EPTI also think it's strange the blame always bounces around for why we don't have legislation (gun nuts get blamed a lot) but it's clear it's our politicians/political finance system that prevents even overwhelmingly supported ideas from coming to fruition.
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23293 Posts
I also think it's strange the blame always bounces around for why we don't have legislation (gun nuts get blamed a lot) but it's clear it's our politicians/political finance system that prevents even overwhelmingly supported ideas from coming to fruition. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11552 Posts
No guns, except those that you can justify for a specific reason. Go and justify which guns are needed in what situations, and proof to me that no guns which are unnecessarily good at killing people compared to their actual purpose, which is NOT killing people, slip through the cracks. I am pretty sure that no matter what you propose which guns are needed, i could find an argument why that specific legislation isn't really good, and maybe with a few tweaks you could do better. Why do i have the burden of proof to explain to you which guns are bad specifically? Why not the other way around? The way i see it, you need to specifically justify which guns are actually a net positive for society to have around. Not i have to justify which guns should not be around, you should need to justify which guns are around. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8111 Posts
On August 05 2019 21:54 Simberto wrote: Then, lets turn it around. No guns, except those that you can justify for a specific reason. Go and justify which guns are needed in what situations, and proof to me that no guns which are unnecessarily good at killing people compared to their actual purpose, which is NOT killing people, slip through the cracks. I am pretty sure that no matter what you propose which guns are needed, i could find an argument why that specific legislation isn't really good, and maybe with a few tweaks you could do better. Why do i have the burden of proof to explain to you which guns are bad specifically? Why not the other way around? The way i see it, you need to specifically justify which guns are actually a net positive for society to have around. Not i have to justify which guns should not be around, you should need to justify which guns are around. What you're describing is a white list instead of a black list. I'm all for it. Blanket ban on everything: Prove which guns are needed and for what purpose, and then whitelist those. Of course that's going to create a lot more work for weapons manufacturers, so there's no way that's ever going to happen. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23293 Posts
On August 05 2019 21:54 Simberto wrote: Then, lets turn it around. No guns, except those that you can justify for a specific reason. Go and justify which guns are needed in what situations, and proof to me that no guns which are unnecessarily good at killing people compared to their actual purpose, which is NOT killing people, slip through the cracks. I am pretty sure that no matter what you propose which guns are needed, i could find an argument why that specific legislation isn't really good, and maybe with a few tweaks you could do better. Why do i have the burden of proof to explain to you which guns are bad specifically? Why not the other way around? The way i see it, you need to specifically justify which guns are actually a net positive for society to have around. Not i have to justify which guns should not be around, you should need to justify which guns are around. You'd be right if I wanted to introduce guns into the population. The reason why it's the other way (from a strictly practical pov) is that the guns are already here and we can't magic wand them away. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25618 Posts
On August 05 2019 21:49 Danglars wrote: You can imagine how many American citizens would be upset that their rights were now subject to others' statistical likelihoods that they use their rights effectively for their own benefit. Just imagine how many heroes of free speech there are, compared to the many that only use it to insult, demean, and spout absurdities! What if Slydie's dialogue were censored from his fellow citizens appraisal that he doesn't really use it to benefit society? It's not censorship, it's not abridgment of rights, it's the triumph of logic across all individuals. This is a fundamentally unserious argument waged by people that want to ban first, ask questions later. It works against the hypothesis that proponents actually want an answer to the problem, rather than a warm, fuzzy feeling in their hearts that they "did something" about gun control. If what you're banning and why, or policing the terms used and caring little about what they mean, are simply a distraction, the same should be argued about you. It's entirely a misguided short cut to the complicated issue of what would actually have an effect on a recent mass shooting. I'm going to work to preserve my own gun rights if the "do something, anything, now" crowd shows