|
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 December 23 2018 04:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 04:07 Danglars wrote:On December 21 2018 02:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I wonder what exactly is Danglar's problem is, with legislating the banning of guns with pistol grips, or with folding stocks or with detachable magazines?
Because rather curiously his position is as elucidated over several years is that any gun regulation should not be passed, yet he seems rather disatisfied that this one is not going far enough. How do you explain this discrepancy in your normal thought processes Danglars?
I wonder what Dangermousecatdog’s problem is with assuming everything must be banned, and that the real issue is finding out why anyone would have a problem with the bans. I also wonder if his investigation into my position ever revealed the gun measures I recently supported, and posted about supporting also several months ago? I should think such a discrepancy means he really has no clue nor sincerely desires to know more, since further speech might indeed be as little comprehended as the last. So...let me ask again. What exactly is your problem with the legislation?
Because of aforementioned problems with every past post falling on deaf ears, I must first ask you show you can read and understand what I’ve already said about gun control measures I support. You have a habit of stating as fact “his position is as...” with something that shows you ask without reading responses. I am not in the habit of repeating myself endlessly to people with short memories and bad generalizations.
Micronesia showed why he picked some posters that just aren’t worth responding too in the debate. I think you make a terrific case for addition to mine.
|
Just answer the question Danglars.
What exactly is your problem with the legislation?
|
Obtusly ignoring someone's answers until you get the one you want isn't a commonly successful strategy.
|
Or in this case obtusely refusing to answer a simple question.
If he proclaims to support gun control measures, then why does he oppose these gun control measures? It remains unanswered.
|
|
|
Sermakala wrote "ignoring answer" so I presumed it was directed at me, but the other way makes more sense.
|
On December 22 2018 18:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2018 13:22 ShambhalaWar wrote:On December 20 2018 18:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 20 2018 15:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 20 2018 00:55 Sero wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2018 23:31 Excludos wrote:On December 19 2018 23:21 Sero wrote:
I see this thread all the time thanks to its needlessly long title, and never once has it been accurate. Seeing it constantly gets really tiresome.
No, there was not another mass shooting. There’s just the same 3 people having a circular argument for years without persuading anyone. Maybe you’ll change their minds next post though. There's like a new mass shooting every week dude, what are you on about? The fact that you see this thread consistently popping up should be alarming (And no, there's loads more than just "3 people having a circular argument" going on here. There's 9 different people on the last page alone). The last mass shooting that I’m aware of took place in Thousand Oaks, California on November 7. Today is December 19. That was, like, 6 weeks ago dude. Why should I be alarmed? Because you enjoy arguing about another country’s gun control policy endlessly? No, you mean that I should be alarmed and hysterical about mass shootings and hurry to enact gun control laws, right? You must have misunderstood my post. I’m not taking a side in your little debate here, so you can save it for Danglars. Yeah, there’s more than 3 posters in this thread. Good job spotting that hyperbole. My point is that the majority of posts are made by the same few people and it’s as close as you can get to a circle jerk without getting wet. Such a weird post. On another note... https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/17/us/pittsburgh-assault-weapon-ban/index.htmlLove this, hope we see more of it. Also love the bump stock ban. It was honestly insane that Obama didn't do anything about it... go figure it was Trump. I'll never figure it out. What exactly are you hoping to see more of? Action taken in response to the gun violence problem in the US. People actually passing laws that ban things like bump stocks, high capacity mags, etc... Anything that is completely unreasonable, basically things that are only really ever used for mass shootings. The only reason for a bump stock is killing a room full of people in seconds. Edit: and for all the people getting hung up on the suicide thing in the article, you are literally getting hung up on half a sentence quote that was likely taken out of context. The law is doing something about gun violence... That is more than our senate is doing, more than the house, more than most are doing... I hope more gets banned/regulated, I'll be out in the street supporting those bans or any legislation around regulation/bans. I'll support laws that have less people getting killed randomly by guns in my country. Since the gun culture will never actually get things changed on their own side, it will be other people that need to make the changes. Here's a proposal on gun regulation from NY, would you be supporting something like this? https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/s9191
No, I wouldn't support this.
For one, I'm not sure how affective it would even be. Two, it feels like an invasion of privacy.
