• After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
    853 replies, posted
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52743160]Dude are you fucking serious.[/QUOTE] in the context of what I was saying, explain how what I said doesn't matter
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52743173]Am I correct in understanding that if it [I]were[/I] feasible, people here would support the banning of alcohol on the basis of public safety?[/QUOTE] Absolutely, we gotta save lives. Why stop at guns?
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52743149]The thing is though, it matters that homemade guns are much less effective[/QUOTE] Not even that they are less capable or reliable, but that they are less readily available. If the only supply of weapons of this type comes from homebrew weaponry personally built or purchased from criminal operations, it presents a huge new barrier of entry to would-be spree shooters, limiting their effectiveness, and presenting several new opportunities to prevent the shooting before it even occurs. The difficulty of acquiring the weapon will force many would-be shooters to look at alternative (and less deadly) options. This both reduces the frequency [I]and[/I] severity of mass violence from lone wolf killers.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52743174]in the context of what I was saying, explain how what I said doesn't matter[/QUOTE] BDA brought up the point of alcohol being nearly impossible to prevent the production of, and in return it was mentioned how guns arent difficult to manufacture. It doesnt matter if they're as effective as a typical mass produced one, it can still be done, just like how toilet pisswater swill probably doesnt taste like something out of a brewery.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52743173]Am I correct in understanding that if it [I]were[/I] feasible, people here would support the banning of alcohol on the basis of public safety?[/QUOTE] And then we can slippery slope all the way down to banning free will, right? I'm talking about guns. That's it.
[QUOTE=MR-X;52743177]Absolutely, we gotta save lives. Why stop at guns?[/QUOTE] nope, alcohol is a completely different issue
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743185]And then we can slippery slope all the way down to banning free will, right? I'm talking about guns. That's it.[/QUOTE] You're talking about banning something for the reasons of "public safety".
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52743183]BDA brought up the point of alcohol being nearly impossible to prevent the production of, and in return it was mentioned how guns arent difficult to manufacture. It doesnt matter if they're as effective as a typical mass produced one, it can still be done, just like how toilet pisswater swill probably doesnt taste like something out of a brewery.[/QUOTE] yes but... so? and?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52743173]Am I correct in understanding that if it [I]were[/I] feasible, people here would support the banning of alcohol on the basis of public safety?[/QUOTE] I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread say even remotely anything like that. Could be wrong though.
How difficult they are to manufacture doesn't really matter though, if gun control is shown to have positive effects, then it's good policy when it comes to this issue. You can't 100% remove guns & gun violence from a country, and it'd be dumb freedom wise to even try, but we can certainly bring the US more in line with other countries if we actually tried.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52743191]yes but... so? and?[/QUOTE] :huh:
-snip-
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52743082] I was talking about alcohol for that paragraph hoping you'd use your brain to actually get the comparisons, but ok. [/QUOTE] Oooh, disparage and deflect, good one. [QUOTE=EcksDee;52743082] Which is why drinking alone is bad, have other people stop you, there's campaigns everywhere for this. On the other hand, if you want to shoot a small amount of bullets at a person (which is the intended purpose of a gun, idgaf about your friends and their harmless antics) then any friend that tries to stop you is just as likely to get shot and die. Also self driving cars some day, cars that can recognize signs of intoxication some day. [/QUOTE] You insinuated that using alcohol leads to good, using bullets leads to bad. I provided a counter example where using alcohol leads to bad and using bullets leads to good. Simple as that. Why are you comparing using alcohol in a social setting to using bullets to murder someone? That is disingenuous and manipulative. [QUOTE=EcksDee;52743082] Yeah, it's a bad country for the most part. [/QUOTE] Epic zinger dude. [QUOTE=EcksDee;52743082] Estonia and Portugal are as homogeneous as Washington and Texas [/QUOTE] Are you speaking of only ethnic homogeneity? I'm not. Do Estonia and Portugal have the same history of systemic, institutionalized discrimination against a sizable section of the population, leading to said section being poorer, more maligned, and more prone to falling in with gangs and violence in certain areas? Do they have the same culture of American individualism? Do they have the same lack of attention to education and healthcare? [QUOTE=EcksDee;52743082] yeah, you're better off than the extremes, what an achievement for "the greatest country in the world" [/QUOTE] My [i]point[/i], if you didn't choose to ignore it, is that