|
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 February 16 2018 16:50 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 12:35 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 12:28 thePunGun wrote: @ superstartran: Have you even read the article, I've linked? Because it seems to me you're talking out of you ass right now.... Actual language of the bill "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control." It does not say that the CDC cannot study firearm related violence. We've already gone over why this amendment was created in the first place. Do you know what a chilling effect is? This is pretty much a textbook case of it.
That part of the bill basically says "You are only allowed to study guns if either
a) You don't spend any money doing it (impossible) or b) You find that guns are not in any way dangerous."
Because if you found any problem with guns, that would surely be promoting gun control. So yes, the CDC is allowed to study guns, as long as the result is a predetermined "guns are cool!". You might not know how research works, but if your result is predetermined by law, you can not actually do any research. So yes, that bill bans CDC gun research, and it especially bans any research that would promote gun control, i.e. any research that would show that there might be a problem with the current gun situation in the USA.
The fact that superstartran continues to argue that it does not ban gun research is really dishonest. Yes, it does not technically ban all gun research by the CDC. But in fact it actually does. And then, after the CDC is only allowed to publish findings that are not in favor of gun control, he stands on his high horse and disclaims "Why do you not produce any studies that favor gun control?"
If you want data in support of gun control, compare EU statistics to US statistics. But of course, that is also not valid, because the US is so unique that nothing from outside the US may ever be compared to something inside of the US. That is a nice fort that has been build here.
Research inside the US may by law not declare guns a problem Research from outside the US is not valid because US exceptionalism "There is no research in favour of gun control!"
|
Superstartran, please tell me if i got this right:
- you are in favor of regulations on guns - you are a member of the NRA - you acknowledge that the NRA is not in favor of gun regulations - you acknowledge that the NRA is lobbying against gun regulations - you blame "the left" for a lack of gun regulations
Okay. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.
|
On February 16 2018 19:34 Broetchenholer wrote: Superstartran, please tell me if i got this right:
- you are in favor of regulations on guns - you are a member of the NRA - you acknowledge that the NRA is not in favor of gun regulations - you acknowledge that the NRA is lobbying against gun regulations - you blame "the left" for a lack of gun regulations
Okay. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.
NRA leadership is to blame, not actual NRA members themselves. Alot of the leadership's power comes from the fact that people continuously misrepresent the actual narrative and argue from emotion and not from actual facts. The Dickey Amendment itself is a perfect example of that. The CDC is not banned from making any links, only they cannot promote gun control. The CDC simply errs on the side of caution, not because it can't do gun control research, it's just that last time they did their funding got sent down to 0 because they were flat out lying. A point that many people seem to miss.
Do you want gun regulations to change? Expanded background checks? Bans on high capacity magazines? Stronger enforcement on semi-automatic long rifles like the AR-15 and its variants? Then the liberal left needs to start doing something different, because every single time they try the same shit, demonize gun owners, misrepresent information and arguments to fit their agenda, and then try to pass it off as holier than thou. The vast majority of gun owners in most polls support the same things I just listed, so it's not impossible; the real issue is that the left is incapable of putting together a coalition that even comes close to the same strength as the NRA, and alot of that has to do with the fact that even most moderate gun owners end up supporting NRA representatives because of the fact that the left argues from emotion rather than factual evidence.
Why do you think the NRA puts out ads where it's us vs them? Because of the fact that there is a real liberal left presence who wants to flat out ban firearms, despite the fact that realistically and logically speaking it will do absolutely nothing. Half the people in this thread can't even argue with actual facts, and only cite the fact that the CDC cannot do gun research as their claim that there is no research on firearm related violence, when various other branches of local, state, and federal governments have actual done research/statistics on firearm related violence. Like I said though, everyone in here seems much more interested in pushing their agenda rather than coming to terms that this problem is much more complex than it actually is.
|
supertran, you also seem far more interested in pushing your agenda than focusing on the facts, as you've ignored the counterpoints which seem to dismantle sizeable amounts of your case. then again, you did say "everyone in here", so I suppose you did mean to include yourself in that; carry on then.
|
The majority of Americans support quite a wide array of gun control... yet Republican house and senate members, who get paid massively by the NRA, consistently avoid the issue.
But it's the left's fault.
