|
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. |
Go on and challenge my arguments, instead of defending people that say I'll defy a new constitutional amendment and will die with a glock in my hand. I welcome it! The strange thing is repeating assertions of my character flaws like you're some internet psychologist ("You have new disingenuous questions to create gotcha moments" "not even sure you care about this or other issues" "would not shock me in the least if it ended up you were on a conservative site being all left wing.")
Is it really all the glamorous asserting again and again I don't actually believe what I argue? If you think they're wrong, tell me why they're wrong, instead of these tedious meta-arguments that quote nothing and are more like storytelling than discourse. If I really am right about why I think, the best way of proving it is going on about my presumed character instead of what I'm saying.
JimmiC, you have a string of 3 posts on meta argument and accusations of disingenuity, please save us all the repetition of all the evils of which I'm personally guilty. It does not look good on you or anyone else around here.
+ Show Spoiler +On May 14 2019 04:13 JimmiC wrote:
I just enjoy that the argument goes basically [bad paraphrase x 10]
On May 14 2019 06:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2019 04:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 14 2019 04:13 JimmiC wrote:
I just enjoy that the argument goes basically "we can't do any of the logical stuff that has worked elsewhere because its our freedom and constitution" "but what about that the constitution can change" "no they didn't mean this, they could for see all and are wise without question" "how about the things they did change" "they needed to" "how about this part in the constitution about responsibility attached to the right" "that is not what they meant". Then around around again.
I see it differently. It looks to me like danglars (who for shorthand I'm using as a stand in for most gun rights proponents) doesn't want to do the things that have worked elsewhere because it simply isn't worth what you would lose in personal freedom. The constitution agrees. This is a valid viewpoint, although I completely disagree with it, and it isn't really Danglars' fault that the argument stalls there. There isn't any room for discussion when one side thinks that doing nothing is the best thing you can do and the law agrees with them. Trying to change anything about that is difficult. This isn't an argument that needs to go around in circles at all. If anything, Danglars is right that the best way to get gun legislation to change is for something to make the population to demand it from their politicians. I agree with your last sentence, and wish more money was put in to combat att the pro gun money. As for stand in name he could easily say that, but often chooses far more disenginious ways of talking about. That is why Doodsmack change of pace is so refreshing from the usual “Id be ok with some change just not that or that or that until it becomes clear that their was no interest in making it better. Serm is much more honest with his “it’s not a problem” take. On May 14 2019 08:37 JimmiC wrote:
That is a very strange post. First that you think of people as their rivals. Next that you go to the lowest internet insult of "kids".
I'm sure you have new disingenuous questions to try to create gotcha moments, I'm not even sure you care about this or other issues just that the side you picked has more people to fight with. If it ended up that you were on a conservative site being all left wing, it would not shock me in the least.
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
Hey Velr, you'll be voting NEIN on the 19th May, right? 
|
On May 14 2019 17:30 ahswtini wrote:Hey Velr, you'll be voting NEIN on the 19th May, right?
I voted yes (stricter rules).
Not because i care much or see a real necessity for it, but imho its not worth the trouble with the EU/Schengen if we don't do it.
|
|
|
I mean there's the obvious tax money going to it that I don't like, and it just reeks of disarming the areas where lots of crime happens making it easier for the criminals to commit crimes with their guns.
I assume we're talking anonymous buyback where the cops aren't allowed to inspect the guns for possible crimes committed using them? That might be a vein of contention.
|
|
|
No not really. Some people get bent out of shape when they don't allow competitors to the gun buyback or think its funny that people are willingly disarming themselves but I've never heard any hard opposition to voluntary gun buy programs.
|
|
|
On May 20 2019 04:18 JimmiC wrote:
Like you have a business run the gun buy back? I always thought it was governmental and then they would melt em?
They melt them, yeah. The whole point is to get guns off the market, it wouldn't make a lick of sense to resell them.
That said it's not going to be really effective unless there's gun restrictions in place in the first place. The gun buyback programs generally don't tend to pay well, so if people have no incentive to use them (because they can sell the gun second hand instead), no one will.
|
|
|
On May 20 2019 06:03 JimmiC wrote:
No I understand the issues. But 2700 guns is pretty decent for a Canadian city so I'd say it worked pretty well. We have decent ways to stop more on the streets sadly we have a massive border with people who don't. Still worthwhile for us.
Isn't Canada super restrictive about guns tho? So yeah I imagine it would be effective there to get rid of smuggled or old guns that people want to get rid of without being criminalized for having them.
|
|
|
Idk that America would have the money for a buyback... we have literally millions more guns in the street than our total population... about 6 million more if I remember the numbers correctly.
Even if the 250 million of the guns were bought back for 5$ each, we would add over 1 trillion to the debt, and there would still be 6 million more out there.
Though I still think it is a very good idea.
Plus: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/19/us/alabama-high-school-graduation-party-shooting/index.html
More dead and mangled American children, I still expect gun advocates to do... absolutely 200-500%% less than people who don't have guns will do about it.
|
|
|
On May 20 2019 04:18 JimmiC wrote:
Like you have a business run the gun buy back? I always thought it was governmental and then they would melt em?
Some people like to show up to buy backs and offer higher prices for specific guns that are worth more then what the government pays for. Sometimes they're harassed and aren't allowed to operate at the site.
|
|
|
The only argument against a (appropriately implemented) buyback program is that the government is demonstrating increasingly fascist tendencies every day and the people most desperate for cash will be the first to be exploited further if they are disarmed.
Alternatively, without being paired to a new mandatory gun owners insurance/increased culpability for gun owners who have their guns used in crimes, there isn't much motivation for the people it's really trying to get guns away from (the people who shoot up random innocent people in public places).
Considering I think we need a (ideally peaceful) revolution in order to stave off mass extinctions I think disarming people is a fruitless endeavor in the short term.
|
|
|
United States43262 Posts
On May 20 2019 08:52 ShambhalaWar wrote:Idk that America would have the money for a buyback... we have literally millions more guns in the street than our total population... about 6 million more if I remember the numbers correctly. Even if the 250 million of the guns were bought back for 5$ each, we would add over 1 trillion to the debt, and there would still be 6 million more out there. Though I still think it is a very good idea. Plus: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/19/us/alabama-high-school-graduation-party-shooting/index.htmlMore dead and mangled American children, I still expect gun advocates to do... absolutely 200-500%% less than people who don't have guns will do about it.
250m * $5 = $1,250m = $1.25b = $0.00125t
|
On May 20 2019 11:45 JimmiC wrote:
I think it is wacky to think that some how a small firearm is going to get you less exploited by the government. Even stranger then that with out the guns criminals are going to roving around invading the homes. I also find it shocking that you would be for a revolution and not just let what happens, happen.
It will not solve all the problems or even most. But if it gets unwanted guns off the streets and saves a few lives and millions in medical costs why not? Heck gun manufactures might even be on board since they could sell more new ones if people change their minds.
Small arms (whether used or not) have been instrumental in near every resistance and revolution, it's reasonable to presume that would remain true in our case. This is even true in the realm of fantasy and fiction, from endgame, to GoT, to The Matrix. You can't even pretend a revolution without basic small arms (of the period) be it future, present, or past.
You shouldn't be shocked.
I provided some reasons "why not" but the more traditional explanation would be it's not worth the political capital given the circumstances and cost-benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
