|
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 March 24 2019 00:51 Sermokala wrote:
Oh I put was instead of wasn't on there. I don't really understand most of your post. Are you saying that agreeing with eachother isn't ideologically ethical? You say that you're ignoring that part and then make the rest of your post about that part. You make a sarcastic argument and then sarcasticaly tell me how pointless it was when it was an exercise to show how I look bad when I pretend to care about regulations or control.
Very little of it makes sense. I'm going to parse out what scrap I can and say that I don't want a gun registry because its bad and would just lead to confiscation. I don't believe I've ever said anything in support of it so I don't know why it would look ridiculous when I'm against coming out against it.
But we have a car registry, and that doesn't lead to confiscation. I think more than anything it creates accountability for what people do with their cars, it you drive around recklessly or hit and run another driver, someone can report your plates and this acts as a really effective deterrent.
And having to obtain a driver license forces people to go through a phase of education on the safe use of a car, and the risks involved with it. Something that could also be really useful for gun ownership, and would probably weed out of the shooters that never should have a weapon.
Even if you do something illegal with your car, like drink and drive, nobody takes your car, they take your license to use it.
Why would this be any different for guns?
|
On March 24 2019 00:51 Sermokala wrote:
Oh I put was instead of wasn't on there. I don't really understand most of your post. Are you saying that agreeing with eachother isn't ideologically ethical? You say that you're ignoring that part and then make the rest of your post about that part. You make a sarcastic argument and then sarcasticaly tell me how pointless it was when it was an exercise to show how I look bad when I pretend to care about regulations or control.
Very little of it makes sense. I'm going to parse out what scrap I can and say that I don't want a gun registry because its bad and would just lead to confiscation. I don't believe I've ever said anything in support of it so I don't know why it would look ridiculous when I'm against coming out against it.
It makes more sense with “wasn’t.” I accepted the “was” just because so many impute good motives and zero potential for abuse towards universal background check legislation and closing the “gun show loophole.”
Seriously, most of the last decade of rhetoric on gun control sounds like people are plain mad that gun owners have not been swept away by the tide of public opinion. It makes sense based on both the “you must not care about dead kids” and “look at NZ” with a little bit of “your rights are subject to my thoughts on your needs.” I’m still trying to develop my thoughts on why the gun debate looks like this in America. It can’t just be black-and-scary gun ignorance, “do something” approach to lawmaking, and political partisanship. There’s an emotional contingent, my current theory (being worked on) is a frustrated reaction to stubbornness in defending rights that won’t be given back once taken.
|
On March 24 2019 00:58 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2019 00:51 Sermokala wrote:
Oh I put was instead of wasn't on there. I don't really understand most of your post. Are you saying that agreeing with eachother isn't ideologically ethical? You say that you're ignoring that part and then make the rest of your post about that part. You make a sarcastic argument and then sarcasticaly tell me how pointless it was when it was an exercise to show how I look bad when I pretend to care about regulations or control.
Very little of it makes sense. I'm going to parse out what scrap I can and say that I don't want a gun registry because its bad and would just lead to confiscation. I don't believe I've ever said anything in support of it so I don't know why it would look ridiculous when I'm against coming out against it. But we have a car registry, and that doesn't lead to confiscation. I think more than anything it creates accountability for what people do with their cars, it you drive around recklessly or hit and run another driver, someone can report your plates and this acts as a really effective deterrent. And having to obtain a driver license forces people to go through a phase of education on the safe use of a car, and the risks involved with it. Something that could also be really useful for gun ownership, and would probably weed out of the shooters that never should have a weapon. Even if you do something illegal with your car, like drink and drive, nobody takes your car, they take your license to use it. Why would this be any different for guns?
I have a couple of permits I need already for my guns and my country sheriff drives a hard line on making sure people went to gun safety for them.
I don't accept the equivalency between cars and guns as being legitimate. However, for the sake of conversation, they already use said car registry for confiscation, private companies are allowed to confiscate cars. So that argument doesn't work for me either.
|
|
|
On March 24 2019 03:04 JimmiC wrote:
Do they abuse the confiscation or do they confiscate when they should?
Do you want to be on the side of the used car loan industry in this argument?
|
|
|
They don't just lose their cars they lose their money. And then they lose their jobs because they needed that car to get to the job. And then they're homeless because they have no credit. A whole industry designed around being an actual predator on the poorest of people is better than a lobbying group.
