|
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 13 2018 07:51 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 07:44 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 07:37 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 07:34 Plansix wrote:
There is no centralized goverment database tracking the many versions of gun violence in the US. The goverment does not compile that information. The easiest to stop that sort of mischaracterization, if we are going to call it that, is for is for the goverment to collect and provide that data for the public to review. LMAO. Nice job at completely ignoring the fact that you got called out for being wrong. That database is full of shit in the context of using it to for mass shootings, and any publication using it without mentioning that it adds all those different factors is either pushing an agenda (which means they have no real journalistic integrity) or they have terrible fucking fact checkers. Classic. Fucking Classic. And most people's definition of a mass shooter fits in with either the Mother Jones definition, or with the FBI's definition of an active shooter, which they most certainly keep track of. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf/view I wasn't wrong. I just didn't want to edit to quote on your lazy posts providing me with info I already had. Again, I never asked if you a police shooting could be part of that data base. I asked if it was part of that data base in 2015. I wan't interested in hypothetical police shootings. I'm interested in real ones. You express a great deal of knowledge about that data base, so I wanted more info. At some point I got tired of you putting in zero effort into responding to me. So again, how often in that data base are police the people doing the shooting? Do you even know? Edit; And the active shooter data base is not data collection on gun violence in the US. That data would be collected by either the ATF or the CDC. This is your original quote so you can't back out of it + Show Spoiler +I have no reason to believe that database contains police shootouts in it. Do you have an example that would prove otherwise?
Furthermore, I do not believe police shot outs are common enough to make up a significant percentage of that database. The website plainly states it does not leave any kind of shooting out. Whether it was lawful, unlawful, robbery, home invasion, gang warfare, and yes, police shootings. You are flat out wrong.
But how many in 2015? Did they make up a significant percentage of the total people killed by fire arms in 2015? I couldn't find any.
|
On November 13 2018 07:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 07:51 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 07:44 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 07:37 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 07:34 Plansix wrote:
There is no centralized goverment database tracking the many versions of gun violence in the US. The goverment does not compile that information. The easiest to stop that sort of mischaracterization, if we are going to call it that, is for is for the goverment to collect and provide that data for the public to review. LMAO. Nice job at completely ignoring the fact that you got called out for being wrong. That database is full of shit in the context of using it to for mass shootings, and any publication using it without mentioning that it adds all those different factors is either pushing an agenda (which means they have no real journalistic integrity) or they have terrible fucking fact checkers. Classic. Fucking Classic. And most people's definition of a mass shooter fits in with either the Mother Jones definition, or with the FBI's definition of an active shooter, which they most certainly keep track of. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf/view I wasn't wrong. I just didn't want to edit to quote on your lazy posts providing me with info I already had. Again, I never asked if you a police shooting could be part of that data base. I asked if it was part of that data base in 2015. I wan't interested in hypothetical police shootings. I'm interested in real ones. You express a great deal of knowledge about that data base, so I wanted more info. At some point I got tired of you putting in zero effort into responding to me. So again, how often in that data base are police the people doing the shooting? Do you even know? Edit; And the active shooter data base is not data collection on gun violence in the US. That data would be collected by either the ATF or the CDC. This is your original quote so you can't back out of it + Show Spoiler +I have no reason to believe that database contains police shootouts in it. Do you have an example that would prove otherwise?
Furthermore, I do not believe police shot outs are common enough to make up a significant percentage of that database. The website plainly states it does not leave any kind of shooting out. Whether it was lawful, unlawful, robbery, home invasion, gang warfare, and yes, police shootings. You are flat out wrong. But how many in 2015? Did they make up a significant percentage of the total people killed by fire arms in 2015? I couldn't find any.
Took me literally 30 seconds.
https://www.ajc.com/news/habersham-deputy-killed-wife-man-before-shooting-cohorts/iLtI4T3R2S6gnxBf1OsB3K/
Whether or not there are alot of them is not the issue; it's the fact that there are too many other variables involved in play at here when you set such a wide definition, and using those numbers and publishing them as 'mass shootings' is absolutely 100% dishonest.
|
|
|
On November 13 2018 10:05 JimmiC wrote:
You never answered me on how how many multiple intruder shot by defense of a homeowner, multi fatalities there has been ever.
And you never the article on why Switzerland is actually different from the states, and why you using in as your example is misinformed. So I would go calling out others, you are as guilty, at least, as anyone for avoiding arguments.
So you want me to comb through a data base that purposely hides that information and doesn't make it easy to sort through what is a home invasion/self-defense/etc.?
Ok. Let me just sort through this highly biased database that many news outlets source their numbers, and so conveniently hide the fact that gang warfare, home invasions, police shootings, self-defense, etc. are all a part of their 'mass shooting' numbers.
