After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
853 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52743211]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]
I take it you've never made a gun before.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52743270]
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]
For developed countries Switzerland is the closest, but many people do deeply misrepresent Switzerland in this regard.
Typical. Rather than argue the points directly, you lower yourselves to arguing logical fallacies -- slippery slope arguments ultimately culminating in absurd and irrelevant tangents. Even after pointing out the dishonesty of what you're doing, you have the gall to say that [B]I'm[/B] the one being manipulative by failing to engage your goofy traps. :rolleyes:
[editline]3rd October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52743278]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.[/QUOTE]
Who's talking about punishing people? I'm talking about reducing the stockpile of weapons to make it more difficult for spree shooters to obtain them. The punishments for spree shooting are already in place, and I'm not proposing any change to those. [I]Of course[/I] it's going to take time for long-term changes like this to go in effect. Trying to boil down a complicated issue like this to, "if you can't do it overnight, there's no point," is quite silly.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743290]Typical. Rather than argue the points directly, you lower yourselves to arguing logical fallacies -- slippery slope arguments ultimately culminating in absurd and irrelevant tangents. Even after pointing out the dishonesty of what you're doing, you have the gall to say that [B]I'm[/B] the one being manipulative by failing to engage your goofy traps. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743210]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]
you're the one that brought up fallacies first my man and attempted to use it as a deflect from your terrible and emotional argument
edit: honestly im out, this thread is a fucking dumpster fire of shitposts (see like half of the last page).
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743290]Typical. Rather than argue the points directly, you lower yourselves to arguing logical fallacies -- slippery slope arguments ultimately culminating in absurd and irrelevant tangents. Even after pointing out the dishonesty of what you're doing, you have the gall to say that [B]I'm[/B] the one being manipulative by failing to engage your goofy traps. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Did something happen? You're not usually like this.
[QUOTE=Nukedrabbit95;52743204]Oooh, disparage and deflect, good one.
[B]Right back at you, looking at your post history, friend.[/B]
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.
[B]Because those are the reasons those devices were developed and perfected.[/B]
Epic zinger dude.
[B]Oooh, disparage and deflect, good one.[/B]
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?
[B]I can only speak for Estonia. Estonia has been an independent, free nation for less than 50 years in the past thousand years. It's been the subject of deportations to Siberia for forced labour, forced drafts and conscriptions by hostile foreign powers, it's got a 30% native Russian population who hardly speak a word of Estonian, it's been owned by Denmark, several religious organizations, Sweden, Russia, Germany, Russia again, and only became independent in 1992. There's been moments where the Native Estonian population reached four digits, and pulled through into the one million we see today despite enduring worse hardships than America ever has in any context. We are now competetive on the world stage in technology (Skype, Playtech to name a few came from Estonia), our economy had to reboot during our [I]SECOND[/I] independence day with approximately 10 euros per person, and our [URL="https://i.imgur.com/umdK0bc.png"]students score almost at the top of the list in international test results.[/URL]
We have plenty of patriotism, but you're right, we don't have the sociopathic individualism that you guys do, where you'd rather give health insurance companies rights than people.
[/B]
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 and history. 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.
[B]Which is why it needs to start dealing with those problems big time by starting to increase gun control. Or do you think America is incapable of solving the problem?[/B]
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?
[B]The cultural institution of America is (or used to be) a nation where people can be free, to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Instead it's a nation where people are free to worry about if they can make their next healthcare payment or if the twitchy bum across the street has a gun or not. Pursuing liberty now means pursuing what your corporations and lobbies want you to have, and happiness is apparently defined as "loud bang, bullet go, hit tin can in distance, ooga booga"
Your founding principles (We have to study these at school, lol) are separation of church and state, equal rights and a government controlled by checks and balances. There's a reason why your first amendment came first. Your second amendment is literally being debated right now whether it means the right of every citizen to own assault rifles, whether it still applies today, whether it's talking about a militia, etc etc.[/B]
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?