Okay @sst. You tell em.
|
On February 16 2018 17:22 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 16:50 Kyadytim wrote:On February 16 2018 12:35 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 12:28 thePunGun wrote: @ superstartran: Have you even read the article, I've linked? Because it seems to me you're talking out of you ass right now.... Actual language of the bill "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control." It does not say that the CDC cannot study firearm related violence. We've already gone over why this amendment was created in the first place. Do you know what a chilling effect is? This is pretty much a textbook case of it. That part of the bill basically says "You are only allowed to study guns if either a) You don't spend any money doing it (impossible) or b) You find that guns are not in any way dangerous." Because if you found any problem with guns, that would surely be promoting gun control. So yes, the CDC is allowed to study guns, as long as the result is a predetermined "guns are cool!". You might not know how research works, but if your result is predetermined by law, you can not actually do any research. So yes, that bill bans CDC gun research, and it especially bans any research that would promote gun control, i.e. any research that would show that there might be a problem with the current gun situation in the USA. The fact that superstartran continues to argue that it does not ban gun research is really dishonest. Yes, it does not technically ban all gun research by the CDC. But in fact it actually does. And then, after the CDC is only allowed to publish findings that are not in favor of gun control, he stands on his high horse and disclaims "Why do you not produce any studies that favor gun control?" If you want data in support of gun control, compare EU statistics to US statistics. But of course, that is also not valid, because the US is so unique that nothing from outside the US may ever be compared to something inside of the US. That is a nice fort that has been build here. Research inside the US may by law not declare guns a problem Research from outside the US is not valid because US exceptionalism "There is no research in favour of gun control!"
You obviously don't know how it works.
The CDC is allowed to study any publishing they want; they published findings in both 2003 and 2013 regarding firearm related crimes and number of firearms, including studying the effects of gun control. Saying that the CDC isn't allowed to study and make links is disingenuous at best because there's evidence that states otherwise.
The real reason why the CDC doesn't put in more research is that their funding in the 1990s got set back to 0 because they were caught with their pants down trying to lie their way to an agenda. Yes that was 20 years ago, but consider the fact that right now in this entire thread most of the liberal left has yet to be able to come to terms with actual facts, and argue from emotion rather than logic. Now extrapolate that into the real world where the average American is definitely even as smart as the average Team Liquid poster, and you have the recipe for the NRA leadership's success. You have pissed off gunowners because pretty much a majority of society thinks that it's ok to misrepresent guns, gun ownership, etc.
|
On February 16 2018 21:27 zlefin wrote: supertran, you also seem far more interested in pushing your agenda than focusing on the facts, as you've ignored the counterpoints which seem to dismantle sizeable amounts of your case. then again, you did say "everyone in here", so I suppose you did mean to include yourself in that; carry on then.
What counter facts?
Because there's literally zero. Where's the study? Where's the statistics? Where's the even logical reasoning? Because I have yet to see any. But hey man, keep it up. I am sure that calling someone that actually supports reasonable and logical gun control is going to help you out.
On February 16 2018 21:30 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: The majority of Americans support quite a wide array of gun control... yet Republican house and senate members, who get paid massively by the NRA, consistently avoid the issue.
But it's the left's fault.
Okay @sst. You tell em.
Again, example of what I am talking about. This guy doesn't even know that the NRA doesn't even donate a fraction of what Pharmaceutical Companies and Tech Giants do. The NRA's strength lies in getting voters in on key swing state representatives.
|
On February 16 2018 21:32 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 21:27 zlefin wrote: supertran, you also seem far more interested in pushing your agenda than focusing on the facts, as you've ignored the counterpoints which seem to dismantle sizeable amounts of your case. then again, you did say "everyone in here", so I suppose you did mean to include yourself in that; carry on then. What counter facts? Because there's literally zero. Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 21:30 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: The majority of Americans support quite a wide array of gun control... yet Republican house and senate members, who get paid massively by the NRA, consistently avoid the issue.
But it's the left's fault.
Okay @sst. You tell em. Again, example of what I am talking about. This guy doesn't even know that the NRA doesn't even donate a fraction of what Pharmaceutical Companies and Tech Giants do. The NRA's strength lies in getting voters in on key swing state representatives.
there's been plenty of them, you just ignored them. so like I said, carry on. you clearly meant to include yourself in the description, and hence htere's no hypocrisy so I don't mind much; you're just pushing an agenda like everyone else is.
|
On February 16 2018 21:35 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 21:32 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:27 zlefin wrote: supertran, you also seem far more interested in pushing your agenda than focusing on the facts, as you've ignored the counterpoints which seem to dismantle sizeable amounts of your case. then again, you did say "everyone in here", so I suppose you did mean to include yourself in that; carry on then. What counter facts? Because there's literally zero. On February 16 2018 21:30 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: The majority of Americans support quite a wide array of gun control... yet Republican house and senate members, who get paid massively by the NRA, consistently avoid the issue.
But it's the left's fault.
Okay @sst. You tell em. Again, example of what I am talking about. This guy doesn't even know that the NRA doesn't even donate a fraction of what Pharmaceutical Companies and Tech Giants do. The NRA's strength lies in getting voters in on key swing state representatives. there's been plenty of them, you just ignored them. so like I said, carry on. you clearly meant to include yourself in the description, and hence htere's no hypocrisy so I don't mind at all; you're just pushing an agenda like everyone else is.
There's plenty of them, and yet you can't even list three of them. Ok.
