass shootings in the United States. But why argue with facts when you can just moral grand stand and say guns are bad? My point was that just because a country has an issue, doesn't mean you can't debate it in a calm manner. I could moral grand stand on the issue of how European countries would rather see their own citizens die in radical terrorist attacks due to their lax immigration policies. But I don't do that. Why is it ok for your side to come in here and try to hold the moral high ground against gun rights activists and say they are complicit in the murders of innocent people? That's not even arguing with facts, that's just going to piss people off and justifiably so. If your goal is to have a reasonable debate on what the United States can realistically do in terms of gun control, then we can have that debate. If your goal is to come in here and shit on the United States and say it's a terrible place due to its gun culture, etc. then why are you even here in the first place. Replying to each individual point: You know that you are factually wrong? Proportionally speaking, more people in USA die in mass shooting in USA than the whole of Europe? Maybe that's a problem? You don't get to pretend that your facts are more correct than others, when they are wrong. The tone I am using is clearly calm, since is is severly tongue in cheek, but it appears that you are using your favourite tactic of claiming that people who are arguing against you are being emotional. Again. Usually you claim they are being hysterical, so that's a small improvement. Don't you get tired of this? If you don't like my country's immigration policy, you are welcome to go to this thread: https://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/419575-uk-politics-mega-thread, so you can now stop your attempts to derail off topic, now you can stop deliberately bringing it over and over again. I've never shit on the United States, that's just you. As for myself, I love to criticise my country. I want the best laws and culture that my Great country can have. That's because I want my country and the people living in it to be the best it can be. Well, I am here, discussing mass shootings, because this is the mass shootings thread. I don't know why you are tryingto shush everyone up from discussing the topic. If you want to go discuss UK immigration and terrorism, I already pointed out a thread for you. 1) It is a statistical fact that in some years more people in Europe die from radical islamic terrorist attacks than mass shootings in the United States. I don't see mass hysteria all over the news about it though. Good attempt at straw manning me though. Point being, you can debate the points without acting like you are holier than thou and somehow Europe is the epitome of the civilized world. Don't try and twist my words. I never said anything about 'proportional.' I was speaking strictly on raw numbers. 2) You have moral grandstanded in this very thread, you yourself have claimed you don't understand how U.S. citizens could possibly feel that self-defense is a justifiable reason to having guns, when so many people are dying around them. That's classic textbook moral grand standing. 3) When I refer to you, I refer to not just you, but many others also in this very thread who have shit on U.S. gun culture, saying that gun rights activists are complicit in the murder of innocence, etc. I'm pretty sick of seeing it. And please do tell me where my 'murica' beliefs are. I believe in gun control laws such as... 1) Banning Bumpstocks 2) Firearm Registration 3) Red Flag Laws 4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval) 5) Expanded Background Checks 6) Required Firearm Education Classes 7) Wait Times I think these are all very reasonable regulations that pretty much everyone here can agree with. But for some odd reason, people want to jump on the hate Murica train. Which kind of leads me to believe that it's not really about gun control at all, but rather people would rather just see guns banned. All of those are things that California has to some extent or another. And it does reduce gun crime in the state. I think we could do things better, true. I disagree with the idea that because one mass shooting happened, our current gun law does nothing, and therefore we shouldn't have it at all. That really wasn't my point; my point was to point out that despite California having all these laws that have been clamored for years by gun control activists, it still did not prevent the mass shooting. Because like you said, mass shootings only make up about 1% of the firearm homicide rates. That's not to say gun control laws shouldn't be passed; it's only demonstrating that many gun control activists don't care about gun control as a whole, but only when shit doesn't go 'according to plan.' Cops get shot or urban gangsters die? NBD. Some middle class white people die? Fuck, we gotta do something. See why I'm skeptical as to motive and reasoning? California has made some progress in that it has much better social programs than states like say Mississippi or Louisiana, along with strong gun control laws. It's also a much larger state as you mentioned so it can afford many of these programs. For other states to really be able to get such programs, better enforcement of gun control laws, etc. you'd need the Federal government to step in. That's only going to happen when people stop doing things like shaming