[B]Aye, and maybe by the time you've finished educating your population (which would reduce gun violence even with guns) you'd realize how stupid guns are and keep them banned.
I only insult America and Americans when you deserve it.
There's many factors that make America a better country than Estonia, and there's many factors that make Estonia a better country than America, I'll call you out when you're wrong, and I'll obviously defend you when you're right.
Here, you're not right.
[/B]
We're talking about guns, not Trump.
Like it or not Trump is your president for the next three years and X months. He's going to have an enormous impact on gun law and the supreme court, so I will sure as shit mention him.
[/QUOTE]
memes
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743290]Typical. Rather than argue the points directly, you lower yourselves to arguing logical fallacies -- slippery slope arguments ultimately culminating in absurd and irrelevant tangents. Even after pointing out the dishonesty of what you're doing, you have the gall to say that [B]I'm[/B] the one being manipulative by failing to engage your goofy traps. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Okay so now you're moving straight up into full on condescension mode.
Also funny how at the same time you're doing the exact same shit with this post. You're not replying to a single one of their points with this directly, continuing to ignore what other people are saying if its inconvenient for you.
[QUOTE=bdd458;52743296]you're the one that brought up fallacies first my man and attempted to use it as a deflect from your terrible and emotional argument[/QUOTE]
If you're asking whether or not I have an emotional investment in banning firearms? Yeah, I do. I think it's disgusting that they are as available as they are, and am sickened by the frequency and severity of mass shootings in the US. If you're asking whether I think the desires of hobbyists are less important the human lives? Yep. I do.
Not to be rude, but "no shit." My reasoning for [I]making[/I] my arguments is emotional. Of course. My proposed solutions [I]are not[/I], however, and neither are the arguments that I'm using to defend them. If having an emotional interest in the debate means I'm not allowed to debate it, then who here is?
[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]
If you're gonna go by the good vs bad argument, guns have good uses too. Self-defense being one of them. The argument you pose is pretty weak and easy to take apart.
How is booze good if it kills more people yearly then guns? If boozes only befit is to get people drunk is it a good tool? Guns have various purposes such as hunting, self-defense, sport, and recreation. Yes they can cause damage to someone and so can booze, drinking and driving kills a lot of people. If you're going to pose this argument it seems like both guns and booze need to be gone.
Just like booze, guns are tools.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52743299]Okay so now you're moving straight up into full on condescension mode.
Also funny how at the same time you're doing the exact same shit with this post. You're not replying to a single one of their points with this directly, continuing to ignore what other people are saying if its inconvenient for you.[/QUOTE]
The argument has been dragged into some sort of "but alcohol" debate.
His assessment of this being a burning trash pile isn't inaccurate.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52743299]Okay so now you're moving straight up into full on condescension mode.
Also funny how at the same time you're doing the exact same shit with this post. You're not replying to a single one of their points with this directly, continuing to ignore what other people are saying if its inconvenient for you.[/QUOTE]
In an argument about gun control, you repeatedly insist that I must support banning alcohol and cars -- lines of discussion that are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and which transparently lead to an argument wherein banning guns means that I must support banning everything in existence that poses any kind of threat. Of course I'm not going to engage that. It's childish and irrational. If you think you've made some kind of point by calling me out for not being baited into that, then you're sorely mistaken.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52743281]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.[/QUOTE]
I do agree. I'm just saying the two issues are different and come down to more factors than simply bodycount. It's undeniable that there are good uses of both guns and alcohol when used right, and also undeniable that both are often misused, but you can't just treat them as being analogous. Both are big issues, but they shouldn't be dealt with in the same way.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52743298]memes[/QUOTE]
Oh jee golly, I wouldn't talk about how great education is in Estonia, if its taught you that THAT'S what life state side is like. :v: :v: :v:
Literally every Estonian more or less without fail that I've talked to has been an incredibly humble, friendly and decent person, I hope you reflect that a lot better in the real world than you do here, jeez.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;52743335]Oh jee golly, I wouldn't talk about how great education is in Estonia, if its taught you that THAT'S what life state side is like. :v: :v: :v:
Literally every Estonian more or less without fail that I've talked to has been an incredibly humble, friendly and decent person, I hope you reflect that a lot better in the real world than you do here, jeez.[/QUOTE]
Both of you are getting needlessly close to personal attacks.