It's a strange law to ask me about, I think there are plenty of other proposals that make much more sense. Instead of this, require everyone seeking to own a handgun to take a high level training course to get a license, and evaluate them in that process.
|
On December 23 2018 10:06 JimmiC wrote:
Tbh i was not sure if his post was directed at danger or danglars.
Mostly a little bit of b.
|
>be american
>get shot
Like clockwork
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 23 2018 14:17 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2018 18:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2018 13:22 ShambhalaWar wrote:On December 20 2018 18:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 20 2018 15:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 20 2018 00:55 Sero wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2018 23:31 Excludos wrote:On December 19 2018 23:21 Sero wrote:
I see this thread all the time thanks to its needlessly long title, and never once has it been accurate. Seeing it constantly gets really tiresome.
No, there was not another mass shooting. There’s just the same 3 people having a circular argument for years without persuading anyone. Maybe you’ll change their minds next post though. There's like a new mass shooting every week dude, what are you on about? The fact that you see this thread consistently popping up should be alarming (And no, there's loads more than just "3 people having a circular argument" going on here. There's 9 different people on the last page alone). The last mass shooting that I’m aware of took place in Thousand Oaks, California on November 7. Today is December 19. That was, like, 6 weeks ago dude. Why should I be alarmed? Because you enjoy arguing about another country’s gun control policy endlessly? No, you mean that I should be alarmed and hysterical about mass shootings and hurry to enact gun control laws, right? You must have misunderstood my post. I’m not taking a side in your little debate here, so you can save it for Danglars. Yeah, there’s more than 3 posters in this thread. Good job spotting that hyperbole. My point is that the majority of posts are made by the same few people and it’s as close as you can get to a circle jerk without getting wet. Such a weird post. On another note... https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/17/us/pittsburgh-assault-weapon-ban/index.htmlLove this, hope we see more of it. Also love the bump stock ban. It was honestly insane that Obama didn't do anything about it... go figure it was Trump. I'll never figure it out. What exactly are you hoping to see more of? Action taken in response to the gun violence problem in the US. People actually passing laws that ban things like bump stocks, high capacity mags, etc... Anything that is completely unreasonable, basically things that are only really ever used for mass shootings. The only reason for a bump stock is killing a room full of people in seconds. Edit: and for all the people getting hung up on the suicide thing in the article, you are literally getting hung up on half a sentence quote that was likely taken out of context. The law is doing something about gun violence... That is more than our senate is doing, more than the house, more than most are doing... I hope more gets banned/regulated, I'll be out in the street supporting those bans or any legislation around regulation/bans. I'll support laws that have less people getting killed randomly by guns in my country. Since the gun culture will never actually get things changed on their own side, it will be other people that need to make the changes. Here's a proposal on gun regulation from NY, would you be supporting something like this? https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/s9191 No, I wouldn't support this. For one, I'm not sure how affective it would even be. Two, it feels like an invasion of privacy. It's a strange law to ask me about, I think there are plenty of other proposals that make much more sense. Instead of this, require everyone seeking to own a handgun to take a high level training course to get a license, and evaluate them in that process.
But doesn't it meet your previous requirements of:
I'll be out in the street supporting those bans or any legislation around regulation/bans. I'll support laws that have less people getting killed randomly by guns in my country."
?
You mean that there are gun regulations that you wouldn't support because you consider them ineffective and a violation of people's rights?
|
On December 23 2018 22:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2018 14:17 ShambhalaWar wrote:On December 22 2018 18:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2018 13:22 ShambhalaWar wrote:On December 20 2018 18:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 20 2018 15:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 20 2018 00:55 Sero wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2018 23:31 Excludos wrote:On December 19 2018 23:21 Sero wrote:
I see this thread all the time thanks to its needlessly long title, and never once has it been accurate. Seeing it constantly gets really tiresome.
