This gun debate is effectively post-factual and manifesting as one side having a tantrum over the stereotypical backwardness of America, which is getting increasingly noticeable as we globalize and erode the gap between us and the rest of the developed world. It's basically a culture war between local yokel reactionaries who like to shoot cans and liberal elites overrepresented in the news, urbanity, and the entertainment industry. It's the latest national embarrassment on this Trump timeline. The stuff about guns or the race of the shooter (especially the implications if he's white under Trump), it all needs to be dropped so we can talk about what is actually causing mass shootings in this modern era. To me, it seems like atomization and the general malaise afflicting young people.
[QUOTE=Amber902;53166102]Its a slightly better worded version of the standard "hurr america stupid guns are bad" snipe.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Louis;53164950]guns arent seen as a right anywhere other than america idk why you attribute gun loss to something like a loss of a human right[/QUOTE]
Idk this is a pretty unopinionated post, to me. The biggest snipe/bias I could find here is the implication that (and not to speak for them) Louis thinks its absurd that we treat gun ownership as an inherent right. Which isn't really too far fetched, imo.
[QUOTE=Amber902;53165997]My logic for that analogy is that the government can technically ban all guns except for single shot flintlock pistols without technically violating the second amendment. Which would essentially destroy the second amendment and leave us with a vague facsimile of it.[/QUOTE]
Holy fucking shit, this.
[QUOTE=Amber902;53165917]You know maybe progun posters would be willing to listen to posters like you more if you didn't frame your posts with smug condescension and what is essentially country trolling.
But I doubt you made this post to open a dialogue so I dont think you really care.[/QUOTE]
Relativism is trolling now?
I'm more shocked by your aggressive reaction to his post. It wasn't smug or condescending, it just pointed out that only in America is it seen as a right, and citizens of other countries don't seem to feel less free regardless.
To me simply saying "it's a right" isn't sufficient, it should be justified in a way other than by simply saying "it's in the constitution". That's a political justification, not a philosophical one.
[QUOTE=_Axel;53166237]Relativism is trolling now?
I'm more shocked by your aggressive reaction to his post. It wasn't smug or condescending, it just pointed out that only in America is it seen as a right, and citizens of other countries don't seem to feel less free regardless.
To me simply saying "it's a right" isn't sufficient, it should be justified in a way other than by simply saying "it's in the constitution". That's a political justification, not a philosophical one.[/QUOTE] Once you give your citizens guns then it needs to become a right.
Are you telling me I don't have a right to a gun to defend myself from someone who had the privilege to get a gun who wants to harm me?
Isn't the problem in this case the harmful individual getting access to a gun in the first place? To me that suggests that firearm ownership shouldn't have been a right to begin with. Guns can be taken away, too.
Besides, in other countries, defense is ensured by the police, so it's not like you're left to your own device.
It seems a bit weird to me to use circumstancial arguments to support a right being considered as such. To me rights are supposed to be universal and necessary regardless of context.
[QUOTE=_Axel;53166267]Isn't the problem in this case the harmful individual getting access to a gun in the first place? To me that suggests that firearm ownership shouldn't have been a right to begin with. Guns can be taken away, too.
Besides, in other countries, defense is ensured by the police, so it's not like you're left to your own device.
It seems a bit weird to me to use circumstancial arguments to support a right being considered as such. To me rights are supposed to be universal and necessary regardless of context.[/QUOTE] Yeah it is, but you can't stop stuff like this entirely from happening. You can't screen everyone and prevent this from happening. I'd argue you can prevent MASS shootings but not isolated incidences like this entirely. Point is, with guns there will always be a bad person with a gun somewhere unless you magically take away all guns.
Also, the whole "police are always there" isn't 100% true and you know it. This has been argued to death too.
I'm blue lives all the way and want to become a police officer myself but cops can't just beam there in time unfortunately.
[QUOTE=_Axel;53166267]
Besides, in other countries, defense is ensured by the police, so it's not like you're left to your own device.
[/QUOTE]
The police owe you no protection unless they've handcuffed you. They only owe protection to the "public at large."