Stick to the issue at hand.
The issue is not, for instance, Estonia. In any capacity.
What legislation do people realistically think would stop these incidents? Everyone can talk in broad strokes about how much they love or hate guns, but realistically how do you stop these freak incidents? The guy had no mental or criminal history, and I don't think police have even confirmed if the weapons were legal, or automatic (as opposed to bump firing or being modified semi-autos), have they?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743309]If you're asking whether or not I have an emotional investment in banning firearms? Yeah, I do. I think it's disgusting that they are as available as they are, and am sickened by the frequency and severity of mass shootings in the US. If you're asking whether I think the desires of hobbyists are less important the human lives? Yep. I do.
Not to be rude, but "no shit." My reasoning for [I]making[/I] my arguments is emotional. Of course. My proposed solutions [I]are not[/I], however, and neither are the arguments that I'm using to defend them. If having an emotional interest in the debate means I'm not allowed to debate it, then who here is?[/QUOTE]
Mass shootings are emotionally shocking but ultimately a tiny percentage of the thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of injuries caused by gun crime in general.
[QUOTE=srobins;52743341]What legislation do people realistically think would stop these incidents? Everyone can talk in broad strokes about how much they love or hate guns, but realistically how do you stop these freak incidents? The guy had no mental or criminal history, and I don't think police have even confirmed if the weapons were legal, or automatic (as opposed to bump firing or being modified semi-autos), have they?[/QUOTE]
I mean not allowing someone to get their hands on a gun that take out over 60 people from the 32nd floor of a hotel would be a start. Unless you need something that powerful for the purposes of self defense.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;52743252]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?
[B]It's a consideration, as I've said many times now, of the intention of the device itself. EVERYTHING is capable of killing people. Alcohol is INTENDED to make a night out a bit more fun. Pens are INTENDED to write. Guns are INTENDED to kill people, and they are exceedingly good at. [/B]
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.
[B]I need more than a few drinks before I even feel the effects, but that's besides the point.
My point still isn't about responsibility or self imposed limitations or anything like that. Alcohol is intended for a good night out, guns are intended to kill people. The fact that most people drink responsibly just like most people are responsible gun owners is and has always been, as I've said half a fucking dozen times by now, irrelevant. [/B]
If a beer enthusiast wants to have some on private stock for the taste, allow non alcoholic beers to leave the store.
[B]Shit idunno man, if there's a beer enthusiast worst they can do is drink themselves into a stupor and black out or die.
Worst thing a gun enthusiast can do is run out and kill 10 people before he has to reload.
We both know you're trying to bring this around towards alcoholics though, which is still a problem that's more manageable in education and rehab than having wal-mart sell guns.
[/B]
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=MR-X;52743313]If you're gonna go by the good vs bad argument, guns have good uses too. Self-defense being one of them. The argument you pose is pretty weak and easy to take apart.
How is booze good if it kills more people yearly then guns? If boozes only befit is to get people drunk is it a good tool? Guns have various purposes such as hunting, self-defense, sport, and recreation. Yes they can cause damage to someone and so can booze, drinking and driving kills a lot of people. If you're going to pose this argument it seems like both guns and booze need to be gone.