law abiding gun owners, stop suggesting ridiculous shit like 'we should look at the 2nd amendment' etc. Just to both of your two points: One mass shooting does not either point out our current gun laws do nothing, nor does it argue for more gun laws. The "do something!" trend is absolutely the wrong approach. These laws should work on their merits. It should impact crime without unduly punishing lawful gun owners, and be shown to actually have some effect on criminals rather than just burdening the law abiding. I don't speak for either of you, but for myself, it's these "activists for a day" types that want to allege complicity in murder and inadequacy and total ignorance of all past legislation that really hinder progressive compromise in this area (and repeal of bad legislation masquerading as gun control legislation). My point was always the fact that most people are really 'activists for a day' or 'gun abolitionists' masquerading as gun control advocates. It's not about whether I disagree whether those laws work or not, it's the fact that the most recent shooting demonstrated how the liberal media and many 'activists' didn't have a whole lot of material to work from in order to push their anti-gun agenda. But if the same shooter performed the shooting with say an AR-15, it would be like all hell broke loose. And just as a side note, for people who keep talking shit about the 2nd Amendment and how it is a loose interpretation of it, I'm fairly certain that earlier drafts of the 2nd Amendment did actually explicitly state the right to private firearms. So the idea that the Founding Father's did not intend for the 2nd Amendment to guarantee private citizens ownership of firearms is abit asinine, especially when you're looking at the historical context of the Constitution, and earlier drafts of the 2nd Amendment, along with the history of firearms, firearm laws, and how the courts have generally ruled in favor of firearm ownership in the United States. I wholeheartedly agree. Honest to God, the slice of debate present here is just the kind I observe in town halls and debates and news articles. Just do something! Doesn't make a lick of difference if it would've affected today's tragedy ... hell, it doesn't even matter if it stops even one guy intent on doing crime from getting a gun. What matters is we did something for gun control, there's a new law on the books we can feel good about, and to hell with what it does to lawful gun owners just trying to defend themselves, their family, and their stuff. It's all just that ratcheting wrench. It only goes one way: your lawful purchase, carry, and use in self defense of a firearm goes down. No repeals back the other way if it didn't work or just made the whole thing more expensive. One more quarter turn towards your second amendment rights going poof. Second amendment rights that we're going to not-so-subtly pretend never existed in the amendment. Yesterday's cabal of gun haters got their laws, like the DC gun laws preventing guns at home from being operable. It took the Court of Appeals/Supreme Court to step in and hold everybody up on rending it impossible to use them in the absolutely lawful purpose of self-defense. Today's gang is heading in the same direction. Why do you need that gun at home, don't you know it just increases the chance of death by gun? Don't you know American gun culture is bad? Don't you know about the traumatic effect inflicted on the ENTIRE country? Don't you know the NRA really are the devil, and aligned politicians actually don't care about dead kids? If those kind of arguments worked, the 2nd amendment would have been fully repealed by now. I'm not going to agree with you on some of your favored gun control measures, particularly on magazines and required classes. I do somewhat agree on pointing out the moral granstanding/moral issues behind it all. If no preservation of gun freedom is worth even one more death, then you set a high moral bar for the rest to debate around.
In regards to your last points, I'd say that mandatory education classes on how to properly use a firearm is a very sensible piece of legislation. I understand that it may cost money and seems discriminatory versus low income firearm owners, but the amount of times I've seen someone mishandle a firearm at the range completely baffles me.
|
On November 12 2018 01:46 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 19:27 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2018 16:08 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 12:32 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2018 10:44 Blazinghand wrote:
All of those are things that California has to some extent or another. And it does reduce gun crime in the state. I think we could do things better, true. I disagree with the idea that because one mass shooting happened, our current gun law does nothing, and therefore we shouldn't have it at all. On November 11 2018 11:54 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 10:44 Blazinghand wrote:On November 11 2018 10:24 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 09:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 05:33 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 04:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
[quote]If only USA had the same level of safety from "Islamic" terrorism as Europe does then the level of violent gun safety as USA does, would USA be a lot safer.