[QUOTE=_Axel;53166267]Isn't the problem in this case the harmful individual getting access to a gun in the first place? To me that suggests that firearm ownership shouldn't have been a right to begin with. Guns can be taken away, too.
Besides, in other countries, defense is ensured by the police, so it's not like you're left to your own device.
It seems a bit weird to me to use circumstancial arguments to support a right being considered as such. To me rights are supposed to be universal and necessary regardless of context.[/QUOTE]
I think America is more infamous for its police than its mass shooters. Its gun violence is of course part of a broken community and racialized class issue that leads people to distrust the police, and in light of that it doesn't make sense to be pro-BLM but also pro-gun control.
[QUOTE=Episode;53166271]Yeah it is, but you can't stop stuff like this entirely from happening. You can't screen everyone and prevent this from happening. I'd argue you can prevent MASS shootings but not isolated incidences like this entirely. Point is, with guns there will always be a bad person with a gun somewhere unless you magically take away all guns.
Also, the whole "police are always there" isn't 100% true and you know it. This has been argued to death too.
I'm blue lives all the way and want to become a police officer myself but cops can't just beam there in time unfortunately.[/QUOTE]
See, we're already arguing about the practicalities of removing gun ownership, and not about whether such a right should have existed in the first place.
As for the practical debate, I'm wary of "there will always be..." style arguments which operate on the premise that if a policy doesn't solve every single instance of an issue, then it's not worth implementing. It completely ignores any form of increase and reduction. Criminals will always exist, that's not a reason not to bother with apprehending them carrying out justice. Likewise, there will always be bad guys who manage to get access to guns, but that doesn't mean there won't be less of them if you're willing to reconsider the status of firearm ownership as a right.
As for police response times, it can be considered a trade-off to rely on them since they may not be as quick a response as defending yourself, but firearms being less widespread also means there's less need for armed defense to begin with. It seems to work out fine in European countries, and when it comes to really isolated countryside areas, I'm pretty sure a substantial amount of households do get to have a shotgun.
[editline]28th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kigen;53166290]The police owe you no protection unless they've handcuffed you. They only owe protection to the "public at large."[/QUOTE]
That's just a legal aspect that prevents you from suing them should they fail. In practice, they do what's in their power to protect you. You're part of the "public at large".
[QUOTE=_Axel;53166237]Relativism is trolling now?
I'm more shocked by your aggressive reaction to his post. It wasn't smug or condescending, it just pointed out that only in America is it seen as a right, and citizens of other countries don't seem to feel less free regardless.
To me simply saying "it's a right" isn't sufficient, it should be justified in a way other than by simply saying "it's in the constitution". That's a political justification, not a philosophical one.[/QUOTE]
The reason it's a right is because it's based off of our natural right to self preservation. It ensures that no matter what happens, we have the tools necessary to secure our rights to life and liberty.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53166354]The reason it's a right is because it's based off of our natural right to self preservation. It ensures that no matter what happens, we have the tools necessary to secure our rights to life and liberty.[/QUOTE]
It shouldn't have to be a right or a need in a modern society.
[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;53166357]It shouldn't have to be a right or a need in a modern society.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. It doesn’t matter what era you are in, the people deserve the right to be able to defend and fend for themselves.
_Axel, a right isn't something that can never ever be taken away for any reason - it's something that can't be taken away arbitrarily. Gun ownership being a right doesn't mean you can't stop criminals and the otherwise dangerous from getting their hands on them, but it does mean you can't achieve that end in a way that hurts law abiding citizens.
Sorry for not quoting, am on my phone, but this is for post 70
[QUOTE=_Axel;53166301]
That's just a legal aspect that prevents you from suing them should they fail. In practice, they do what's in their power to protect you. You're part of the "public at large".[/QUOTE]
Its a legal aspect that is grounded in reality. If someone breaks into your home, intent on murdering you for whatever reason, and you called the police as soon as they broke in. The police, in the majority of the US would arrive there betwen 5-10 minutes later. Which is plenty of time to murder you. Make a sandwich, eat it, and leave. Obviously the police will try their best to arrest them after the fact.
Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that the police are a reactionary force. They pretty much are always reacting to what is happening. They cannot really prevent crime from taking place.
I prefer being able to fend for myself until the police can arrive.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;53164851]i agree with protesting for tighter gun laws. Lord knows we don't live in the 1800s anymore.
But what about better mental health services? Why is no one also protesting that? Both factors should be handled...[/QUOTE]
People snap and go crazy every day, Having top notch mental health care isn't going to stop shootings. The only thing that's going to stop shootings is keeping weapons out of the hands of people, and honestly, it's going to come down to keeping them out of the hands of *everyone* to stop shootings altogether
[QUOTE=TheTalon;53166413]People snap and go crazy every day, Having top notch mental health care isn't going to stop shootings. The only thing that's going to stop shootings is keeping weapons out of the hands of people, and honestly, it's going to come down to keeping them out of the hands of *everyone* to stop shootings altogether[/QUOTE]
So does it surprise you that gun owners aren't interested in "compromising"?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166415]So does it surprise you that gun owners aren't interested in "compromising"?[/QUOTE]
if the slippery slope gun apocalypse is the main concern here, why doesn't the pro-gun lobby propose a counter-offer reform comprised of plain-language, intelligent laws (background check, licencing etc), while repealing some of the sillier laws they love to complain about?
there wont be a need for further slope-slipping if your solution is actually effective... otherwise the american public might have to face the uncomfortable fact that the right to bear arms is simply not compatible with the right to be free from random shootings
[QUOTE=krail9;53166676]if the freedom-hatin' leftist's slippery slope gun apocalypse is the main concern here, why don't the conservatives, who currently hold majority in all levels of government, propose a counter-offer reform comprised of plain-language, intelligent laws (background check, licencing etc), while repealing some of the sillier laws their constituents love to complain about?
there wont be a need for further slope-slipping if your solution is actually effective... otherwise the american public might have to face the uncomfortable fact that the right to bear arms is simply not compatible with the right to be free from random shootings[/QUOTE]
Where have you seen me rant about freedom hatin' leftists? Do you realize I'm not opposed to gun control and have proposed a number of solutions based on FBI statistics which could conceivably have an impact? Are you talking to me or your caricature of me?
Guns are only a partisan issue in Congress, like everything else in Congress. There are plenty of pro-gun liberals and plenty of anti-gun conservatives who have to play ball with the party that enshrines [I]most[/I] of their beliefs because of our stupid ass 2 party system. Stop arguing with what you think I think and argue with what I've actually said.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53166354]The reason it's a right is because it's based off of our natural right to self preservation. It ensures that no matter what happens, we have the tools necessary to secure our rights to life and liberty.[/QUOTE]
Right to self-preservation doesn't necessarily entail access to any and all tools that could be used directly and indirectly as a way to reinforce it. It means that you can't be condemned for protecting yourself.
Also, what does that have to do with "liberty"?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166400]_Axel, a right isn't something that can never ever be taken away for any reason - it's something that can't be taken away arbitrarily. Gun ownership being a right doesn't mean you can't stop criminals and the otherwise dangerous from getting their hands on them, but it does mean you can't achieve that end in a way that hurts law abiding citizens.
Sorry for not quoting, am on my phone, but this is for post 70[/QUOTE]
Sure, I don't think I said anything to contradict that, though.
[QUOTE=Kigen;53166402]Its a legal aspect that is grounded in reality. If someone breaks into your home, intent on murdering you for whatever reason, and you called the police as soon as they broke in. The police, in the majority of the US would arrive there betwen 5-10 minutes later. Which is plenty of time to murder you. Make a sandwich, eat it, and leave. Obviously the police will try their best to arrest them after the fact.
Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that the police are a reactionary force. They pretty much are always reacting to what is happening. They cannot really prevent crime from taking place.
I prefer being able to fend for myself until the police can arrive.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't have anything to do with your claim that the police don't owe you protection?