Just like booze, guns are tools.[/QUOTE]
Booze is 'good' because the people that are killed are generally killed by people expressing their freedom to drink alcohol. Guns are 'bad' because it gets [I]other[/I] people killed. I do agree drinking and driving needs to be gone. I'm trying to pull away from the [I]"what kills more"[/I] and instead trying to address that there's more factors, and I'm not necessarily saying any of them 'need to go', just that they must be dealt with differently. In my opinion, outright prohibition is out of question for alcohol because I value freedom even when self-harm is involved (I do realize even here it's more complicated), but meanwhile I can't rule it out when it comes to guns. Like I said in my first post here, though, I'm leaning toward the opinion that it would be more effective to treat underlying issues rather than directly going for the guns. But I do question Americans' obsession with guns' use for self defense. I don't have a qualified opinion on that, but it does strike me as odd seeing as I live in a country where literally nobody I've ever known have owned a gun for that reason, as far as I know.
[QUOTE=srobins;52743341]What legislation do people realistically think would stop these incidents? Everyone can talk in broad strokes about how much they love or hate guns, but realistically how do you stop these freak incidents? The guy had no mental or criminal history, and I don't think police have even confirmed if the weapons were legal, or automatic (as opposed to bump firing or being modified semi-autos), have they?[/QUOTE]
From where I stand, there need to considerably stricter limits on place on the capabilities of weapons sold to the public, and a halt of production of all weapons not approved for civilian use and ownership other than those needed for military or law enforcement. This will cut off the supply of [I]new[/I] weapons, or at least severely hamper it as the only "new" weapons will come through illegal operations without [I]nearly[/I] the same economy of scale.
In addition to cutting off the supply, we need to reduce the stockpile. Even if we stopped producing weapons right now, there is a [B]colossal[/B] supply of weapons in the US that are available for any nefarious purpose with minimal effort.
Since simply knocking on every gun-owner's door in the country and seizing their weapons is effectively impossible, I believe the best way to address the stockpile problem is through a long-term war of attrition. With the sale of any weapons grandfathered in for ownership under the original legislation banned, we can slowly seize unregistered or or illegally traded weapons as they are discovered over the course of regular policing. Combine that with the destruction or seizure of weapons through other methods, such as voluntary gun drives, and the reality that guns need maintenance and care to continue functioning reliably, then the stockpile will gradually (but continuously) deplete over decades.
Finally, the availability of weapons is clearly not the [I]only[/I] problem. While it needs to be addressed, we also need to expand efforts on improving the availability, affordability, and effectiveness of mental healthcare. Hell, [I]all[/I] healthcare, really, but that's a different discussion.
Reduce the [I]means[/I] for mass shootings, [I]and[/I] the sickness behind the minds of people who commit them through all realistic measures.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;52743355]I mean not allowing someone to get their hands on a gun that take out over 60 people from the 32nd floor of a hotel would be a start. Unless you need something that powerful for the purposes of self defense.[/QUOTE]
How do you do this though? This guy wasn't even a blip on anyone's radar from the sounds of things.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52743353]Mass shootings are emotionally shocking but ultimately a tiny percentage of the thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of injuries caused by gun crime in general.[/QUOTE]
It's not a tiny percentage. Luckily most mass shooting wannabes end up with 3-7 injuries and less deaths, but there's like anywhere between 2-10 mass shootings or wannabe mass shootings a week.
[URL]http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/mass-shooting?page=7[/URL]
Again, the site is biased but it has every source on the right side.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52743353]Mass shootings are emotionally shocking but ultimately a tiny percentage of the thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of injuries caused by gun crime in general.[/QUOTE]
No doubt. My proposed solution will help cut those numbers substantially as well, over time.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743309] If you're asking whether I think the desires of hobbyists are less important the human lives? Yep. I do.[/QUOTE]
So is your reasoning logically consistent and therefore applicable to other hobbies that have a body count, or are you freely admitting that your position is selective, inconsistent, and emotional rather than logical? It's one or the other. Either you're consistent or you're not.
If it's the latter and your argument relies on special pleading, why should anyone else find it convincing?
At this point I don't expect any serious reply to this simple question after you've spent the last three pages trying to weasel out of obvious logical inconsistency with flippant remarks.