I mean if that's your opinion then I guess we've reached the end because there's nowhere to go from there.
|
|
|
On March 24 2019 02:46 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2019 00:58 ShambhalaWar wrote:On March 24 2019 00:51 Sermokala wrote:
Oh I put was instead of wasn't on there. I don't really understand most of your post. Are you saying that agreeing with eachother isn't ideologically ethical? You say that you're ignoring that part and then make the rest of your post about that part. You make a sarcastic argument and then sarcasticaly tell me how pointless it was when it was an exercise to show how I look bad when I pretend to care about regulations or control.
Very little of it makes sense. I'm going to parse out what scrap I can and say that I don't want a gun registry because its bad and would just lead to confiscation. I don't believe I've ever said anything in support of it so I don't know why it would look ridiculous when I'm against coming out against it. But we have a car registry, and that doesn't lead to confiscation. I think more than anything it creates accountability for what people do with their cars, it you drive around recklessly or hit and run another driver, someone can report your plates and this acts as a really effective deterrent. And having to obtain a driver license forces people to go through a phase of education on the safe use of a car, and the risks involved with it. Something that could also be really useful for gun ownership, and would probably weed out of the shooters that never should have a weapon. Even if you do something illegal with your car, like drink and drive, nobody takes your car, they take your license to use it. Why would this be any different for guns? I have a couple of permits I need already for my guns and my country sheriff drives a hard line on making sure people went to gun safety for them. I don't accept the equivalency between cars and guns as being legitimate. However, for the sake of conversation, they already use said car registry for confiscation, private companies are allowed to confiscate cars. So that argument doesn't work for me either.
Having permits for guns is a far cry from requiring a license and safety training for the use of that gun, which is how we treat cars in this country.
Are your permits required for ownership and use of the gun, or just ownership?
And even if the sheriff drives a hard line... are you required to go to training?
Because if you aren't then I promise there are people in your area that don't and own guns.
The point here is accountability. If you want to own a gun (or a car) you should have to demonstrate competence. When people buy guns they aren't buying a bike to ride, they are buying something that is designed to kill and can very easily do so on accident or with improper use.
In Arizona you can own a gun with no training, but some people have concealed carry permits, which require training... to me this makes no sense. Training isn't required to conceal a gun, anyone can do that, training is required to safely use one.
For example, I've seen a man walk 20ft out into the middle of a firing range, while everyone on the range is actively shooting so he could check his target. People were shooting maybe 10ft to the left and right of him, that man was a training failure and should not have been on a range or operating a gun.
I've seen another man holding a 4 year old on top of a shooting table at a range putting a 22 in his hands, then putting the adults hands around the kids and forcing him to shoot, the kid was so young he didn't have any idea what was going on. That person also is a training failure.
If people want the responsibility of a gun, they should be trained to handle it properly.
In regard to confiscation: You lose anything in our country that you take out a loan for and commit to making payments on, but in the end find you can't actually pay for. You would lose a gun you took a loan to buy and didn't make payments on the exact same as you would lose a car.
And I agree, cars and gun aren't equivalent, guns are far more dangerous than cars and designed for the purpose of killing. Cars are designed for transportation. There are more deaths by cars than guns because they are ubiquitous in our culture and as you said you need them to get to your job everyday. So why treat a common place like the car with more stringency than you would something designed to kill?
|
On March 23 2019 08:32 Sermokala wrote:
One of the most simple examples is that guns don't kill people. People with pistols kill people. Strange words from someone trying to positon themselves as a gun expert.
|
On March 24 2019 06:10 JimmiC wrote:
I mean what your getting at has nothing to do with what were talking about. And you have had to move the goal posts pretty far. Or please feel free to show how the "evil car loan" business would take over the gun market and take peoples guns who need them for work and blah blah. But sure I'm all for regulating high interest loans on anything... and guns of course because they are even more dangerous.
You are getting ridiculous.
You are the one who keeps moving the conversation away from what we're talking about. Complaining now that we've gotten there is whats ridiculous.
And I have no confidence that shambala understood my post in the slightest so I'm not going to respond to that on grounds of it not being worth either of our efforts.