America faces a unique set of issues that the rich, western, modern European nations it's always compared to when talking about gun violence, don't, due to its size, history, and culture. And that set of issues leads to more gun violence than said nations. But that even given that, America's gun violence is still not "bad" on the objective scale of global gun violence. [QUOTE=EcksDee;52743082] You'd lose less than 20% [/QUOTE] Let's pull a number out of our ass and say that 15% are gang-related. Take that away and that leaves us with about 30 deaths per million from 36. That's still a lot, and of course, this number is going to be high given the prevalence of guns in the US. But what if we worked on addressing social and economic ails that cause violence? Could we bring that number down? What if we banned guns? How much would that bring the number down? If we did both? If the gains from banning guns would be worth the death of an entire American cultural institution and founding philosophy? [QUOTE=EcksDee;52743082] Well here's a plan. Have sensible gun control, THEN educate your failing populace on the world stage THEN re-open gun laws. [/QUOTE] Introducing some kind of "time out" on guns sounds even more ridiculous and prone to abuse. Also again, quick to insult America and Americans, aren't you? [QUOTE=EcksDee;52743082] Too bad America and the current President only seem to be capable of band-aid solutions for fear of offending the gun lobby [/QUOTE] We're talking about guns, not Trump.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;52743102]Isn't it worth trying? Can we really as compassionate individuals focused on the preservation of life, first and foremost, give it a go? Surely stopping legal availability and production of [I]thing that should be illegal[/I] would knock down that 88,000 figure just a little, even if just one life? It certainly sounds familiar. Seems worth it to me, if we're trying to bring deaths down.[/QUOTE] Is that really all it comes down to, though? Isn't it an important distinction that gun violence involves one person killing another, whereas with alcohol it's usually one person killing themselves? Alcohol is clearly a massive social issue and is absolutely worth attempting to tackle. But in that case prohibition is a bad idea because the danger posed by it is mainly to yourself, making it a much larger issue with freedom.
[QUOTE=bdd458;52743190]You're talking about banning a device developed, intended, with its main function being murder for the reasons of "wanting a few less people murdered by heavily regulating an unnecessary codpiece with no real auxiliary function for the layman".[/QUOTE] Edited.
[QUOTE=bdd458;52743190]You're talking about banning something for the reasons of "public safety".[/QUOTE] Yet you're the one "slippery sloping" that to points that I've never made or tried to make. You can make-believe all you'd like, but it's not very effective from an argumentative standpoint. I'm arguing the points that I'm arguing, and have no intention of humoring the points you [B]wish[/B] I were arguing simply because you've got nice rebuttals planned for those.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52743195]:huh:[/QUOTE] Unless that comment was just a "haha you're wrong" then it's context matters. Alcohol is just as dangerous when made in a toilet, generally speaking more dangerous. Guns home made are not effective... like basically at all
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743185]And then we can slippery slope all the way down to banning free will, right? I'm talking about guns. That's it.[/QUOTE] your argument is built on the premise that certain freedoms should be withheld when they result in a certain level of harm to the general population I'm trying to more thoroughly establish at what point you think something becomes too harmful for society, and alcohol is the most apt and direct comparison I can think of.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52743217]your argument is built on the premise that certain freedoms should be withheld when they result in a certain level of harm to the general population I'm trying to more thoroughly establish at what point you think something becomes too harmful for society, and alcohol is the most apt and direct comparison I can think of.[/QUOTE] Not really, no. You're trying to shift the discussion to something that you're more prepared to defend, despite it being almost wholly irrelevant to the arguments that I'm actually making.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743223]Not really, no. You're trying to shift the discussion to something that you're more prepared to defend, despite it being almost wholly irrelevant to the arguments that I'm actually making.[/QUOTE] you might be surprised to learn that I've never discussed this topic before I'm just testing your argument for consistency by placing it in a different context. I'm not diverting at all.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52743234]you might be surprised to learn that I've never discussed this topic before I'm just testing your argument for consistency by placing it in a different context. I'm not diverting at all.[/QUOTE] Changing the context of my argument to an irrelevant side track [I]is[/I] diverting lol. I'm not talking about alcohol, or drugs, or cars, or any of the subjects that you would so clearly like to expand upon to make a logically flawed argument that my support for the banning of guns must mean that I also support banning [I]all things dangerous or unhealthy![/I] I'm discussing guns. Stick to the points I'm making, not the slippery slope that would be convenient to try and drag me down.