Also this is literally a gun thread. If you want to go discuss heart attack go make a thread on it. I hope you realize that in some years more people die from radical Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe than people die of mass shootings in the United States. But why argue with facts when you can just moral grand stand and say guns are bad? My point was that just because a country has an issue, doesn't mean you can't debate it in a calm manner. I could moral grand stand on the issue of how European countries would rather see their own citizens die in radical terrorist attacks due to their lax immigration policies. But I don't do that. Why is it ok for your side to come in here and try to hold the moral high ground against gun rights activists and say they are complicit in the murders of innocent people? That's not even arguing with facts, that's just going to piss people off and justifiably so. If your goal is to have a reasonable debate on what the United States can realistically do in terms of gun control, then we can have that debate. If your goal is to come in here and shit on the United States and say it's a terrible place due to its gun culture, etc. then why are you even here in the first place. Replying to each individual point: You know that you are factually wrong? Proportionally speaking, more people in USA die in mass shooting in USA than the whole of Europe? Maybe that's a problem? You don't get to pretend that your facts are more correct than others, when they are wrong. The tone I am using is clearly calm, since is is severly tongue in cheek, but it appears that you are using your favourite tactic of claiming that people who are arguing against you are being emotional. Again. Usually you claim they are being hysterical, so that's a small improvement. Don't you get tired of this? If you don't like my country's immigration policy, you are welcome to go to this thread: https://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/419575-uk-politics-mega-thread, so you can now stop your attempts to derail off topic, now you can stop deliberately bringing it over and over again. I've never shit on the United States, that's just you. As for myself, I love to criticise my country. I want the best laws and culture that my Great country can have. That's because I want my country and the people living in it to be the best it can be. Well, I am here, discussing mass shootings, because this is the mass shootings thread. I don't know why you are tryingto shush everyone up from discussing the topic. If you want to go discuss UK immigration and terrorism, I already pointed out a thread for you. 1) It is a statistical fact that in some years more people in Europe die from radical islamic terrorist attacks than mass shootings in the United States. I don't see mass hysteria all over the news about it though. Good attempt at straw manning me though. Point being, you can debate the points without acting like you are holier than thou and somehow Europe is the epitome of the civilized world. Don't try and twist my words. I never said anything about 'proportional.' I was speaking strictly on raw numbers. 2) You have moral grandstanded in this very thread, you yourself have claimed you don't understand how U.S. citizens could possibly feel that self-defense is a justifiable reason to having guns, when so many people are dying around them. That's classic textbook moral grand standing. 3) When I refer to you, I refer to not just you, but many others also in this very thread who have shit on U.S. gun culture, saying that gun rights activists are complicit in the murder of innocence, etc. I'm pretty sick of seeing it. And please do tell me where my 'murica' beliefs are. I believe in gun control laws such as... 1) Banning Bumpstocks 2) Firearm Registration 3) Red Flag Laws 4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval) 5) Expanded Background Checks 6) Required Firearm Education Classes 7) Wait Times I think these are all very reasonable regulations that pretty much everyone here can agree with. But for some odd reason, people want to jump on the hate Murica train. Which kind of leads me to believe that it's not really about gun control at all, but rather people would rather just see guns banned. All of those are things that California has to some extent or another. And it does reduce gun crime in the state. I think we could do things better, true. I disagree with the idea that because one mass shooting happened, our current gun law does nothing, and therefore we shouldn't have it at all. That really wasn't my point; my point was to point out that despite California having all these laws that have been clamored for years by gun control activists, it still did not prevent the mass shooting. Because like you said, mass shootings only make up about 1% of the firearm homicide rates. That's not to say gun control laws shouldn't be passed; it's only demonstrating that many gun control activists don't care about gun control as a whole, but only when shit doesn't go 'according to plan.' Cops get shot or urban gangsters die? NBD. Some middle class white people die? Fuck, we gotta do something. See why I'm skeptical as to motive and reasoning? California has made some progress in that it has much better social programs than states like say Mississippi or Louisiana, along with strong gun control laws. It's also a much larger state as you mentioned so it can afford many of these programs. For other states to really be able to get such programs, better enforcement of gun control laws, etc. you'd need the Federal government to step in. That's only going to happen when people stop doing things like shaming law abiding gun owners, stop suggesting ridiculous shit like 'we should look at the 2nd amendment' etc. Just to both of your two points: One mass shooting does not either point out our current gun laws do nothing, nor does it argue for more gun laws. The "do something!" trend is absolutely the wrong approach. These laws should work on their merits. It should impact crime without unduly punishing lawful gun owners, and be shown to actually