No, there was not another mass shooting. There’s just the same 3 people having a circular argument for years without persuading anyone. Maybe you’ll change their minds next post though. There's like a new mass shooting every week dude, what are you on about? The fact that you see this thread consistently popping up should be alarming (And no, there's loads more than just "3 people having a circular argument" going on here. There's 9 different people on the last page alone). The last mass shooting that I’m aware of took place in Thousand Oaks, California on November 7. Today is December 19. That was, like, 6 weeks ago dude. Why should I be alarmed? Because you enjoy arguing about another country’s gun control policy endlessly? No, you mean that I should be alarmed and hysterical about mass shootings and hurry to enact gun control laws, right? You must have misunderstood my post. I’m not taking a side in your little debate here, so you can save it for Danglars. Yeah, there’s more than 3 posters in this thread. Good job spotting that hyperbole. My point is that the majority of posts are made by the same few people and it’s as close as you can get to a circle jerk without getting wet. Such a weird post. On another note... https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/17/us/pittsburgh-assault-weapon-ban/index.htmlLove this, hope we see more of it. Also love the bump stock ban. It was honestly insane that Obama didn't do anything about it... go figure it was Trump. I'll never figure it out. What exactly are you hoping to see more of? Action taken in response to the gun violence problem in the US. People actually passing laws that ban things like bump stocks, high capacity mags, etc... Anything that is completely unreasonable, basically things that are only really ever used for mass shootings. The only reason for a bump stock is killing a room full of people in seconds. Edit: and for all the people getting hung up on the suicide thing in the article, you are literally getting hung up on half a sentence quote that was likely taken out of context. The law is doing something about gun violence... That is more than our senate is doing, more than the house, more than most are doing... I hope more gets banned/regulated, I'll be out in the street supporting those bans or any legislation around regulation/bans. I'll support laws that have less people getting killed randomly by guns in my country. Since the gun culture will never actually get things changed on their own side, it will be other people that need to make the changes. Here's a proposal on gun regulation from NY, would you be supporting something like this? https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/s9191 No, I wouldn't support this. For one, I'm not sure how affective it would even be. Two, it feels like an invasion of privacy. It's a strange law to ask me about, I think there are plenty of other proposals that make much more sense. Instead of this, require everyone seeking to own a handgun to take a high level training course to get a license, and evaluate them in that process. But doesn't it meet your previous requirements of: Show nested quote + I'll be out in the street supporting those bans or any legislation around regulation/bans. I'll support laws that have less people getting killed randomly by guns in my country." ? You mean that there are gun regulations that you wouldn't support because you consider them ineffective and a violation of people's rights?
My bad, I thought you were actually trying to engage me with a discussion.
|
On December 24 2018 16:25 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2018 22:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 23 2018 14:17 ShambhalaWar wrote:On December 22 2018 18:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2018 13:22 ShambhalaWar wrote:On December 20 2018 18:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 20 2018 15:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 20 2018 00:55 Sero wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2018 23:31 Excludos wrote:On December 19 2018 23:21 Sero wrote:
I see this thread all the time thanks to its needlessly long title, and never once has it been accurate. Seeing it constantly gets really tiresome.
No, there was not another mass shooting. There’s just the same 3 people having a circular argument for years without persuading anyone. Maybe you’ll change their minds next post though. There's like a new mass shooting every week dude, what are you on about? The fact that you see this thread consistently popping up should be alarming (And no, there's loads more than just "3 people having a circular argument" going on here. There's 9 different people on the last page alone). The last mass shooting that I’m aware of took place in Thousand Oaks, California on November 7. Today is December 19. That was, like, 6 weeks ago dude. Why should I be alarmed? Because you enjoy arguing about another country’s gun control policy endlessly? No, you mean that I should be alarmed and hysterical about mass shootings and hurry to enact gun control laws, right? You must have misunderstood my post. I’m not taking a side in your little debate here, so you can save it for Danglars. Yeah, there’s more than 3 posters in this thread. Good job spotting that hyperbole. My point is that the majority of posts are made by the same few people and it’s as close as you can get to a circle jerk without getting wet. Such a weird post. On another note... https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/17/us/pittsburgh-assault-weapon-ban/index.htmlLove this, hope we see more of it. Also love the bump stock ban. It was honestly insane that Obama didn't do anything about it... go figure it was Trump. I'll never figure it out. What exactly are you hoping to see more of? Action taken in response to the gun violence problem in the US. People actually passing laws that ban things like bump stocks, high capacity mags, etc... Anything that is completely unreasonable, basically things that are only really ever used for mass shootings. The only reason for a bump stock is killing a room full of people in seconds. Edit: and for all the people getting hung up on the suicide thing in the article, you are literally getting hung up on half a sentence quote that was likely taken out of context. The law is doing something about gun violence... That is more than our senate is doing, more than the house, more than most are doing... I hope more gets banned/regulated, I'll be out in the street supporting those bans or any legislation around regulation/bans. I'll support laws that have less people getting killed randomly by guns in my country. Since the gun culture will never actually get things changed on their own side, it will be other people that need to make the changes. Here's a proposal on gun regulation from NY, would you be supporting something like this? https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/s9191 No, I wouldn't support this. For one, I'm not sure how affective it would even be. Two, it feels like an invasion of privacy. It's a strange law to ask me about, I think there are plenty of other proposals that make much more sense. Instead of this, require everyone seeking to own a handgun to take a high level training course to get a license, and evaluate them in that process. But doesn't it meet your previous requirements of: I'll be out in the street supporting those bans or any legislation around regulation/bans. I'll support laws that have less people getting killed randomly by guns in my country." ? You mean that there are gun regulations that you wouldn't support because you consider them ineffective and a violation of people's rights? My bad, I thought you were actually trying to engage me with a discussion.