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52743142]The thing that should be illegal are guns ([B]for the most part[/B]) You also ignored everything everyone said and just keep going with this wannabe faux-zing of THINK OF THE CHILDREN without responding to any of the arguments... Alcohol is regulated, and it's good that it is, children shouldn't be able to get their hands on beer (which is why countries usually have big fines for people who buy alcohol for kids) Stores shouldn't sell alcohol past a certain time (Estonia does this, deaths from alcohol poisoning it's plateaud and [URL="http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/profiles/est.pdf"]started dropping fast since 2008[/URL]. It's still very high but we're coming down. [URL="http://alkoinfo.ee/et/moju/alkoholi-toime/ulevaade-statistikast/"]Public intoxication has dropped significantly. ) [/URL] [URL="https://i.imgur.com/Kh64Q1a.png"]Alcohol laws have gotten stricter and stricter over the years[/URL] And it's working lol. Now imagine if we apply this to guns. Stop selling guns at wal-mart. Make sure people that don't qualify for gun ownership (the bar should be set MUCH higher than alcohol) can't get guns. Ban open-carry completely.[/QUOTE] Again. Why stop at that instead of a full out ban, to bring that even lower, of were not interested in personal freedom and exclusively looking to get deaths down? Or perhaps to compromise a bit, only allow alcohol to be drank in pre approved bars and clubs, and only so much at a time. Maybe one round or two per group or person ? That's plenty to have a fun enough time, and stay away from alcohol poisoning. No one NEEDS more than a few drinks. If a beer enthusiast wants to have some on private stock for the taste, allow non alcoholic beers to leave the store.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;52743102]Isn't it worth trying? Can we really as compassionate individuals focused on the preservation of life, first and foremost, give it a go? Surely stopping legal availability and production of [I]thing that should be illegal[/I] would knock down that 88,000 figure just a little, even if just one life? It certainly sounds familiar. Seems worth it to me, if we're trying to bring deaths down.[/QUOTE] Not to sound heartless but saving one life is not worth stomping on the rights of millions of Americans.
A lot of comparisons of countries with universal healthcare including mental health with America which is sorely lacking. With social services that are more effective than ours. Creating less desperate or broken individuals. That you're so focused on the guns rather than lowering the amount of spree killers is more indicative that you're scared of a tool you don't understand rather than number of dead. When it comes to lethality there are much better tools than guns that are just as readily available. Even second hand smoke kills more people than mass shootings(41k vs 11k) each year. The Nice truck attack killed more people than even the worst mass shooting.
[QUOTE=duckmaster;52743253]Not to sound heartless but saving one life is not worth stomping on the rights of millions of Americans.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's the point he's clumsily trying to make. He's playing the "devil's advocate," poorly, by trying to reframe this discussion in a completely different context. [editline]3rd October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Cliff2;52743259]A lot of comparisons of countries with universal healthcare including mental health with America which is sorely lacking. With social services that are more effective than ours. Creating less desperate or broken individuals. That you're so focused on the guns rather than lowering the amount of spree killers is more indicative that you're scared of a tool you don't understand rather than number of dead. When it comes to lethality there are much better tools than guns that are just as readily available. Even second hand smoke kills more people than mass shootings(41k vs 11k) each year. The Nice truck attack killed more people than even the worst mass shooting.[/QUOTE] Not an either/or situation. We can (and should) work to reduce the availability of guns [B]and[/B] work to provide better mental healthcare services.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52743217]your argument is built on the premise that certain freedoms should be withheld when they result in a certain level of harm to the general population I'm trying to more thoroughly establish at what point you think something becomes too harmful for society, and alcohol is the most apt and direct comparison I can think of.[/QUOTE] Insinuating that it boils down to only bodycounts is an oversimplification. Alcohol is a huge issue but it has good uses and the damage it causes is mainly to those who decide to drink it. Guns have the sole purpose of killing and the damage they cause is often by one person to another. You could look at it as a quantification of freedom against harm: Alcohol causes self-inflicted harm but allowing it means more freedom. Guns also cause harm, but this time often not self-inflicted. Because of that, allowing guns [I]also detracts[/I] from those people's freedom. I don't know where I stand on this issue. On the one hand, I live in a country that proves every statement about how it can't work wrong. On the other hand, I recognize that America is in a situation where it may be nearly impossible to implement strong gun control. I think I lean to the idea that there's deeper underlying issues that can more effectively reduce gun violence. Aren't there examples of countries that have similar gun laws to America, but yet don't have the same gun violence issues?