And catdog I didn't mean that literally. I was being facetious in turning a phrase into another phrase for my point.
|
|
|
You were the one to compare a gun registry to a car registry. I never said anything about a gun would be required to make a living. You were the one who wanted to go down this path even after I asked you if you really wanted to go down this path.
People can see through simple gaslighting. Trump does a better job then you at it and thats saying something.
|
|
|
You asked "Do they abuse the confiscation or do they confiscate when they should?" without specifiying the government or the used car loan industry. I wanted to clarify which you ment which you then said the used car loan industry adding in that they were worse then the NRA and that you only felt a "little bad about" poor people being cheated out of their money if they were too dumb to understand the scam that they were getting into.
Then you said that the used car loan industry had nothing to do with what we were saying, despite you clarifying specifically that you agreed with thats what were we saying. you then accused me of moving the goal posts, despite agreeing with the movement and doubling down on your argument. you then said you were for regulating high intrest loans, despite saying you were okay with them. You then said that I was somehow thinking a car was needed to make a living, despite you being the one to make the comparison.
And now you seem to be trying to make some werid argument about how the car loan industry works independently of government records and documents about who owns what car.
All I'm asking for is some consistency Jimmi if you can't handle a moving conversation I'll just make sure to keep it static in the future.
|
|
|
None of my arguments have mentioned repoing guns at all. You're the only one in this thread thats talking about that. You're trying to move the goal posts by splitting the car loan industry with the used car loan industry that I was talking about. I'm taking the literal words you post and relating them to other things literally posted. I'm not doing any reads anymore or making any arguments. You are attempting to rewrite the argument to your benefit by lieing.
You can't have a car registry and then have a side industry that isn't involved with said registry when they do business with people purchasing and selling cars. Thats the werid argument you're making. The whole reason why they repo cars is to change the ownership in said registry from the people who bought the car to the people who will sell the car again. You couldn't have a used car loan industry without the car registry.
|
|
|
On March 25 2019 01:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2019 06:10 JimmiC wrote:
I mean what your getting at has nothing to do with what were talking about. And you have had to move the goal posts pretty far. Or please feel free to show how the "evil car loan" business would take over the gun market and take peoples guns who need them for work and blah blah. But sure I'm all for regulating high interest loans on anything... and guns of course because they are even more dangerous.
You are getting ridiculous.
You are the one who keeps moving the conversation away from what we're talking about. Complaining now that we've gotten there is whats ridiculous. And I have no confidence that shambala understood my post in the slightest so I'm not going to respond to that on grounds of it not being worth either of our efforts. And catdog I didn't mean that literally. I was being facetious in turning a phrase into another phrase for my point.
Your post mentioned that you have permits for guns, and that you have a sheriff that urges people to get firearm training.
Those are both factual statements that don't explicitly get at a a point. So what is your point?
I get you don't want a registry because of confiscation... but what confiscation are you worried about?
I've known plenty of gun owners, I've never heard of a gun being taken from someone who didn't do something illegal with it or was mentally unstable. The only situation in which I could imagine a gun being confiscated was if someone took out a loan to buy a gun and couldn't finish paying the loan (much like a car get's repossessed). That is one reason I made my comparison to cars.
If you buy a car (or gun) and don't pay for it with the expectation you get to keep it, that's stealing.
The way in which a car/gun comparison is very legitimate in regard to gun violence is in the way that both things can be very dangerous and lethal when use inappropriately.
The way we reconcile that danger in American culture is to require training, age limits, a registry, insurance, and getting a license. This way if an individual is irresponsible with their car they are held to account for it, and if they cause damage insurance pays for the cost of that damage. People are required to demonstrate responsibility in order for the privilege to own and drive a car. Why should this be different for a gun?
My point is that by making the same true for guns we would probably have less gun deaths, accidents or otherwise.
This is one very legitimate way we could address gun violence in America.
|
That is the basic difference in view.
Most people in europe see guns as a privilege.
Gun-rights people in the US see guns as a right.
The difference is that it is completely reasonable to add some requirements to privileges, while it indeed seems repressive to add requirements to rights.
I personally think that it is utterly weird that guns should be seen a human right, while lots of other things at least as useful, like cars or bikes or guitars, are not. I am sure Danglars will explain at some point why that is totally reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