disgust at being forced to detail the restrictions of constitutional rights. These kind of positions are reflective of hasty, emotional reaction and the exploitation of tragedies rather than anything that could be called logical. I do not support using mass shooting events to push for an unrelated gun control agenda with restricted understanding of the details involved. I largely agree here. If blocs were vaguely consistent it would be nice. To be rather crude and generalising, one bloc presents mass shootings as a common occurrence that needs action, and acts of ideological terrorism as an outlier with which we should carry on as normal and not be hysterical in making judgements and laws from isolated incidents, the other is vaguely the inverse. It seems to me the AR-15 hysteria is the Trojan horse for chipping away at the First Amendment, and I’m not even a particular fan of it. If we’re being logical about it the conversation should be around overall gun data, especially that pertaining to handguns. | ||
|
PoulsenB
Poland7711 Posts
On August 05 2019 22:01 GreenHorizons wrote: You'd be right if I wanted to introduce guns into the population. The reason why it's the other way (from a strictly practical pov) is that the guns are already here and we can't magic wand them away. Maybe buyback the guns that owners can't give a good reason for having? E.g. I don't think anybody needs more than one gun for self-defence. | ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23293 Posts
On August 05 2019 22:09 PoulsenB wrote: Maybe buyback the guns that owners can't give a good reason for having? E.g. I don't think anybody needs more than one gun for self-defence. I generally think a gun buyback program is among the best options for reducing the amount of guns circulating. This stuff isn't rocket science imo. Like most obvious things we need to do in the US, our oligarchy opposes it, so it's not gunna happen (until or unless they fear it all going to shit for them too). | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 05 2019 21:51 GreenHorizons wrote: As a gun owner in favor of sensible restrictions I still think it's important to know at least the basics. "details" like whether a gun is automatic or uses clips are more than important enough for people on all sides of the argument to know what they mean, especially for those tossing out insulting language about the competency of gun owners. I also think it's strange the blame always bounces around for why we don't have legislation (gun nuts get blamed a lot) but it's clear it's our politicians/political finance system that prevents even overwhelmingly supported ideas from coming to fruition. The activist presence AND the emotional reactionaries do the issue a great disservice. Rights, once lost, rarely are regained. This thread has both those who can't possibly imagine the use of a gun ("WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO OWN ONE? YOU'RE JUST GOING TO FUCK UP YOUR OWN SELF-DEFENSE!") or don't want to put effort into the details ("WHY SHOULD WE SPEND SO MUCH TIME ON THE TERMS WE'RE USING THAT WILL LIMIT YOUR RIGHTS VIA LEGISLATION?") Education is key on this issue. Understand your fellow gun-owning citizens, don't just label them the "other" and make their rights a matter of "surrender unless you can prove you really really really need them." That's a second-tier class of rights, and perhaps second-tier citizen, if I've ever heard them. African-American gun owners in the inner cities are definitely engaged in this issue, plagued by both bad cops and gang activity. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25618 Posts
On August 05 2019 22:27 Danglars wrote: The activist presence AND the emotional reactionaries do the issue a great disservice. Rights, once lost, rarely are regained. This thread has both those who can't possibly imagine the use of a gun ("WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO OWN ONE? YOU'RE JUST GOING TO FUCK UP YOUR OWN SELF-DEFENSE!") or don't want to put effort into the details ("WHY SHOULD WE SPEND SO MUCH TIME ON THE TERMS WE'RE USING THAT WILL LIMIT YOUR RIGHTS VIA LEGISLATION?") Education is key on this issue. Understand your fellow gun-owning citizens, don't just label them the "other" and make their rights a matter of "surrender unless you can prove you really really really need them." That's a second-tier class of rights, and perhaps second-tier citizen, if I've ever heard them. African-American gun owners in the inner cities are definitely engaged in this issue, plagued by both bad cops and gang activity. Indeed, the ‘just leave it to the cops’ line of thinking which has been espoused here quite a lot, kind of neglects the politically charged nature of policing in America, both historically and in the current year. There are areas in my country where people don’t trust the police and lean on vigilantism to regulate their areas. Even those within those areas that would be happy to go to the police on issues cannot due to community pressure or retaliation if they do so. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 05 2019 22:08 Wombat_NI wrote: I largely agree here. If blocs were vaguely consistent it would be nice. To be rather crude and generalising, one bloc presents mass shootings as a common occurrence that needs action, and acts of ideological terrorism as an outlier with which we should carry on as normal and not be hysterical in making judgements and laws from isolated incidents, the other is vaguely the inverse. It seems to me the AR-15 hysteria is the Trojan horse for chipping away at the First Amendment, and I’m not even a particular fan of it. If we’re being logical about it the conversation should be around overall gun data, especially that pertaining to handguns. Your comparison is rather crude, but somewhat true. Different blocs and just similar thinking people pick what needs change, any change, right now, and what's a nebulous and rare issue. Victims of illegal alien violence, sometimes with prior deportations, might be a screaming issue needing change, or just a rare occurrence in violent crime. Mass shootings might be a screaming issue needing change, or just a rare occurrence in violent crime. I don't really think generalizations can be taken too far, given the formulation you make is crude. You're largely right on the AR-15 and what I think you mean the chipping away of the second amendment. Most mass shootings are with handguns, but the AR-15 and other semi-automatic rifles are the focus from the minority of cases. Gun homicides are down over decades, obviously from legislation not due to access, but mass shootings are trending upward. | ||
|
AttackZerg
United States7454 Posts
Following mass shootings is the most gruesome geography course... And the world is so connected and meta now, that I can't even lash out because the next one is lurking behind a bush jerking it to my libtard tears. This is what powerless is. When you know it will happen. Possibly today and you can do nothing. I have hope... but man. I hope the topminds here solve it for the world and run for congress. I do not have the years on this planet to agrue about people flinging chunks of metal at others. It is some 16th century level conversation. I am not demeaning the debaters but ... the entire debate has gone on sooo long, the debate itself is demeaning. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
Then he says we need mental health care reform. THEN HE GOES ON TO SAY HE WANTS AN EXPEDITED DEATH PENALTY FOR THE SAME MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE. This man is literally demented. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2638 Posts
On August 05 2019 17:42 Simberto wrote: Can we please not have the fucking stupid terminology discussion again. It is beyond pointless and distracts from the actual problems. That is why gun nuts love this discussion. All the time you talk about the definition of assault weapons or whether or not that should be the term to use or whatever, you are not actually talking about gun control. Gun people like this. Always distract, always deflect. They don't have to react to your argument when they can instead just say "assault weapon is a bad term" and get 5 pages of only talking about the stupid terminology. Then in the end they can still point at something minor which is unclear in your definition and feel like they have won, and after you are done they say that actually handguns kill a lot more people then whatever you just defined. At this point you are exhausted, and no one has talked about any real things or proposals, just stupid words. And then nothing ever gets done. Which is what the gun nuts want, which is why they love this discussion. It is important. The argument that "guns are guns, are guns" seeks to generalize all weapons into a large group in order to get arguments like "but now you just ban this weapon because it looks dangerous but this weapon over here is almost the same thing, so you should restrict none of them". All sensible forms of gun controls hinges on the realisation that guns are tools, and that guns are different. That means that different guns can be more or less appropriate for different uses and thus require different conditions for ownership. Even countries with very strict gun laws can have a very large number of guns in them and it can be very easy for an individual to get a gun (like in Sweden). And that's fine because the guns that are out there are very unsuitable for criminal activity. It's normal to design guns to be good at their intended task and bad at many others. If you want to go hunting a scoped bolt-action rifle (calibre depending on prey) with an internal magazine is an ideal tool for the job. At the same time that kind of weapon can have very low requirements for ownership (a hunting licence) since it's unsuitable for crime. The first part of any gun control debate is to establish legitimate reasons for ownership (hunting, target shooting/competition, self defence). After that you can define weapons that fulfill the (basic) needs of these uses and should be easy to acquire. If you get that far it's usually easy to make people understand that while yes, it should be possible to own a weapon that goes beyond the basic requirements for what they "need" perhaps this should also