have some effect on criminals rather than just burdening the law abiding. I don't speak for either of you, but for myself, it's these "activists for a day" types that want to allege complicity in murder and inadequacy and total ignorance of all past legislation that really hinder progressive compromise in this area (and repeal of bad legislation masquerading as gun control legislation). My point was always the fact that most people are really 'activists for a day' or 'gun abolitionists' masquerading as gun control advocates. It's not about whether I disagree whether those laws work or not, it's the fact that the most recent shooting demonstrated how the liberal media and many 'activists' didn't have a whole lot of material to work from in order to push their anti-gun agenda. But if the same shooter performed the shooting with say an AR-15, it would be like all hell broke loose. And just as a side note, for people who keep talking shit about the 2nd Amendment and how it is a loose interpretation of it, I'm fairly certain that earlier drafts of the 2nd Amendment did actually explicitly state the right to private firearms. So the idea that the Founding Father's did not intend for the 2nd Amendment to guarantee private citizens ownership of firearms is abit asinine, especially when you're looking at the historical context of the Constitution, and earlier drafts of the 2nd Amendment, along with the history of firearms, firearm laws, and how the courts have generally ruled in favor of firearm ownership in the United States. I wholeheartedly agree. Honest to God, the slice of debate present here is just the kind I observe in town halls and debates and news articles. Just do something! Doesn't make a lick of difference if it would've affected today's tragedy ... hell, it doesn't even matter if it stops even one guy intent on doing crime from getting a gun. What matters is we did something for gun control, there's a new law on the books we can feel good about, and to hell with what it does to lawful gun owners just trying to defend themselves, their family, and their stuff. It's all just that ratcheting wrench. It only goes one way: your lawful purchase, carry, and use in self defense of a firearm goes down. No repeals back the other way if it didn't work or just made the whole thing more expensive. One more quarter turn towards your second amendment rights going poof. Second amendment rights that we're going to not-so-subtly pretend never existed in the amendment. Yesterday's cabal of gun haters got their laws, like the DC gun laws preventing guns at home from being operable. It took the Court of Appeals/Supreme Court to step in and hold everybody up on rending it impossible to use them in the absolutely lawful purpose of self-defense. Today's gang is heading in the same direction. Why do you need that gun at home, don't you know it just increases the chance of death by gun? Don't you know American gun culture is bad? Don't you know about the traumatic effect inflicted on the ENTIRE country? Don't you know the NRA really are the devil, and aligned politicians actually don't care about dead kids? If those kind of arguments worked, the 2nd amendment would have been fully repealed by now. I'm not going to agree with you on some of your favored gun control measures, particularly on magazines and required classes. I do somewhat agree on pointing out the moral granstanding/moral issues behind it all. If no preservation of gun freedom is worth even one more death, then you set a high moral bar for the rest to debate around. In regards to your last points, I'd say that mandatory education classes on how to properly use a firearm is a very sensible piece of legislation. I understand that it may cost money and seems discriminatory versus low income firearm owners, but the amount of times I've seen someone mishandle a firearm at the range completely baffles me.
I would go so far as state encouragement to train in gun use and integration with various nonprofits to bring the costs down. Further makes it more of an afforded privilege than a right of citizens, akin to requiring classes before you’re permitted to vote or exercise your religion or speech.
|
I think that the media should take the same stance on these shootings as they take for streakers at athletic events. Do not bring any extra attention to these psychos. There is honestly no benefit to smearing this stuff all over the news, besides spreading fear. I bet if they took this stance, the rate of incidents would go down drastically.
|
On November 11 2018 10:24 superstartran wrote:
1) It is a statistical fact that in some years more people in Europe die from radical islamic terrorist attacks than mass shootings in the United States. I don't see mass hysteria all over the news about it though.
I laughed. Do you really believe in this?
|
On November 11 2018 00:13 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 21:13 MarlieChurphy wrote:On November 10 2018 20:17 Blazinghand wrote:On November 10 2018 14:22 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 08:09 Simberto wrote:
And still, criminals in other first world countries are far less well armed than US criminals. Probably less well armed than the average US citizen. So your theoretic point that you so love does not really fit reality. I like how it's simply 'first world countries' because other countries with extremely strict gun laws still have serious homicide issues. It's like gun control laws simply aren't the determining factor, or even a major factor in what causes homicide. Gasp. Riddle me this. California has arguably the toughest gun control laws in the entire United States. Firearm registry, red flag laws, magazine limitations, assault weapon bans, restrictions on ammunition type, highly restricted concealed carry (must be approved by local law enforcement and can be denied for any reason), NFA restrictions (suppressors, etc), waiting periods, background checks on private sells, permits, etc. And yet a mass shooting still took place there. Despite every single fucking gun control law under the sun short of banning firearms. The