In regards to the Switzerland argument, you should go back like 15-20 pages and read through it yourself. I'm not gonna rehash that argument.
|
|
|
On November 13 2018 10:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 10:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:05 JimmiC wrote:
You never answered me on how how many multiple intruder shot by defense of a homeowner, multi fatalities there has been ever.
And you never the article on why Switzerland is actually different from the states, and why you using in as your example is misinformed. So I would go calling out others, you are as guilty, at least, as anyone for avoiding arguments. So you want me to comb through a data base that purposely hides that information and doesn't make it easy to sort through what is a home invasion/self-defense/etc.? Ok. Let me just sort through this highly biased database that many news outlets source their numbers, and so conveniently hide the fact that gang warfare, home invasions, police shootings, self-defense, etc. are all a part of their 'mass shooting' numbers. In regards to the Switzerland argument, you should go back like 15-20 pages and read through it yourself. I'm not gonna rehash that argument. I did read the whole article it was very enlightening, but I guess if you know everything you don't have to.... It is not because of the database it is because you use it as a example that not only might happen, but rather something that happens from time to time. I would be shocked if it has happened more then once ever. I think you watch way to much T.V and movies.
Excuse me? What?
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article212474004.html
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/oklahoma-man-who-shot-dead-three-teenage-intruders-with-an-ar-15-wont-face-charges-but-the-getaway-driver-will
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/09/24/armed-intruders-kicked-in-the-door-what-they-found-was-a-woman-opening-fire/
I think you need to kindly apologize for accusing me of idiotic bullshit. Stop drinking the gun control advocate kool-aid and think for yourself for once. Why would the media use statistics that are so obviously inflated? Without even mentioning that those numbers are going to be inflated? At least the GVA states that, although even their website is pretty misleading in stating they somehow derived their methodology from the FBI.
That's not even mentioning times where a firearm owner may have discharged and not reported the incident, or may have not even ever discharged but was able to ward off any attackers by mere threat of the firearm and not reported the incident.
|
On November 13 2018 10:31 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 10:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 13 2018 10:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:05 JimmiC wrote:
You never answered me on how how many multiple intruder shot by defense of a homeowner, multi fatalities there has been ever.
And you never the article on why Switzerland is actually different from the states, and why you using in as your example is misinformed. So I would go calling out others, you are as guilty, at least, as anyone for avoiding arguments. So you want me to comb through a data base that purposely hides that information and doesn't make it easy to sort through what is a home invasion/self-defense/etc.? Ok. Let me just sort through this highly biased database that many news outlets source their numbers, and so conveniently hide the fact that gang warfare, home invasions, police shootings, self-defense, etc. are all a part of their 'mass shooting' numbers. In regards to the Switzerland argument, you should go back like 15-20 pages and read through it yourself. I'm not gonna rehash that argument. I did read the whole article it was very enlightening, but I guess if you know everything you don't have to.... It is not because of the database it is because you use it as a example that not only might happen, but rather something that happens from time to time. I would be shocked if it has happened more then once ever. I think you watch way to much T.V and movies. Excuse me? What? https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article212474004.htmlhttps://nationalpost.com/news/world/oklahoma-man-who-shot-dead-three-teenage-intruders-with-an-ar-15-wont-face-charges-but-the-getaway-driver-willhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/09/24/armed-intruders-kicked-in-the-door-what-they-found-was-a-woman-opening-fire/I think you need to kindly apologize for accusing me of idiotic bullshit. Stop drinking the gun control advocate kool-aid and think for yourself for once. Why would the media use statistics that are so obviously inflated? Without even mentioning that those numbers are going to be inflated? At least the GVA states that, although even their website is pretty misleading in stating they somehow derived their methodology from the FBI.
If I'm not mistaken, you're being asked to help sort through their flawed statistics to disprove their presumptions of what the statistics would show if corrected.
I hope you charge a decent rate for this service.
|
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.
After reading your posts many times, I would say one this is extremely consistent in your world view...
The top priority is that everyone has the right to own a gun.
And you don't appear to give a shit about who gets killed by those guns or even that people are trained to use them appropriately.
Where on your list of priorities does, "people not getting murdered by guns" lie?
I've never once heard you offer anything in the way of empathy for any of the hundred victims of US mass shootings, but you appear enthusiastic about defending the rights of anyone (even untrained or unstable people) to carry and use firearms.
Is that accurate?
I'm only going off what I've seen in your posts. Maybe I missed the ones about the victims, but the majority (or all) of what I've read is simply you addressing gun ownership. I'm not trying to shit talk you, I just really want to know if that's something you think about at all?
If I missed it, my apologies, too many posts to comb through.
|
On November 13 2018 10:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 10:31 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 13 2018 10:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:05 JimmiC wrote:
You never answered me on how how many multiple intruder shot by defense of a homeowner, multi fatalities there has been ever.