"Yeah man, look at all those facts, you're wrong and you're an asshole, but I'm not even going to bother because I'm wasting my time."
|
On February 16 2018 17:22 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 16:50 Kyadytim wrote:On February 16 2018 12:35 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 12:28 thePunGun wrote: @ superstartran: Have you even read the article, I've linked? Because it seems to me you're talking out of you ass right now.... Actual language of the bill "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control." It does not say that the CDC cannot study firearm related violence. We've already gone over why this amendment was created in the first place. Do you know what a chilling effect is? This is pretty much a textbook case of it. That part of the bill basically says "You are only allowed to study guns if either a) You don't spend any money doing it (impossible) or b) You find that guns are not in any way dangerous." Because if you found any problem with guns, that would surely be promoting gun control. So yes, the CDC is allowed to study guns, as long as the result is a predetermined "guns are cool!". You might not know how research works, but if your result is predetermined by law, you can not actually do any research. So yes, that bill bans CDC gun research, and it especially bans any research that would promote gun control, i.e. any research that would show that there might be a problem with the current gun situation in the USA. The fact that superstartran continues to argue that it does not ban gun research is really dishonest. Yes, it does not technically ban all gun research by the CDC. But in fact it actually does. And then, after the CDC is only allowed to publish findings that are not in favor of gun control, he stands on his high horse and disclaims "Why do you not produce any studies that favor gun control?" If you want data in support of gun control, compare EU statistics to US statistics. But of course, that is also not valid, because the US is so unique that nothing from outside the US may ever be compared to something inside of the US. That is a nice fort that has been build here. Research inside the US may by law not declare guns a problem Research from outside the US is not valid because US exceptionalism "There is no research in favour of gun control!" The chilling effect is obvious and people working at the CDC have said exactly that. But the focus of the discussion is on the wording of the law, rather than it’s impact.
|
On February 16 2018 21:38 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 21:35 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:32 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:27 zlefin wrote: supertran, you also seem far more interested in pushing your agenda than focusing on the facts, as you've ignored the counterpoints which seem to dismantle sizeable amounts of your case. then again, you did say "everyone in here", so I suppose you did mean to include yourself in that; carry on then. What counter facts? Because there's literally zero. On February 16 2018 21:30 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: The majority of Americans support quite a wide array of gun control... yet Republican house and senate members, who get paid massively by the NRA, consistently avoid the issue.
But it's the left's fault.
Okay @sst. You tell em. Again, example of what I am talking about. This guy doesn't even know that the NRA doesn't even donate a fraction of what Pharmaceutical Companies and Tech Giants do. The NRA's strength lies in getting voters in on key swing state representatives. there's been plenty of them, you just ignored them. so like I said, carry on. you clearly meant to include yourself in the description, and hence htere's no hypocrisy so I don't mind at all; you're just pushing an agenda like everyone else is. There's plenty of them, and yet you can't even list three of them. Ok. "Yeah man, look at all those facts, you're wrong and you're an asshole, but I'm not even going to bother because I'm wasting my time." where did I say you're an asshole? I don't see a strong implication of it anywhere; but I do see how you could erroneously conclude tha'ts what I meant. you are correct that I shouldn't waste time on here with you, which is why I'm trying to withdraw; I'm just bad at withdrawing.
|
On February 16 2018 21:45 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 21:38 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:35 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:32 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:27 zlefin wrote: supertran, you also seem far more interested in pushing your agenda than focusing on the facts, as you've ignored the counterpoints which seem to dismantle sizeable amounts of your case. then again, you did say "everyone in here", so I suppose you did mean to include yourself in that; carry on then. What counter facts? Because there's literally zero. On February 16 2018 21:30 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: The majority of Americans support quite a wide array of gun control... yet Republican house and senate members, who get paid massively by the NRA, consistently avoid the issue.
But it's the left's fault.
Okay @sst. You tell em. Again, example of what I am talking about. This guy doesn't even know that the NRA doesn't even donate a fraction of what Pharmaceutical Companies and Tech Giants do. The NRA's strength lies in getting voters in on key swing state representatives. there's been plenty of them, you just ignored them. so like I said, carry on. you clearly meant to include yourself in the description, and hence htere's no hypocrisy so I don't mind at all; you're just pushing an agenda like everyone else is. There's plenty of them, and yet you can't even list three of them. Ok. "Yeah man, look at all those facts, you're wrong and you're an asshole, but I'm not even going to bother because I'm wasting my time." where did I say you're an asshole? I don't see a strong implication of it anywhere; but I do see how you could erroneously conclude tha'ts what I meant. you are correct that I shouldn't waste time on here with you, which is why I'm trying to withdraw; I'm just bad at withdrawing.