recent incident alone proves that gun control alone cannot be the only solution. But obviously, it's gotta be guns right? Can't possibly be the fact that sometimes, it's just the fact that people make bad choices sometimes. Remember, personal responsibility doesn't matter anymore! California actually has far laxer laws than certain states like Massachusetts, where the application process to own a firearm takes months and is subject to approval and various training courses. Generally speaking, though, if your goal is to prevent firearm deaths in general, most of the polices you adopt will not have a big impact on mass shootings. This is because mass shootings are pretty unusual and account for a tiny fraction of firearm deaths: most gun deaths are suicides. For gun crime, most gun crime is committed with illegal guns. California's aggressive stance on black market guns and illicit ownership of firearms has helped deal with this, but won't stop someone who has not yet committed any crimes and wants to go on a mass shooting. In practice, even a well-run state with good gun control laws won't stop mass shootings. But this is because stopping mass shootings is just a tiny, relatively small portion of gun deaths, a small stream of blood compared to the sea of blood that is gun suicide and regular gun homicide. If a state chooses to aim its policies mostly at stopping the vast majority of gun deaths rather than stopping mass shootings, this is actually very reasonable - but few on either side of the gun control debate really stop to think about this. Not to mention (i understand this an appeal to relative privation logical fallacy) that gun crimes and deaths are literally one of the least concerns of problems regarding deaths in this country. If we really care about people living or dying, we should be talking about the opiate and drug epidemic. Or maybe even the fact that cars literally kill people in much greater numbers than guns. And you can argue that both of these are choices and random or whatever in relation to who dies or who kills. Seriously, who the fuck cares about the minuscule percent of deaths each year from guns when we have majority of deaths coming from a couple of other things that could easily be halved or reduced to minimal numbers? I mean yea it sucks, but lets prioritize here. News is perpetuating this kinda thing with their overhyping, same shit happened with high speed pursuits. They tried the shit with terrorism alerts and color chart every day, but that wasn't as scary. This is just manipulation by the media to get eyeballs to get ad $$$ and should be regulated in some way. Its also politicians pandering to this bullshit to the most gullible, uninformed, or non fact based/more feelings based populace. Kinda like how everyone lives in dire fear of 'stranger danger' when in reality we know that statistically its someone you know that will fuck with a kid. Or how Anti Vaxxers will say 0.000007 percent of kids will have seizure or develop autoimmune disease or whatever from a vaccine yet they will let their kid play in the ocean where they have a much greater chance of dying from a whole host of shit that is random in there, shit you have a greater chance of being struck by lightning or bitten by a shark. The actual problem is drug addicts are stigmatized and they are not sensational enough for the news or politicians. And guns and random acts of violence are hip. Fuck you. There are EPIDEMICS KILLING people by the HUNDREDS AND DOZENS OF THOUSANDS EVERY YEAR. Most guns deaths are: handguns, suicides, men, middle aged. Which is still a small number compared to other causes of death. TL;DR statistically speaking, we shouldn't even be talking about guns. Much bigger problems to deal with. PS- We've had an ever growing homeless population growing in so cal, to which most of these news and politicians claim is due to jobs, cost of living etc. Which is entirely bullshit. Its a statistical majority because of lack of care for addiction and mental health. There are diseases brewing off their trash and feces and rats multiplying in ridiculous rates that we are already seeing diseases that civilized and sanitized cities have not seen in decades, and they probably won't even get serious about it until we start seeing actual brutal shit we haven't seen since the civil war when the media starts sensationalizing it when they decide to use the word 'plague'. Meanwhile, people are dying and living poorly and painfully by the 100s of thousands. And let's talk about some guns and a few deaths every couple of months between the constant stream of Trump said/did nonsense. homeless shit Great idea, as long as we haven't solved heart diseases, which are the leading cause of death in america, there is absolutely no reason to deal with any other type of death.
Heart disease and cancers are always the top leading causes of death in the 1st world. Because people live longer, long enough to die of those diseases that come with old age at a higher rate. Derp.
If you go to the death stats wiki article, guns are like not even on the chart compared to so many things. Drugs and cars are much easier to fix then arguing about guns. Not to mention taking them away will never happen and controlling them doesnt really do anything. Its futile and worthless to even discuss guns.
|
On November 12 2018 05:05 Mun_Su wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 10:24 superstartran wrote:
1) It is a statistical fact that in some years more people in Europe die from radical islamic terrorist attacks than mass shootings in the United States. I don't see mass hysteria all over the news about it though. I laughed. Do you really believe in this?
In 2015 there were 150 deaths to radical Islamic terrorism in Europe. In 2015 in the United States there were 46 fatalities that occurred from Mass Shootings.
So unless you're contesting the mass hysteria part (which I don't completely deny, some people certainly are really anti-immigration in Europe), I don't see why you're laughing at my factually correct statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