And you never the article on why Switzerland is actually different from the states, and why you using in as your example is misinformed. So I would go calling out others, you are as guilty, at least, as anyone for avoiding arguments. So you want me to comb through a data base that purposely hides that information and doesn't make it easy to sort through what is a home invasion/self-defense/etc.? Ok. Let me just sort through this highly biased database that many news outlets source their numbers, and so conveniently hide the fact that gang warfare, home invasions, police shootings, self-defense, etc. are all a part of their 'mass shooting' numbers. In regards to the Switzerland argument, you should go back like 15-20 pages and read through it yourself. I'm not gonna rehash that argument. I did read the whole article it was very enlightening, but I guess if you know everything you don't have to.... It is not because of the database it is because you use it as a example that not only might happen, but rather something that happens from time to time. I would be shocked if it has happened more then once ever. I think you watch way to much T.V and movies. Excuse me? What? https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article212474004.htmlhttps://nationalpost.com/news/world/oklahoma-man-who-shot-dead-three-teenage-intruders-with-an-ar-15-wont-face-charges-but-the-getaway-driver-willhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/09/24/armed-intruders-kicked-in-the-door-what-they-found-was-a-woman-opening-fire/I think you need to kindly apologize for accusing me of idiotic bullshit. Stop drinking the gun control advocate kool-aid and think for yourself for once. Why would the media use statistics that are so obviously inflated? Without even mentioning that those numbers are going to be inflated? At least the GVA states that, although even their website is pretty misleading in stating they somehow derived their methodology from the FBI. If I'm not mistaken, you're being asked to help sort through their flawed statistics to disprove their presumptions of what the statistics would show if corrected. I hope you charge a decent rate for this service.
I mean look, if we're arguing homicide statistics, I don't disagree that those numbers can be very useful. But the media passes those statistics off as 'mass shootings' even though the GVA CLEARLY states that it includes all sorts of gun homicides, whether it's accidents, suicides, crime, etc.
Most people here have been arguing about mass shootings in terms of armed assailant(s) attempting to kill as many people as possible within a public area. You can't argue hundreds of pages within this thread about that and suddenly want to include gang warfare into mass shootings and expect me to take you seriously.
|
On November 13 2018 10:39 ShambhalaWar 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. After reading your posts many times, I would say one this is extremely consistent in your world view... The top priority is that everyone has the right to own a gun. And you don't appear to give a shit about who gets killed by those guns or even that people are trained to use them appropriately. Where on your list of priorities does, "people not getting murdered by guns" lie? I've never once heard you offer anything in the way of empathy for any of the hundred victims of US mass shootings, but you appear enthusiastic about defending the rights of anyone (even untrained or unstable people) to carry and use firearms. Is that accurate?I'm only going off what I've seen in your posts. Maybe I missed the ones about the victims, but the majority (or all) of what I've read is simply you addressing gun ownership. I'm not trying to shit talk you, I just really want to know if that's something you think about at all? If I missed it, my apologies, too many posts to comb through.
I've had enough time to read your recent posts. To put it quite simply, you've shown such a willingness to demonize and not understand empathy from people who disagree with you, that I picture it will take several years before you can move out of the frame of "you don't appear to give a shit" ... "is that accurate." I will continue to read your posts.
|
On November 13 2018 10:42 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 10:36 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2018 10:31 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 13 2018 10:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:05 JimmiC wrote:
You never answered me on how how many multiple intruder shot by defense of a homeowner, multi fatalities there has been ever.
And you never the article on why Switzerland is actually different from the states, and why you using in as your example is misinformed. So I would go calling out others, you are as guilty, at least, as anyone for avoiding arguments. So you want me to comb through a data base that purposely hides that information and doesn't make it easy to sort through what is a home invasion/self-defense/etc.? Ok. Let me just sort through this highly biased database that many news outlets source their numbers, and so conveniently hide the fact that gang warfare, home invasions, police shootings, self-defense, etc. are all a part of their 'mass shooting' numbers. In regards to the Switzerland argument, you should go back like 15-20 pages and read through it yourself. I'm not gonna rehash that argument. I did read the whole article it was very enlightening, but I guess if you know everything you don't have to.... It is not because of the database it is because you use it as a example that not only might happen, but rather something that happens from time to time. I would be shocked if it has happened more then once ever. I think you watch way to much T.V and movies. Excuse me? What? https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article212474004.htmlhttps://nationalpost.com/news/world/oklahoma-man-who-shot-dead-three-teenage-intruders-with-an-ar-15-wont-face-charges-but-the-getaway-driver-willhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/09/24/armed-intruders-kicked-in-the-door-what-they-found-was-a-woman-opening-fire/I think you need to kindly apologize for accusing me of idiotic bullshit. Stop drinking the gun control advocate kool-aid and think for yourself for once. Why would the media use statistics that are so obviously inflated? Without even mentioning that those numbers are going to be inflated? At least the GVA states that, although even their website is pretty misleading in stating they somehow derived their methodology from the FBI. If I'm not mistaken, you're being asked to help sort through their flawed statistics to disprove their presumptions of what the statistics would show if corrected. I hope you charge a decent rate for this service. I mean look, if we're arguing homicide statistics, I don't disagree that those numbers can be very useful. But the media passes those statistics off as 'mass shootings' even though the GVA CLEARLY states that it includes all sorts of gun homicides, whether it's accidents, suicides, crime, etc. Most people here have been arguing about mass shootings in terms of armed assailant(s) attempting to kill as many people as possible within a public area. You can't argue hundreds of pages within this thread about that and suddenly want to include gang warfare into mass shootings and expect me to take you seriously.