Because the tone that comes from your statements comes off as you calling me an asshole. You say that there are plenty of facts in this thread that refute my arguments yet you are unable to list even three of them even in bullet point form, let alone in thoughtful arguments. Which pretty much supports the idea that you actually have no clue what you're talking about, and you're talking straight from emotion.
|
On February 16 2018 21:51 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 21:45 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:38 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:35 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:32 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:27 zlefin wrote: supertran, you also seem far more interested in pushing your agenda than focusing on the facts, as you've ignored the counterpoints which seem to dismantle sizeable amounts of your case. then again, you did say "everyone in here", so I suppose you did mean to include yourself in that; carry on then. What counter facts? Because there's literally zero. On February 16 2018 21:30 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: The majority of Americans support quite a wide array of gun control... yet Republican house and senate members, who get paid massively by the NRA, consistently avoid the issue.
But it's the left's fault.
Okay @sst. You tell em. Again, example of what I am talking about. This guy doesn't even know that the NRA doesn't even donate a fraction of what Pharmaceutical Companies and Tech Giants do. The NRA's strength lies in getting voters in on key swing state representatives. there's been plenty of them, you just ignored them. so like I said, carry on. you clearly meant to include yourself in the description, and hence htere's no hypocrisy so I don't mind at all; you're just pushing an agenda like everyone else is. There's plenty of them, and yet you can't even list three of them. Ok. "Yeah man, look at all those facts, you're wrong and you're an asshole, but I'm not even going to bother because I'm wasting my time." where did I say you're an asshole? I don't see a strong implication of it anywhere; but I do see how you could erroneously conclude tha'ts what I meant. you are correct that I shouldn't waste time on here with you, which is why I'm trying to withdraw; I'm just bad at withdrawing. Because the tone that comes from your statements comes off as you calling me an asshole. You say that there are plenty of facts in this thread that refute my arguments yet you are unable to list even three of them even in bullet point form, let alone in thoughtful arguments. Which pretty much supports the idea that you actually have no clue what you're talking about, and you're talking straight from emotion. or it means I was trying to withdraw from the argument; and listing facts which were already presented and you ignored would only result in you claiming they weren't facts, and hence would not progress anything at all. are you talking from emotion, or from reason? and how can you tell the difference? It seems like you use "talking from emotion" as a cudgel to assert your opponents arguments are baseless, and therefore claim victory. oh, and my tone wasn't "asshole"; it was more like "fool", IF there was such a tone and you weren't just reading too muhc into it; there's always the possibility I was just interjecting my opinion of the overall convincingness of the arguments presented. this is the internet after all, it's not uncommon for both sides in an argument to be making a weak case. also, I originally said "counterpoints" not "counterfacts", i'm generally quite precise in my word choice, and choose the exact word I meant to say, and not a related word. otherwise you end up arguing against something other than what I actually said.
|
On February 16 2018 07:28 micronesia wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 15 2018 20:51 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 20:39 micronesia wrote:On February 15 2018 13:51 evilfatsh1t wrote:On February 15 2018 10:21 micronesia wrote:I agree with the problems with limiting government study of the current problems. On February 15 2018 10:03 Ayaz2810 wrote:On February 15 2018 09:50 micronesia wrote:On February 15 2018 09:46 Ayaz2810 wrote: Americans treat guns like toys. The fact that devices explicitly made to kill are used for "fun" is fucking stupid. You wanna shoot at a range? Check a gun out and return it when you're done. You wanna hunt? Pass a Japan-level background check to prove your capable. What is a japan-level background check? I can guess from context but I'm curious what that entails. I take issue with the 'keep your gun at the range' policy, but I would support common sense protections for people who shouldn't be getting their hands on guns from being able to buy them. Right now the system is clearly insufficient even if you generally support private gun ownership (in my opinion). The 2nd amendment is retarded. Was it always? If not, when did it become 'retarded'? https://kotaku.com/legally-owning-a-gun-in-japan-is-really-really-hard-1479865283] Ah ok, that was helpful, thanks. Personally, I don't agree with having a system for getting a gun permit where it's intentionally designed to be infuriatingly difficult to get through with lots of hoops you have to jump through for the sake of it. Requiring multiple reasonable measures to prove you aren't some moron who is about to go abuse your gun is fine, though (and many places certainly don't have that). It became retarded when muskets were no longer the weapon of choice. Or maybe when tanks were invented. There are plenty of points in American history at which "fighting the tyrannical government" became a laughable option. ... And you stand no chance against the military should the unthinkable happen. It's just outdated and doesn't need to exist. Why do you assume this? I agree, it's less likely an armed population is going to accomplish what the framers were thinking, but it's far from impossible. If you are envisioning a conflict with the population of US city X against the US Army, and the Army begins the conflict by carpet bombing the entirety of US city X, then yes, in that extreme example, gun ownership bought the people little in beating back the oppressive government. But if, at the other extreme, the government starts rounding up all the people in an area to send to concentration camps, it becomes much harder to deal with all the resistance if everyone is armed. It is hard to predict what form the government could take that would motivate the people to bear arms. You may think you have more insight into this than others, but I still wouldn't throw the word 'retarded' around. Maintaining a weapon for self defense is moot if the attacker also has no gun. What do you