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743247]Changing the context of my argument to an irrelevant side track [I]is[/I] diverting lol. I'm not talking about alcohol, or drugs, or cars, or any of the subjects that you would so clearly like to expand upon to make a logically flawed argument that my support for the banning of guns must mean that I also support banning [I]all things dangerous or unhealthy![/I] I'm discussing guns. Stick to the points I'm making, not the slippery slope that would be convenient to try and drag me down.[/QUOTE] If your reasoning only works in this one, single context, and the moment you apply it to another situation you don't want to use it anymore, why should I agree with you in this situation? If your argument is just a convenient tool to win people over on this one topic, then it clearly isn't the reason you have the position you have. So why should I even bother talking to you? You're just trying to manipulate people at that point.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743247]Changing the context of my argument to an irrelevant side track [I]is[/I] diverting lol. I'm not talking about alcohol, or drugs, or cars, or any of the subjects that you would so clearly like to expand upon to make a logically flawed argument that my support for the banning of guns must mean that I also support banning [I]all things dangerous or unhealthy![/I] I'm discussing guns. Stick to the points I'm making, not the slippery slope that would be convenient to try and drag me down.[/QUOTE] [quote=You]Yes, I know, this [I]pisses all over your fun little hobby[/I], but your fun little hobby [I]isn't worth the level of death and despair [/I]those taking advantage of it are responsible for in this country. I don't give a lick if legal and law-abiding gun owners are inconvenienced and have to find a new hobby, because they chose a hobby glorifying instruments of death, and those instruments are being used to their intended purpose to horrifying effect on a regular basis.[/quote] your argument is built on appeals to emotion. people drinking isn't worth the estimated 88,000 deaths that alcohol causes (not to mention pain brought on by drunkenness, ie spouse beating). Last year there were roughly 17,000 homicides (not all with firearms, but I'm not sure of the breakdown) with 44,193 suicides (not all with firearms, not sure of the breakdown). If we were to tally up homicides and suicides, and assume they are all caused by firearms - that would leave us at 61,193 deaths caused by firearms (assuming every single one of those was caused by firearms). [I]That's still less than the deaths caused by alcohol[/I]. yet in your emotional appeal, we can not allow those evil guns to continue to take lives - but we can still let alcohol do the same. it's hypocritical. you're appealing to emotion to take one thing away because lives are taken as a result, but not another which takes more lives.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743081]lol this is why I rarely participate in gun debates. It's the same tired points over and over again. The AWB didn't go nearly far enough, and its effectiveness was measured in too short a period. Even if we were to fully halt the production of weapons nationwide, we likely wouldn't see noticeable impacts in gun crime for 10-20 years owing simply to the massive stockpile of weapons already here. That stockpile needs to be reduced, and that's going to take a long time.[/QUOTE] If you're trying to pass legislation which punishes people for someone else's wrongdoing but it takes over 10-20 years to have the desired effect, then it's probably not good legislation. Also did people not learn anything from prohibition?
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52743270]Insinuating that it boils down to only bodycounts is an oversimplification. Alcohol is a huge issue but it has good uses and the damage it causes is mainly to those who decide to drink it. Guns have the sole purpose of killing and the damage they cause is often by one person to another. You could look at it as a quantification of freedom against harm: Alcohol causes self-inflicted harm but allowing it means more freedom. Guns also cause harm, but this time often not self-inflicted. Because of that, allowing guns [I]also detracts[/I] from those people's freedom. I don't know where I stand on this issue. On the one hand, I live in a country that proves every statement about how it can't work wrong. On the other hand, I recognize that America is in a situation where it may be nearly impossible to implement strong gun control. I think I lean to the idea that there's deeper underlying issues that can more effectively reduce gun violence. Aren't there examples of countries that have similar gun laws to America, but yet don't have the same gun violence issues?[/QUOTE] how is the entertainment value of alcohol any more worthwhile than the entertainment/self defense value of guns? If anything you could argue guns used appropriately are significantly more beneficial to the people using them than alcohol used responsibly. At least guns have [I]some[/I] practical use.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.