We've had enough trouble with mass shootings by armed person against multiple unarmed civilians who are strangers to the perpetrator, that suddenly throwing in "but gang shootings" "but mass shootings inspired by ISIS/global terrorism" "but good guy with a gun killed by cop" serves nobody well. This is particularly true with the common trope going something along the lines of wanting to tailor solutions to lone shooters on a rampage regardless of anyone's general thoughts on gun control in America.
|
|
|
On November 13 2018 11:23 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 10:31 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 13 2018 10:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:05 JimmiC wrote:
You never answered me on how how many multiple intruder shot by defense of a homeowner, multi fatalities there has been ever.
And you never the article on why Switzerland is actually different from the states, and why you using in as your example is misinformed. So I would go calling out others, you are as guilty, at least, as anyone for avoiding arguments. So you want me to comb through a data base that purposely hides that information and doesn't make it easy to sort through what is a home invasion/self-defense/etc.? Ok. Let me just sort through this highly biased database that many news outlets source their numbers, and so conveniently hide the fact that gang warfare, home invasions, police shootings, self-defense, etc. are all a part of their 'mass shooting' numbers. In regards to the Switzerland argument, you should go back like 15-20 pages and read through it yourself. I'm not gonna rehash that argument. I did read the whole article it was very enlightening, but I guess if you know everything you don't have to.... It is not because of the database it is because you use it as a example that not only might happen, but rather something that happens from time to time. I would be shocked if it has happened more then once ever. I think you watch way to much T.V and movies. Excuse me? What? https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article212474004.htmlhttps://nationalpost.com/news/world/oklahoma-man-who-shot-dead-three-teenage-intruders-with-an-ar-15-wont-face-charges-but-the-getaway-driver-willhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/09/24/armed-intruders-kicked-in-the-door-what-they-found-was-a-woman-opening-fire/I think you need to kindly apologize for accusing me of idiotic bullshit. Stop drinking the gun control advocate kool-aid and think for yourself for once. Why would the media use statistics that are so obviously inflated? Without even mentioning that those numbers are going to be inflated? At least the GVA states that, although even their website is pretty misleading in stating they somehow derived their methodology from the FBI. That's not even mentioning times where a firearm owner may have discharged and not reported the incident, or may have not even ever discharged but was able to ward off any attackers by mere threat of the firearm and not reported the incident. I'm surprised you found 3 TBH. But only one of them would count in your statistics, so I doubt it is inflating anything.
Dat moving target. It's hilarious that I repeatedly point out huge errors or prove my points, and yet you just shift the target. First it was 'there's no way people defend their homes from multiple assailants' to now 'They don't fit the narrow criteria and there probably wouldn't be enough to inflate the numbers anyways'
Which goes back to my original point, at this point you are (not just you, but multiple people who casually ignore many of my arguments) just arguing for the sake of arguing or you're trying to prove that firearms have no reasonable use in society and should be all banned.
And it's not just lawful defense, it's the fact that it includes things like robberies, drug deals gone bad, gang related activities, crimes of passion, lawful shootings, etc. that all combine to severely inflate the numbers of that particular mass shooting database.
|
On November 13 2018 11:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 10:39 ShambhalaWar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. After reading your posts many times, I would say one this is extremely consistent in your world view... The top priority is that everyone has the right to own a gun. And you don't appear to give a shit about who gets killed by those guns or even that people are trained to use them appropriately. Where on your list of priorities does, "people not getting murdered by guns" lie? I've never once heard you offer anything in the way of empathy for any of the hundred victims of US mass shootings, but you appear enthusiastic about defending the rights of anyone (even untrained or unstable people) to carry and use firearms. Is that accurate?I'm only going off what I've seen in your posts. Maybe I missed the ones about the victims, but the majority (or all) of what I've read is simply you addressing gun ownership. I'm not trying to shit talk you, I just really want to know if that's something you think about at all? If I missed it, my apologies, too many posts to comb through. I've had enough time to read your recent posts. To put it quite simply, you've shown such a willingness to demonize and not understand empathy from people who disagree with you, that I picture it will take several years before you can move out of the frame of "you don't appear to give a shit" ... "is that accurate." I will continue to read your posts.