I was. Did you mean something else?
|
|
|
On December 24 2018 19:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2018 16:25 ShambhalaWar wrote:On December 23 2018 22:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 23 2018 14:17 ShambhalaWar wrote:On December 22 2018 18:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2018 13:22 ShambhalaWar wrote:On December 20 2018 18:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 20 2018 15:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 20 2018 00:55 Sero wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2018 23:31 Excludos wrote:On December 19 2018 23:21 Sero wrote:
I see this thread all the time thanks to its needlessly long title, and never once has it been accurate. Seeing it constantly gets really tiresome.
No, there was not another mass shooting. There’s just the same 3 people having a circular argument for years without persuading anyone. Maybe you’ll change their minds next post though. There's like a new mass shooting every week dude, what are you on about? The fact that you see this thread consistently popping up should be alarming (And no, there's loads more than just "3 people having a circular argument" going on here. There's 9 different people on the last page alone). The last mass shooting that I’m aware of took place in Thousand Oaks, California on November 7. Today is December 19. That was, like, 6 weeks ago dude. Why should I be alarmed? Because you enjoy arguing about another country’s gun control policy endlessly? No, you mean that I should be alarmed and hysterical about mass shootings and hurry to enact gun control laws, right? You must have misunderstood my post. I’m not taking a side in your little debate here, so you can save it for Danglars. Yeah, there’s more than 3 posters in this thread. Good job spotting that hyperbole. My point is that the majority of posts are made by the same few people and it’s as close as you can get to a circle jerk without getting wet. Such a weird post. On another note... https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/17/us/pittsburgh-assault-weapon-ban/index.htmlLove this, hope we see more of it. Also love the bump stock ban. It was honestly insane that Obama didn't do anything about it... go figure it was Trump. I'll never figure it out. What exactly are you hoping to see more of? Action taken in response to the gun violence problem in the US. People actually passing laws that ban things like bump stocks, high capacity mags, etc... Anything that is completely unreasonable, basically things that are only really ever used for mass shootings. The only reason for a bump stock is killing a room full of people in seconds. Edit: and for all the people getting hung up on the suicide thing in the article, you are literally getting hung up on half a sentence quote that was likely taken out of context. The law is doing something about gun violence... That is more than our senate is doing, more than the house, more than most are doing... I hope more gets banned/regulated, I'll be out in the street supporting those bans or any legislation around regulation/bans. I'll support laws that have less people getting killed randomly by guns in my country. Since the gun culture will never actually get things changed on their own side, it will be other people that need to make the changes. Here's a proposal on gun regulation from NY, would you be supporting something like this? https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/s9191 No, I wouldn't support this. For one, I'm not sure how affective it would even be. Two, it feels like an invasion of privacy. It's a strange law to ask me about, I think there are plenty of other proposals that make much more sense. Instead of this, require everyone seeking to own a handgun to take a high level training course to get a license, and evaluate them in that process. But doesn't it meet your previous requirements of: I'll be out in the street supporting those bans or any legislation around regulation/bans. I'll support laws that have less people getting killed randomly by guns in my country." ? You mean that there are gun regulations that you wouldn't support because you consider them ineffective and a violation of people's rights? My bad, I thought you were actually trying to engage me with a discussion. I was. Did you mean something else?