mean its moot? A competent person with a bat or a knife or something can easily take out an equally armed homeowner or dweller. I'm not necessarily defending gun ownership for home defense, but I also don't accept your absolute argument here. its evident here that the entire perception of "self defense" by americans is another factor in gun control regulations. you clearly didnt understand that by wielding a gun against an attacker without a gun, you are no longer just "defending" yourself. you have the means to inflict much more damage to the attacker than he does to you. strictly speaking defense is just putting yourself out of harms way; it doesnt necessarily require you to maim your opponent to do so. the fact that americans think that its perfectly fine to injure/kill an opponent under the cover of "self defense" shows why gun control is not just an issue of regulations, but a problem with the mentality of american people in general If a person I don't know, with a machete, is running at me, in my bedroom, with the intent to chop my head off, is it really fair to say that I, carrying a handgun, have the means to inflict much more damage to the attacker than he does to me? I would totally agree that folks who think they have the 'right' to gun down someone trying to sneak a tv out their backdoor have this really bad perception you are referring to, but I don't agree with your overly narrow definition of defense. edit: I find it interesting that 'when the second amendment became "retarded"' has a completely different answer depending on who you ask. edit2 to below: I stopped reading after "Except it actually is retarded, who gives a shit if it's PC or not." actually its not just my narrow definition of defense. australia's self defense laws are like so and i dont believe people in australia heavily disagree with that. also even in your machete scenario, yes you do have the means to inflict more damage. if you are using the word "means" synonymously with "intent" and are arguing that because you lack intent you do not have the means then the question would be, why bother having a gun at all? Self defense laws and defending yourself are two different things. I obviously haven't studied Australian self defense laws, but you didn't say "claiming self defense would be an insufficient defense in Australian courts in that scenario." You said "by wielding a gun against an attacker without a gun, you are no longer just 'defending' yourself." I did not agree with the statement overall, even though in many specific cases it may be true. I went on to give an example, and you made the claim that I have the means to inflict more damage than the person trying to decapitate me with a machete. That seems very strange to me. What is more damaging to a person than removing their head? I suppose turning someone into swiss cheese theoretically reduces their ability to donate their organs, but that's hardly significant in this context. And no, I was not discussing intent, just physical capability given the weapons being held. On February 15 2018 23:07 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 20:39 micronesia wrote:On February 15 2018 13:51 evilfatsh1t wrote:On February 15 2018 10:21 micronesia wrote:I agree with the problems with limiting government study of the current problems. On February 15 2018 10:03 Ayaz2810 wrote:On February 15 2018 09:50 micronesia wrote:On February 15 2018 09:46 Ayaz2810 wrote: Americans treat guns like toys. The fact that devices explicitly made to kill are used for "fun" is fucking stupid. You wanna shoot at a range? Check a gun out and return it when you're done. You wanna hunt? Pass a Japan-level background check to prove your capable. What is a japan-level background check? I can guess from context but I'm curious what that entails. I take issue with the 'keep your gun at the range' policy, but I would support common sense protections for people who shouldn't be getting their hands on guns from being able to buy them. Right now the system is clearly insufficient even if you generally support private gun ownership (in my opinion). The 2nd amendment is retarded. Was it always? If not, when did it become 'retarded'? https://kotaku.com/legally-owning-a-gun-in-japan-is-really-really-hard-1479865283] Ah ok, that was helpful, thanks. Personally, I don't agree with having a system for getting a gun permit where it's intentionally designed to be infuriatingly difficult to get through with lots of hoops you have to jump through for the sake of it. Requiring multiple reasonable measures to prove you aren't some moron who is about to go abuse your gun is fine, though (and many places certainly don't have that). It became retarded when muskets were no longer the weapon of choice. Or maybe when tanks were invented. There are plenty of points in American history at which "fighting the tyrannical government" became a laughable option. ... And you stand no chance against the military should the unthinkable happen. It's just outdated and doesn't need to exist. Why do you assume this? I agree, it's less likely an armed population is going to accomplish what the framers were thinking, but it's far from impossible. If you are envisioning a conflict with the population of US city X against the US Army, and the Army begins the conflict by carpet bombing the entirety of US city X, then yes, in that extreme example, gun ownership bought the people little in beating back the oppressive government. But if, at the other extreme, the government starts rounding up all the people in an area to send to concentration camps, it becomes much harder to deal with all the resistance if everyone is armed. It is hard to predict what form the government could take that would motivate the people to bear arms. You may think you have more insight into this than others, but I still wouldn't throw the word 'retarded' around. Maintaining a weapon for self defense is moot if the attacker also has no gun. What do you mean its moot? A competent person with a bat or a knife or something can easily take out an equally armed homeowner or dweller. I'm not necessarily defending gun ownership for home defense, but I also don't accept your absolute argument here. its evident here that the entire perception of "self defense" by americans is another factor in gun control regulations. you clearly didnt understand that by wielding a gun against an attacker without a gun, you are no longer just "defending" yourself. you have the means to inflict much more damage to the attacker than he does to you. strictly speaking defense is just putting yourself out of harms way; it doesnt necessarily require you to maim your opponent to do so. the fact that americans think that its perfectly fine to injure/kill an opponent under the cover of "self defense" shows why gun control is not just an