I won't entirely disagree with what you say about me in this post. Recently I've been emotional about this topic and justifiably angry with how many people die from firearms in the US. My intention isn't to demonize people, though I'm sure I've not done the best job of making that clear.
This whole business of cleaning up the gun deaths in the US is a messy discussion.
You can disagree with me, but I still don't see you saying anything about the people dying in these shootings. All the posts I read from you are concerned with gun rights. Reading this leads me to believe it's not a concern for you.
Usually I would expect people address the things they are most concerned with first, which has me question what priority the victims have for you?
How do all the deaths impact you?
|
On November 13 2018 11:40 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 11:15 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2018 10:39 ShambhalaWar wrote: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:[quote] 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. After reading your posts many times, I would say one this is extremely consistent in your world view... The top priority is that everyone has the right to own a gun. And you don't appear to give a shit about who gets killed by those guns or even that people are trained to use them appropriately. Where on your list of priorities does, "people not getting murdered by guns" lie? I've never once heard you offer anything in the way of empathy for any of the hundred victims of US mass shootings, but you appear enthusiastic about defending the rights of anyone (even untrained or unstable people) to carry and use firearms. Is that accurate?I'm only going off what I've seen in your posts. Maybe I missed the ones about the victims, but the majority (or all) of what I've read is simply you addressing gun ownership. I'm not trying to shit talk you, I just really want to know if that's something you think about at all? If I missed it, my apologies, too many posts to comb through. I've had enough time to read your recent posts. To put it quite simply, you've shown such a willingness to demonize and not understand empathy from people who disagree with you, that I picture it will take several years before you can move out of the frame of "you don't appear to give a shit" ... "is that accurate." I will continue to read your posts. I won't entirely disagree with what you say about me in this post. Recently I've been emotional about this topic and justifiably angry with how many people die from firearms in the US. My intention isn't to demonize people, though I'm sure I've not done the best job of making that clear. This whole business of cleaning up the gun deaths in the US is a messy discussion. You can disagree with me, but I still don't see you saying anything about the people dying in these shootings. All the posts I read from you are concerned with gun rights. Reading this leads me to believe it's not a concern for you. Usually I would expect people address the things they are most concerned with first, which has me question what priority the victims have for you? How do all the deaths impact you?
How does it feel when a hardened criminal breaks into your home, and then either greatly physically harms someone in your household or kills someone?
See, anyone can play that game. That's why you cannot appeal to emotion, because anyone can make up some bullshit sob story. You have to argue with factual knowledge. Of which thus far recently, lots of people have really failed to do.
On November 13 2018 11:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 10:42 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:36 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2018 10:31 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 13 2018 10:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:05 JimmiC wrote:
You never answered me on how how many multiple intruder shot by defense of a homeowner, multi fatalities there has been ever.
And you never the article on why Switzerland is actually different from the states, and why you using in as your example is misinformed. So I would go calling out others, you are as guilty, at least, as anyone for avoiding arguments. So you want me to comb through a data base that purposely hides that information and doesn't make it easy to sort through what is a home invasion/self-defense/etc.? Ok. Let me just sort through this highly biased database that many news outlets source their numbers, and so conveniently hide the fact that gang warfare, home invasions, police shootings, self-defense, etc. are all a part of their 'mass shooting' numbers. In regards to the Switzerland argument, you should go back like 15-20 pages and read through it yourself. I'm not gonna rehash that argument. I did read the whole article it was very enlightening, but I guess if you know everything you don't have to.... It is not because of the database it is because you use it as a example that not only might happen, but rather something that happens from time to time. I would be shocked if it has happened more then once ever. I think you watch way to much T.V and movies. Excuse me? What? https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article212474004.htmlhttps://nationalpost.com/news/world/oklahoma-man-who-shot-dead-three-teenage-intruders-with-an-ar-15-wont-face-charges-but-the-getaway-driver-willhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/09/24/armed-intruders-kicked-in-the-door-what-they-found-was-a-woman-opening-fire/I think you need to kindly apologize for accusing me of idiotic bullshit. Stop drinking the gun control advocate kool-aid and think for yourself for once. Why would the media use statistics that are so obviously inflated? Without even mentioning that those numbers are going to be inflated? At least the GVA states that, although even their website is pretty misleading in stating they somehow derived their methodology from the FBI. If I'm not mistaken, you're being asked to help sort through their flawed statistics to disprove their presumptions of what the statistics would show if corrected. I hope you charge a decent rate for this service. I mean look, if we're arguing homicide statistics, I don't disagree that those numbers can be very useful. But the media passes those statistics off as 'mass shootings' even though the GVA CLEARLY states that it includes all sorts of gun homicides, whether it's accidents, suicides, crime, etc. Most people here have been arguing about mass shootings in terms of armed assailant(s) attempting to kill as many people as possible within a public area. You can't argue hundreds of pages within this thread about that and suddenly want to include gang warfare into mass shootings and expect me to take you seriously. We've had enough trouble with mass shootings by armed person against multiple unarmed civilians who are strangers to the perpetrator, that suddenly throwing in "but gang shootings" "but mass shootings inspired by ISIS/global terrorism" "but good guy with a gun killed by cop" serves nobody well. This is particularly true with the common trope going something along the lines of wanting to tailor solutions to lone shooters on a rampage regardless of anyone's general thoughts on gun control in America.