What I hate about debates like these sparked by shocking mass shootings is that the rest of the time, no one cares about the hundreds who get shot each day all over the country in petty crimes too small to even register on local news. Those are the incidents that [I]can[/I] be meaningfully impacted by gun regulations among other things, but because the focus is on stopping the mass shooters, you end up with poor arguments on both sides that ultimately reach useless conclusions.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52743382]Booze is 'good' because the people that are killed are generally killed by people expressing their freedom to drink alcohol. Guns are 'bad' because it gets [I]other[/I] people killed. I do agree drinking and driving needs to be gone. I'm trying to pull away from the [I]"what kills more"[/I] and instead trying to address that there's more factors, and I'm not necessarily saying any of them 'need to go', just that they must be dealt with differently. In my opinion, outright prohibition is out of question for alcohol because I value freedom even when self-harm is involved, but meanwhile I can't rule it out when it comes to guns. Like I said in my first post here, though, I'm leaning toward the opinion that it would be more effective to treat underlying issues rather than directly going for the guns. But I do question Americans' obsession with guns' use for self defense. I don't have a qualified opinion on that, but it does strike me as odd seeing as I live in a country where literally nobody I've ever known have owned a gun for that reason, as far as I know.[/QUOTE]
You're argument makes no sense to me, so alcohol is okay because people doing it are expressing their freedom? Alcohol gets more people killed then guns do, it kills other people too? But it is still okay?
So it is okay for a person to get drunk and kill someone via drunk driving because they're expressing their freedom to not only drink and drive (Which both are illegal).
But it is totally okay to revoke other peoples freedom to own firearms who use them safely and properly every day because of a mad man? You realize your whole freedom argument is exactly why people fight for guns in America, they're a symbol of freedom of choice for a lot of people. Freedom to hunt and provide for yourself, freedom to defense yourself, etc
[QUOTE=catbarf;52743402]So is your reasoning logically consistent and therefore applicable to other hobbies that have a body count, or are you freely admitting that your position is selective, inconsistent, and emotional rather than logical? It's one or the other. Either you're consistent or you're not.
If it's the latter and your argument relies on special pleading, why should anyone else find it convincing?
At this point I don't expect any serious reply to this simple question after you've spent the last three pages trying to weasel out of obvious logical inconsistency with flippant remarks.[/QUOTE]
There are only so many ways to say that I'm not going to be baited into this dumb slippery slope. Whatever my thoughts on cars, alcohol, or any other damn subject are, your motivations behind trying to pull the discussion away from the topic at hand are completely transparent and, frankly, childish. If you want to believe that you've somehow scored a victory in this debate through my refusal to let you run it off the rails, then I suppose I can't stop you.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52743403]What I hate about debates like these sparked by shocking mass shootings is that the rest of the time, no one cares about the hundreds who get shot each day all over the country in petty crimes too small to even register on local news. Those are the incidents that [I]can[/I] be meaningfully impacted by gun regulations among other things, but because the focus is on stopping the mass shooters, you end up with poor arguments on both sides that ultimately reach useless conclusions.[/QUOTE]
Those kind of things are more of a social problem than a gun problem. As I elaborated earlier much of the country's gun violence revolvers around gangs and poverty. A good amount of gun violence would be reduced if we were to tackle racial and economic inequality, along with dismantling the gangs through productive measures rather than punitive. But blaming guns is a hell of a lot simpler than solving those deep rooted issues.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743414]There are only so many ways to say that I'm not going to be baited into this dumb slippery slope. Whatever my thoughts on cars, alcohol, or any other damn subject are, your motivations behind trying to pull the discussion away from the topic at hand are completely transparent and, frankly, childish. If you want to believe that you've somehow scored a victory in this debate through my refusal to let you run it off the rails, then I suppose I can't stop you.[/QUOTE]
Why don't you just answer him and put it to rest instead of taking an equal or greater amount of time to justify why you refuse to answer?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743392]voluntary gun drives[/QUOTE]
In the past those have been fantastic places to buy up guns for cheap and sell old broken guns for way more than they're worth.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.