issue of regulations, but a problem with the mentality of american people in general If a person I don't know, with a machete, is running at me, in my bedroom, with the intent to chop my head off, is it really fair to say that I, carrying a handgun, have the means to inflict much more damage to the attacker than he does to me? I would totally agree that folks who think they have the 'right' to gun down someone trying to sneak a tv out their backdoor have this really bad perception you are referring to, but I don't agree with your overly narrow definition of defense. edit: I find it interesting that 'when the second amendment became "retarded"' has a completely different answer depending on who you ask. edit2 to below: I stopped reading after "Except it actually is retarded, who gives a shit if it's PC or not." what if you found yourself on the top of a building and this man, wielding 200 lbs of body mass, was charging at you with the intent to take you off the ledge? there are a lot of hypotheticals that serve as a beautiful distraction, meanwhile those 17 kids weren’t fighting off a hypothetical machete wielding psycho. they should’ve been so lucky. to bring that particular hypothetical to life, do you imagine the people in his school would’ve preferred Cruz brought a machete to bear or a gun? What does this have to do with what I said? As discussed above, I provided a counterexample to a questionable claim. I did not make a general statement that shooting schoolchildren is preferable to attacking them machetes or anything similar. i for one am more than happy to sacrifice as much of my hypothetical safety as possible to affect real world safety. my thoughts and prayers are for all the others that have yet to make this bold decision. What else are you sacrificing besides your hypothetical safety in a scenario where civilian gun use is essentially eliminated? If the answer is 'basically nothing' then you need to do a better job of putting yourself into the shoes of others, understanding their position (even if you don't agree with it), and then argue why they should be willing to make the sacrifice. As someone who has never played lacrosse, nobody would give a crap if I pronounced that I am more than willing to outlaw lacrosse if I expected there to be a tangible benefit. However, if I could make a convincing argument that even lacrosse players should be willing to make that sacrifice, then perhaps I accomplished something. The problem I see, including frequently in this thread, is the people arguing most vehemently for wide-scale gun bans in the US actually do not seem to understand the reasons why many people don't want that and then wonder why such a seemingly obvious choice is being made incorrectly. it makes me giddy to consider a world where guns are illegal for civilians. I mean, if that's what you think is best, that's your right to have that opinion. But just be warned that statements like these send the message that any attempt to enact even popular common sense gun laws is a few progressive steps away from a full gun ban. That message gives the NRA more power than anything else when it comes to blocking new legislation directly or indirectly.
id be giving up the same freedom i expect others to give willingly. i like guns just fine, i shoot them on infrequent occasion. guns are fun. but i like people more. and it’s become clear that a weapon for killing people kills too many people.
i’m just a person expressing a personal opinion, i’m not enacting legislation. so this is all very easy for me to say, no doubt. but if it were up to me, absolutely, i’d ban civilian use without any remorse. that it makes people uneasy is a non issue for me. thats a problem for them to figure out. i wouldn’t even offer my apologies. there’s something more important about this than someone’s attachment to their firearms.
i think my hypothetical has as much to do with gun use as yours. that’s the relevance- that neither has any to real life. understanding you were responding to another question, all the same. a persons hypothetical safety in self defense is an insult of an argument for guns, generally speaking.
|
On February 16 2018 21:16 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 19:34 Broetchenholer wrote: Superstartran, please tell me if i got this right:
- you are in favor of regulations on guns - you are a member of the NRA - you acknowledge that the NRA is not in favor of gun regulations - you acknowledge that the NRA is lobbying against gun regulations - you blame "the left" for a lack of gun regulations
Okay. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. NRA leadership is to blame, not actual NRA members themselves. Alot of the leadership's power comes from the fact that people continuously misrepresent the actual narrative and argue from emotion and not from actual facts. The Dickey Amendment itself is a perfect example of that. The CDC is not banned from making any links, only they cannot promote gun control. The CDC simply errs on the side of caution, not because it can't do gun control research, it's just that last time they did their funding got sent down to 0 because they were flat out lying. A point that many people seem to miss. Do you want gun regulations to change? Expanded background checks? Bans on high capacity magazines? Stronger enforcement on semi-automatic long rifles like the AR-15 and its variants? Then the liberal left needs to start doing something different, because every single time they try the same shit, demonize gun owners, misrepresent information and arguments to fit their agenda, and then try to pass it off as holier than thou. The vast majority of gun owners in most polls support the same things I just listed, so it's not impossible; the real issue is that the left is incapable of putting together a coalition that even comes close to the same strength as the NRA, and alot of that has to do with the fact that even most moderate gun owners end up supporting NRA representatives because of the fact that the left argues from emotion rather than factual evidence. Why do you think the NRA puts out ads where it's us vs them? Because of the fact that there is a real liberal left presence who wants to flat out ban firearms, despite the fact that realistically and logically speaking it will do absolutely nothing. Half the people in this thread can't even argue with actual facts, and only cite the fact that the CDC cannot do gun research as their claim that there is no research on firearm related violence, when various other branches of local, state, and federal governments have actual done research/statistics on firearm related violence. Like I said though, everyone in here seems much more interested in pushing their agenda rather than coming to terms that this problem is much more complex than it actually is.