But Danglers, let me change my definition of 'mass shooting' to fit my argument criteria so I can further my agenda! There's no possible way this database is flawed, it must be right! Can't be the fact that it's a violation of journalistic integrity to not include possible facts that would inflate numbers like gang warfare, lawful police/self defense shootings, murders of passion, robberies, etc.
I mean, a mass shooting is where one guy kills his ex-wife and her lover, then goes out and gets into a gunfight with the Sheriff right?!
In all seriousness, it is hard to define what a mass shooting is, but I think most REASONABLE people can agree that including such a wide ranging definition is going to severely inflate the numbers, and lead to serious misconceptions about mass shootings in America. The most WIDELY accepted view of a mass shooting is an assailant(s) whose goal is to inflict as many casualties as they can, typically in a public place. This is what most posters in this thread have been arguing over, and what the media in general covers.
You cannot suddenly change the definition of what a mass shooting just because you are losing the argument, lmao.
|
On November 13 2018 11:40 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 11:15 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2018 10:39 ShambhalaWar wrote: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:[quote] 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. After reading your posts many times, I would say one this is extremely consistent in your world view... The top priority is that everyone has the right to own a gun. And you don't appear to give a shit about who gets killed by those guns or even that people are trained to use them appropriately. Where on your list of priorities does, "people not getting murdered by guns" lie? I've never once heard you offer anything in the way of empathy for any of the hundred victims of US mass shootings, but you appear enthusiastic about defending the rights of anyone (even untrained or unstable people) to carry and use firearms. Is that accurate?I'm only going off what I've seen in your posts. Maybe I missed the ones about the victims, but the majority (or all) of what I've read is simply you addressing gun ownership. I'm not trying to shit talk you, I just really want to know if that's something you think about at all? If I missed it, my apologies, too many posts to comb through. I've had enough time to read your recent posts. To put it quite simply, you've shown such a willingness to demonize and not understand empathy from people who disagree with you, that I picture it will take several years before you can move out of the frame of "you don't appear to give a shit" ... "is that accurate." I will continue to read your posts. I won't entirely disagree with what you say about me in this post. Recently I've been emotional about this topic and justifiably angry with how many people die from firearms in the US. My intention isn't to demonize people, though I'm sure I've not done the best job of making that clear. This whole business of cleaning up the gun deaths in the US is a messy discussion. You can disagree with me, but I still don't see you saying anything about the people dying in these shootings. All the posts I read from you are concerned with gun rights. Reading this leads me to believe it's not a concern for you. Usually I would expect people address the things they are most concerned with first, which has me question what priority the victims have for you? How do all the deaths impact you?
You will find zero fertile ground with me if you remain in the perspective of thinking I have no empathy for dead people in shootings, since I don't regale you with tales of how I'm kept up at night and how deeply troubled I am at each new incident this year.
I compare you to some religious people I know that take an absence of "thoughts and prayers" explicitly said to mean you only care to politicize the deaths and smear your hated groups and capitalize on your policy agenda. I understand that you're emotional about this topic, so I'll excuse the implication that I don't give a shit about the victims because I'm interested in this debate here not to swing too far against civil liberties in the wake of these events.
|
On November 13 2018 11:47 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 11:21 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2018 10:42 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:36 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2018 10:31 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 13 2018 10:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:05 JimmiC wrote:
You never answered me on how how many multiple intruder shot by defense of a homeowner, multi fatalities there has been ever.