mean that the individual needs to demonstrate that they are indeed a trustworthy person that can keep the weapon safe. As an example, there should be no real problem taking up sports shooting and buying a .22 caliber sports pistol/rifle. But if you want to buy an AR-15 for competition shooting wouldn't it be reasonable to require that person to show that they are members of a club, shoot competitively a few times a year, can pass a background check and have the capacity to store the weapon safely (a gun safe). And if those are the requirements to buy said gun, shouldn't you be forced to get rid of it if you no longer fulfill them? (criminal activity, no longer active in competition shooting with said gun). | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway8111 Posts
On August 05 2019 23:24 Ayaz2810 wrote: So Trump just said video games are to blame (false). Then he says we need mental health care reform. THEN HE GOES ON TO SAY HE WANTS AN EXPEDITED DEATH PENALTY FOR THE SAME MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE. This man is literally demented. I wouldn't put it past Trump to think mental health care reform means killing anyone with a mental health problem. This is a man who has been advocating loudly for (and, arguably, has comitted) genocide and mass murder after all. You don't need to say that it's false to claim video games are the culprit on a video game forum btw. You're preaching to the biggest choir here  | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25618 Posts
| ||
|
Ryzel
United States529 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9674 Posts
On August 05 2019 23:24 Ayaz2810 wrote: So Trump just said video games are to blame (false). Wow I'm so glad we don't have violent video games in the UK. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On August 05 2019 02:59 micronesia wrote: It isn't a manufactured issue. It just happened in this thread again with nobody trying to make it happen. See below. I don't think you understood my post. I wasn't defeating an argument for or against guns, straw or not. Your accusations don't make sense. I'll point out what caused my concern to resurface: Sermokala said: "One Assult rifles are already heavily regulated (until you look into the decade's old regulations where they're basically like cars)..." ShambhalaWar calls virtually all of the post, presumably including the above statement bullshit, and counters with: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/16/americans-age-to-buy-ar15-assault-rifle-mass-shootings" Neither of these sources are relevant to the point Sermokala made. I'm not exactly sure what ShambhalaWar's point was because it's not actually explained, despite all the rudeness, but clearly both parties are not communicating effectively at this point, and it's causing people go move further apart on the issue. We've seen this in the thread and elsewhere many times. When effective communication can not happen, the gun problem will continue. It may continue anyway, but it definitely will continue if we can't speak to the same facts. First, I want to say I appreciate your concern and I think you make a good point about the quality of communication. It is probably a good idea for me not to post near the time of any of these shootings (especially when there are two in a weekend), because there is a build up of anger and frustration for me because nothing ever gets done. It gets harder for me to communicate my point effectively when I'm emotional on this issue of guns. I've also had a history of discourse with Sermokala, maybe I don't understand him well... it's quite possible that could be happening in which case my apologies Sermokala. When someone opens a statement with "Assault rifles are already heavily regulated" ... I saw that part of the statement more that what is in parentheses, which maybe I gave it more weight. But even if I take the whole statement into account, I still don't understand it the point he is making. My point was simply that no guns in America are "heavily regulated" certainly not assault weapons, and I could have stated that better. I do think that cars are more heavily regulated as they always require a license for operation, and insurance. And saying small caliber weapons are more effective in a mass shooting feels like opinion to me, I would argue penetration does more damage because one bullet is more likely to hit more than one person. Maybe I don't get the point of his caliber statement, but it seems to me a talking point against regulating the caliber of a weapon. His points felt borderline with gun advocate talking points against things like mag capacity regulation, or really any regulation. I will say I agree with him about handguns in that much of the violence is related to handguns, but I still think high capacity semi auto rifles are a bigger more obvious problem. One person, shouldn't have the power to kill 30-50, and wound 30-200. If someone goes into a shooting with two handguns there will be damage, but not on the scale of vegas. Can you please explain to me how my statement is an example of misunderstandings around the term "assault rifle"? | ||
| ||