[QUOTE=_Axel;53166718]Sure, I don't think I said anything to contradict that, though.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=_Axel;53166267]Isn't the problem in this case the harmful individual getting access to a gun in the first place? To me that suggests that firearm ownership shouldn't have been a right to begin with. Guns can be taken away, too.[/QUOTE]
It's still a right even if it can be taken away for being abused.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166729]It's still a right even if it can be taken away for being abused.[/QUOTE]
My point was more that if it wasn't a right to begin with, weapons wouldn't have gotten into the wrong hands to nearly the same extent. Which makes the argument "it should be a right because we need it to protect ourselves from armed harmful people" a self-fulfilling prophecy. To me, this means it requires better justification than this sole argument.
[QUOTE=_Axel;53166754]My point was more that if it wasn't a right to begin with, weapons wouldn't have gotten into the wrong hands to nearly the same extent. Which makes the argument "it should be a right because we need it to protect ourselves from armed harmful people" a self-fulfilling prophecy. To me, this means it requires better justification than this sole argument.[/QUOTE]
That is a fair conclusion, which is why I don't hang any of my arguments solely on the idea that "firearms ownership is a right, consequences be damned."
[QUOTE=Duck M.;53165330]Protests aren't meant to be convenient.[/QUOTE]
You don't have to ditch class for it to be inconvenient.
You all are acting like these kids have no other choice than to ditch class to protest, and I disagree 100%. I'm not saying they don't have a right to protest, or their voices don't matter, but you're missing the point if you think it's their only option.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;53166785]You don't have to ditch class for it to be inconvenient.
You all are acting like these kids have no other choice than to ditch class to protest, and I disagree 100%. I'm not saying they don't have a right to protest, or their voices don't matter, but you're missing the point if you think it's their only option.[/QUOTE]
I for one think it's great that kids are willing to go out and protest even at the risk of getting in trouble at school. That kind of political motivation is a powerful force and speaking up and making yourself heard should be encouraged. It's a good thing that they were able to organize a large protest like this amongst themselves without being guided and manipulated.
While I disagree with them, they aren't doing anything wrong by the act of protesting.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;53166413]People snap and go crazy every day, Having top notch mental health care isn't going to stop shootings. The only thing that's going to stop shootings is keeping weapons out of the hands of people, and honestly, it's going to come down to keeping them out of the hands of *everyone* to stop shootings altogether[/QUOTE]
If the only solution to stopping shootings altogether is getting guns out of the hands of [U]everyone[/U] then sorry, it's not worth it and I won't give you an inch.
[QUOTE=_Axel;53166754]My point was more that if it wasn't a right to begin with, weapons wouldn't have gotten into the wrong hands to nearly the same extent.[/QUOTE]
Presumably you're saying that people should have to justify their ownership of firearms, rather than it being a right they are free to exercise? We've seen that policy enacted in the US in a couple of places, and inevitably it has the same outcome: Unless you're a politician or connected to one, no reason you can possibly supply is sufficient. It's a de facto ban, with some good ol' cronyism built in.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166810]I for one think it's great that kids are willing to go out and protest even at the risk of getting in trouble at school. That kind of political motivation is a powerful force and speaking up and making yourself heard should be encouraged. It's a good thing that they were able to organize a large protest like this amongst themselves without being guided and manipulated.
While I disagree with them, they aren't doing anything wrong by the act of protesting.[/QUOTE]
And I agree with that. I think it's still wrong, but it's great that kids are still getting motivated and taking full advantage of their rights.
[QUOTE=catbarf;53166822]Presumably you're saying that people should have to justify their ownership of firearms, rather than it being a right they are free to exercise?[/QUOTE]
No? Read my post, it has nothing to do with policy. It's about whether ownership should be considered a fundamental right.
[editline]28th February 2018[/editline]
If you want to talk policy I just support standard European style gun laws. They seem to work well enough.
I feel sorry for the kids who like guns. Or maybe that don't care about guns but see the value in the human right to self defense. School administrations + the group think of all the other students will make them feel like demonized loners.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