And you never the article on why Switzerland is actually different from the states, and why you using in as your example is misinformed. So I would go calling out others, you are as guilty, at least, as anyone for avoiding arguments. So you want me to comb through a data base that purposely hides that information and doesn't make it easy to sort through what is a home invasion/self-defense/etc.? Ok. Let me just sort through this highly biased database that many news outlets source their numbers, and so conveniently hide the fact that gang warfare, home invasions, police shootings, self-defense, etc. are all a part of their 'mass shooting' numbers. In regards to the Switzerland argument, you should go back like 15-20 pages and read through it yourself. I'm not gonna rehash that argument. I did read the whole article it was very enlightening, but I guess if you know everything you don't have to.... It is not because of the database it is because you use it as a example that not only might happen, but rather something that happens from time to time. I would be shocked if it has happened more then once ever. I think you watch way to much T.V and movies. Excuse me? What? https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article212474004.htmlhttps://nationalpost.com/news/world/oklahoma-man-who-shot-dead-three-teenage-intruders-with-an-ar-15-wont-face-charges-but-the-getaway-driver-willhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/09/24/armed-intruders-kicked-in-the-door-what-they-found-was-a-woman-opening-fire/I think you need to kindly apologize for accusing me of idiotic bullshit. Stop drinking the gun control advocate kool-aid and think for yourself for once. Why would the media use statistics that are so obviously inflated? Without even mentioning that those numbers are going to be inflated? At least the GVA states that, although even their website is pretty misleading in stating they somehow derived their methodology from the FBI. If I'm not mistaken, you're being asked to help sort through their flawed statistics to disprove their presumptions of what the statistics would show if corrected. I hope you charge a decent rate for this service. I mean look, if we're arguing homicide statistics, I don't disagree that those numbers can be very useful. But the media passes those statistics off as 'mass shootings' even though the GVA CLEARLY states that it includes all sorts of gun homicides, whether it's accidents, suicides, crime, etc. Most people here have been arguing about mass shootings in terms of armed assailant(s) attempting to kill as many people as possible within a public area. You can't argue hundreds of pages within this thread about that and suddenly want to include gang warfare into mass shootings and expect me to take you seriously. We've had enough trouble with mass shootings by armed person against multiple unarmed civilians who are strangers to the perpetrator, that suddenly throwing in "but gang shootings" "but mass shootings inspired by ISIS/global terrorism" "but good guy with a gun killed by cop" serves nobody well. This is particularly true with the common trope going something along the lines of wanting to tailor solutions to lone shooters on a rampage regardless of anyone's general thoughts on gun control in America. But Danglers, let me change my definition of 'mass shooting' to fit my argument criteria so I can further my agenda! There's no possible way this database is flawed, it must be right! Can't be the fact that it's a violation of journalistic integrity to not include possible facts that would inflate numbers like gang warfare, lawful police/self defense shootings, murders of passion, robberies, etc. I mean, a mass shooting is where one guy kills his ex-wife and her lover, then goes out and gets into a gunfight with the Sheriff right?! In all seriousness, it is hard to define what a mass shooting is, but I think most REASONABLE people can agree that including such a wide ranging definition is going to severely inflate the numbers, and lead to serious misconceptions about mass shootings in America. The most WIDELY accepted view of a mass shooting is an assailant(s) whose goal is to inflict as many casualties as they can, typically in a public place. This is what most posters in this thread have been arguing over, and what the media in general covers. You cannot suddenly change the definition of what a mass shooting just because you are losing the argument, lmao.
I've seen two people responding to you move from actual statistics to guesstimations at how badly bad statistics may deviate from statistics they wish they had. "I would be shocked if it has happened..." "I do not believe police shot outs are common enough..." are plain attempts to cover up stats that didn't appear to have holes in them when they were first used. We use statistics and collators of statistics so I don't have to rely on some random dude on the internet alleging that his dataset is bad, but not bad enough to deviate substantially from his point. I had about enough of this statistics guesstimation game when Everytown for Gun Safety included students firing a gun in a school parking lot after hours as another unacceptable "school shooting."
I don't even want to pile on more than I already have. There is ample space for legislation in the margins and post-legislation testing to make sure these laws did something to would-be criminals rather than just make it harder for the lawabiding to exercise their Constitutionally-guaranteed second amendment right.
|
On November 13 2018 03:36 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 13:42 superstartran wrote:On November 12 2018 12:12 Doodsmack wrote:
Let's all take a moment to appreciate the central logic behind the "good guys with guns" argument:
More purpose designed killing devices = more safety More guns should mean a steadily rising homicide rate according to your logic, except the numbers don't back that assertion up. Try again. Looks like the purpose designed killing devices served their purpose on this occasion. If only there had been more guns inside the bar, it would have been a safer place.
Poor guy. RIP.