Or the not liberal left yould stop supporting an institution that stops all reforms of your society dead in it's tracks. You come across as a stockholm syndrome victim, defending a institution that according to you does not represent your own beliefs while the people that actually support your beliefs are the ones at fault. You tell Plansix that he want to ban all guns when tha is actually me and most europeans in this thread. We don't care about your studies when we can see with our own eyes how different a society is when there are none around. If your CDC is trying to prove a political point that says weapons are bad for a society, i will simply say, yes, of course. For most europeans, that is not a point of political partsanship but simply one of common sense.
To me, saying the CDC should be interested in gun deaths is like saying it should be interested in HIV deaths. Of course it or a agency more suited to that should do that. We have extensive statistics about deaths from car accidents in germany even though we are among the major car manufacturers in the world.
The idea that someone is allowed to shoot anybody that breaks into his house to me is insanity. Asking me to provide you with statistics why you shouldn't allow people to own weapons i like asking me for proof that wrestling polar bears for fun is not a sustainable hobby. With europeans you will almost always have a basic moral discussion in regards to firearms. Don't conflate our argument of "why you even still have guns in the first place?" with that of american non-gun-owners in this thread, like Plansix that don't want to take away all guns, for whatever reason, to make them look like Canadians, japanese, europeans that just shake their heads in disbelief that you still do this.
|
On February 16 2018 21:32 superstartran wrote:
Again, example of what I am talking about. This guy doesn't even know that the NRA doesn't even donate a fraction of what Pharmaceutical Companies and Tech Giants do. The NRA's strength lies in getting voters in on key swing state representatives. Comparing what the NRA donates to what Pharma or Tech donates is a silly comparison and doesn't really help your case. It's painfully obvious how much nefarious influence pharmaceutical and tech companies have over the US government, but that doesn't somehow magically make the NRA the good guys just because they give less money. And if you look at who the NRA donates to, and who DOESN'T want gun control legislation, *gasps* suddenly you have correlation.
|
from an outside perspective, what I don't understand is why gun control is an issue of democrats vs republicans, or left vs right. Is there something intrinsic in the republican or democratic programs that supports or doesn't support gun control? I ask out of genuine curiosity, not knowing very well the US politics
This is a subject where I feel that understanding the ongoing debate, as an european, is extremely difficult - since the arguments at stake are completely alien to me, to my culture, and to almost any debate here - but it's interesting to understand better.
|
On February 16 2018 21:55 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 21:51 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:45 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:38 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:35 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:32 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:27 zlefin wrote: supertran, you also seem far more interested in pushing your agenda than focusing on the facts, as you've ignored the counterpoints which seem to dismantle sizeable amounts of your case. then again, you did say "everyone in here", so I suppose you did mean to include yourself in that; carry on then. What counter facts? Because there's literally zero. On February 16 2018 21:30 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: The majority of Americans support quite a wide array of gun control... yet Republican house and senate members, who get paid massively by the NRA, consistently avoid the issue.
But it's the left's fault.
Okay @sst. You tell em. Again, example of what I am talking about. This guy doesn't even know that the NRA doesn't even donate a fraction of what Pharmaceutical Companies and Tech Giants do. The NRA's strength lies in getting voters in on key swing state representatives. there's been plenty of them, you just ignored them. so like I said, carry on. you clearly meant to include yourself in the description, and hence htere's no hypocrisy so I don't mind at all; you're just pushing an agenda like everyone else is. There's plenty of them, and yet you can't even list three of them. Ok. "Yeah man, look at all those facts, you're wrong and you're an asshole, but I'm not even going to bother because I'm wasting my time." where did I say you're an asshole? I don't see a strong implication of it anywhere; but I do see how you could erroneously conclude tha'ts what I meant. you are correct that I shouldn't waste time on here with you, which is why I'm trying to withdraw; I'm just bad at withdrawing. Because the tone that comes from your statements comes off as you calling me an asshole. You say that there are plenty of facts in this thread that refute my arguments yet you are unable to list even three of them even in bullet point form, let alone in thoughtful arguments. Which pretty much supports the idea that you actually have no clue what you're talking about, and you're talking straight from emotion. or it means I was trying to withdraw from the argument; and listing facts which were already presented and you ignored would only result in you claiming they weren't facts, and hence would not progress anything at all. are you talking from emotion, or from reason? and how can you tell the difference? It seems like you use "talking from emotion" as a cudgel to assert your opponents arguments are baseless, and therefore claim victory. oh, and my tone wasn't "asshole"; it was more like "fool", IF there was such a tone and you weren't just reading too muhc into it; there's always the possibility I was just interjecting my opinion of the overall convincingness of the arguments presented. this is the internet after all, it's not uncommon for both sides in an argument to be making a weak case. also, I originally said "counterpoints" not "counterfacts", i'm generally quite precise in my word choice, and choose the exact word I meant to say, and not a related word. otherwise you end up arguing against something other than what I actually said.