You post is the equivalent of a "gotcha" post... that's not a discussion.
And you asked me a question which was answered in my last post. I don't typically do semantic garbage, but...
I said I support laws that will have less people getting killed randomly by guns. If a law is ineffective, then it won't have less people getting killed and not garner my support.
|
United States24753 Posts
When one of the sticking points in this thread typically is whether or not people are advocating for only reasonable legislation, it's important to know if people really meant it when they said:
On December 22 2018 13:22 ShambhalaWar wrote:
I hope more gets banned/regulated, I'll be out in the street supporting those bans or any legislation around regulation/bans. I'll support laws that have less people getting killed randomly by guns in my country.
...and it's polite for the person to acknowledge that what they said and what they meant are not the same thing. What is not polite is to attack someone for pointing out that what you said is not true. My read is that you simply meant to say any "reasonable" legislation which is fine and I take no issue with (and gh probably won't either provided in a specific case you could each agree on which legislation is reasonable).
|
On December 25 2018 15:05 micronesia wrote:When one of the sticking points in this thread typically is whether or not people are advocating for only reasonable legislation, it's important to know if people really meant it when they said: Show nested quote +On December 22 2018 13:22 ShambhalaWar wrote:
I hope more gets banned/regulated, I'll be out in the street supporting those bans or any legislation around regulation/bans. I'll support laws that have less people getting killed randomly by guns in my country.
...and it's polite for the person to acknowledge that what they said and what they meant are not the same thing. What is not polite is to attack someone for pointing out that what you said is not true. My read is that you simply meant to say any "reasonable" legislation which is fine and I take no issue with (and gh probably won't either provided in a specific case you could each agree on which legislation is reasonable).
I'm only in favor of reasonable legislation.
[As a reminder, it will vary person to person what appears reasonable in one's eyes. For example, in Pittsburg, is it entirely unreasonable to suppose that reducing the legal capacity of magazines from a 15+ ban to a 10+ ban will have a noticeable effect on mass shootings or other gun violence]
+ Show Spoiler +On December 23 2018 22:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
You mean that there are gun regulations that you wouldn't support because you consider them ineffective and a violation of people's rights?
Actually, quite prescient. If you ask that New York legislator about his bill, would he say it was a reasonable response to mass shootings and/or gun violence in America?
|
|
|
On December 25 2018 21:52 JimmiC wrote:
You are right it is going to take more than that to make an impact. But are you against it? Does it effect your freedom too much? If so what legislation on clip size would you support?
Oh yeah I’m against it. I’ll compromise to a 15 max capacity if I can get something valuable for gun rights in return. Otherwise it’s just unidirectional push and more intrusion on lawful gun owners without much good to criminal shootings. How hard do people think changing magazines is when your intent is killing people, anyways?
Bans on the 50-100 capacity mags are reasonable. Vegas shooter had some.
|
On December 26 2018 03:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2018 21:52 JimmiC wrote:
You are right it is going to take more than that to make an impact. But are you against it? Does it effect your freedom too much? If so what legislation on clip size would you support?
Oh yeah I’m against it. I’ll compromise to a 15 max capacity if I can get something valuable for gun rights in return. Otherwise it’s just unidirectional push and more intrusion on lawful gun owners without much good to criminal shootings. How hard do people think changing magazines is when your intent is killing people, anyways? Bans on the 50-100 capacity mags are reasonable. Vegas shooter had some.
Mag changes are a critical tactical consideration so I don't think you have a clue there but I am curious what are some of these things you may want in return for regulations you already want?
|
On December 26 2018 03:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2018 21:52 JimmiC wrote:
You are right it is going to take more than that to make an impact. But are you against it? Does it effect your freedom too much? If so what legislation on clip size would you support?
Oh yeah I’m against it. I’ll compromise to a 15 max capacity if I can get something valuable for gun rights in return. Otherwise it’s just unidirectional push and more intrusion on lawful gun owners without much good to criminal shootings. How hard do people think changing magazines is when your intent is killing people, anyways? Bans on the 50-100 capacity mags are reasonable. Vegas shooter had some.
5 is a reasonable mag size let's be honest here. How often do you plan on shooting any more? Do you need 5 bullets to kill that deer? Or for home defence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