This particular instance looks like yet another tragic case of police over-reaction that resulted in a completely unavoidable death though, and not entirely relevant to the debate at hand. Like that one Simon-Says idiot-cop who shot that poor drunk kid in the hallway. The only connection I can see (to the gun argument) is the possibility that the constant demonizing of guns has lead some cops to have the attitude that they need to treat an armed individual as an automatic threat and shoot first ask questions later.
edit: (This isn't to say that racial bias, bad police training, or other factors may have a much larger role in what happened, but those are all totally unconnected to the gun-control debate.)
|
On November 13 2018 11:47 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 11:40 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 13 2018 11:15 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2018 10:39 ShambhalaWar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. After reading your posts many times, I would say one this is extremely consistent in your world view... The top priority is that everyone has the right to own a gun. And you don't appear to give a shit about who gets killed by those guns or even that people are trained to use them appropriately. Where on your list of priorities does, "people not getting murdered by guns" lie? I've never once heard you offer anything in the way of empathy for any of the hundred victims of US mass shootings, but you appear enthusiastic about defending the rights of anyone (even untrained or unstable people) to carry and use firearms. Is that accurate?I'm only going off what I've seen in your posts. Maybe I missed the ones about the victims, but the majority (or all) of what I've read is simply you addressing gun ownership. I'm not trying to shit talk you, I just really want to know if that's something you think about at all? If I missed it, my apologies, too many posts to comb through. I've had enough time to read your recent posts. To put it quite simply, you've shown such a willingness to demonize and not understand empathy from people who disagree with you, that I picture it will take several years before you can move out of the frame of "you don't appear to give a shit" ... "is that accurate." I will continue to read your posts. I won't entirely disagree with what you say about me in this post. Recently I've been emotional about this topic and justifiably angry with how many people die from firearms in the US. My intention isn't to demonize people, though I'm sure I've not done the best job of making that clear. This whole business of cleaning up the gun deaths in the US is a messy discussion. You can disagree with me, but I still don't see you saying anything about the people dying in these shootings. All the posts I read from you are concerned with gun rights. Reading this leads me to believe it's not a concern for you. Usually I would expect people address the things they are most concerned with first, which has me question what priority the victims have for you? How do all the deaths impact you? How does it feel when a hardened criminal breaks into your home, and then either greatly physically harms someone in your household or kills someone? See, anyone can play that game. That's why you cannot appeal to emotion, because anyone can make up some bullshit sob story. You have to argue with factual knowledge. Of which thus far recently, lots of people have really failed to do.
I'd probably feel glad that I live in a country where the criminals aren't armed to the teeth.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On November 13 2018 17:13 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 11:47 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 11:40 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 13 2018 11:15 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2018 10:39 ShambhalaWar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. After reading your posts many times, I would say one this is extremely consistent in your world view... The top priority is that everyone has the right to own a gun. And you don't appear to give a shit about who gets killed by those guns or even that people are trained to use them appropriately. Where on your list of priorities does, "people not getting murdered by guns" lie? I've never once heard you offer anything in the way of empathy for any of the hundred victims of US mass shootings, but you appear enthusiastic about defending the rights of anyone (even untrained or unstable people) to carry and use firearms. Is that accurate?I'm only going off what I've seen in your posts. Maybe I missed the ones about the victims, but the majority (or all) of what I've read is simply you addressing gun ownership. I'm not trying to shit talk you, I just really want to know if that's something you think about at all? If I missed it, my apologies, too many posts to comb through. I've had enough time to read your recent posts. To put it quite simply, you've shown such a willingness to demonize and not understand empathy from people who disagree with you, that I picture it will take several years before you can move out of the frame of "you don't appear to give a shit" ... "is that accurate." I will continue to read your posts. I won't entirely disagree with what you say about me in this post. Recently I've been emotional about this topic and justifiably angry with how many people die from firearms in the US. My intention isn't to demonize people, though I'm sure I've not done the best job of making that clear. This whole business of cleaning up the gun deaths in the US is a messy discussion. You can disagree with me, but I still don't see you saying anything about the people dying in these shootings. All the posts I read from you are concerned with gun rights. Reading this leads me to believe it's not a concern for you. Usually I would expect people address the things they are most concerned with first, which has me question what priority the victims have for you? How do all the deaths impact you? How does it feel when a hardened criminal breaks into your home, and then either greatly physically harms someone in your household or kills someone? See, anyone can play that game. That's why you cannot appeal to emotion, because anyone can make up some bullshit sob story. You have to argue with factual knowledge. Of which thus far recently, lots of people have really failed to do. I'd probably feel glad that I live in a country where the criminals aren't armed to the teeth.
You don't need a gun to hurt someone if you're stronger than your victim(either by numbers or simply purely by strength). eg the 98-year old veteran beaten for a TV worth 20 pounds and he's fighting for his life. Anyway, IIRC you can't have knives on public in UK and yet the terrorists didn't care and stabbed people. Criminals usually don't care about the law - that's what makes them criminals 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