Lol, what facts? There is literally nothing here presented to support gun control other than "guns are inherently bad"
The fact that you continue to dodge my request for factual evidence only supports the idea that you guys have no clue what you are talking about and aren't even educated on the subject of firearms.
|
On February 16 2018 22:48 dragonswarrior wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 21:32 superstartran wrote:
Again, example of what I am talking about. This guy doesn't even know that the NRA doesn't even donate a fraction of what Pharmaceutical Companies and Tech Giants do. The NRA's strength lies in getting voters in on key swing state representatives. Comparing what the NRA donates to what Pharma or Tech donates is a silly comparison and doesn't really help your case. It's painfully obvious how much nefarious influence pharmaceutical and tech companies have over the US government, but that doesn't somehow magically make the NRA the good guys just because they give less money. And if you look at who the NRA donates to, and who DOESN'T want gun control legislation, *gasps* suddenly you have correlation.
No my point is that unlike pharmacuetical companies the NRA can beat if you convince the middle of the road members of the NRA. The issue is that the opposing side of the argument alienates the other side so bad that even moderates will end up supporting the NRA despite not supporting all their views on gun control
|
On February 16 2018 23:53 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 21:55 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:51 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:45 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:38 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:35 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:32 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:27 zlefin wrote: supertran, you also seem far more interested in pushing your agenda than focusing on the facts, as you've ignored the counterpoints which seem to dismantle sizeable amounts of your case. then again, you did say "everyone in here", so I suppose you did mean to include yourself in that; carry on then. What counter facts? Because there's literally zero. On February 16 2018 21:30 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: The majority of Americans support quite a wide array of gun control... yet Republican house and senate members, who get paid massively by the NRA, consistently avoid the issue.
But it's the left's fault.
Okay @sst. You tell em. Again, example of what I am talking about. This guy doesn't even know that the NRA doesn't even donate a fraction of what Pharmaceutical Companies and Tech Giants do. The NRA's strength lies in getting voters in on key swing state representatives. there's been plenty of them, you just ignored them. so like I said, carry on. you clearly meant to include yourself in the description, and hence htere's no hypocrisy so I don't mind at all; you're just pushing an agenda like everyone else is. There's plenty of them, and yet you can't even list three of them. Ok. "Yeah man, look at all those facts, you're wrong and you're an asshole, but I'm not even going to bother because I'm wasting my time." where did I say you're an asshole? I don't see a strong implication of it anywhere; but I do see how you could erroneously conclude tha'ts what I meant. you are correct that I shouldn't waste time on here with you, which is why I'm trying to withdraw; I'm just bad at withdrawing. Because the tone that comes from your statements comes off as you calling me an asshole. You say that there are plenty of facts in this thread that refute my arguments yet you are unable to list even three of them even in bullet point form, let alone in thoughtful arguments. Which pretty much supports the idea that you actually have no clue what you're talking about, and you're talking straight from emotion. or it means I was trying to withdraw from the argument; and listing facts which were already presented and you ignored would only result in you claiming they weren't facts, and hence would not progress anything at all. are you talking from emotion, or from reason? and how can you tell the difference? It seems like you use "talking from emotion" as a cudgel to assert your opponents arguments are baseless, and therefore claim victory. oh, and my tone wasn't "asshole"; it was more like "fool", IF there was such a tone and you weren't just reading too muhc into it; there's always the possibility I was just interjecting my opinion of the overall convincingness of the arguments presented. this is the internet after all, it's not uncommon for both sides in an argument to be making a weak case. also, I originally said "counterpoints" not "counterfacts", i'm generally quite precise in my word choice, and choose the exact word I meant to say, and not a related word. otherwise you end up arguing against something other than what I actually said. Lol, what facts? There is literally nothing here presented to support gun control other than "guns are inherently bad" The fact that you continue to dodge my request for factual evidence only supports the idea that you guys have no clue what you are talking about and aren't even educated on the subject of firearms. you've proven you're arguing in bad faith, so there's no point in talking to you anymore. please learn to improve the quality of your discourse and arguments, and/or choose to do so if you know how but chose not to.
|
|
|
|