[QUOTE=_Axel;53166929]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.[/QUOTE]
"European style gun laws" are a dramatically varied topic and only have an impact on proliferation (and therefore, accessibility to thieves - which is important because again the majority of gun crime is committed with stolen or otherwise illicitly possessed guns) by setting up barriers that are unrealistic for most people to pass in order to own firearms.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166937]"European style gun laws" are a dramatically varied topic and only have an impact on proliferation (and therefore, accessibility to thieves - which is important because again the majority of gun crime is committed with stolen or otherwise illicitly possessed guns) by setting up barriers that are unrealistic for most people to pass in order to own firearms.[/QUOTE]
And it bears repeating again and again that the U.S. is not like Europe and passing "European style gun laws" has absolutely zero guarantee of having any measurable effect. The solution for the U.S. is not necessarily to be more like Europe.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166937]"European style gun laws" are a dramatically varied topic and only have an impact on proliferation (and therefore, accessibility to thieves - which is important because again the majority of gun crime is committed with stolen or otherwise illicitly possessed guns) by setting up barriers that are unrealistic for most people to pass in order to own firearms.[/QUOTE]
Simply controlling proliferation seems to be a functional enough technique for most of Europe.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;53167019]And it bears repeating again and again that the U.S. is not like Europe and passing "European style gun laws" has absolutely zero guarantee of having any measurable effect. The solution for the U.S. is not necessarily to be more like Europe.[/QUOTE]
Why is it "not like Europe" in a way that is relevant to the issue? Americans often defend their own take on things by saying "America is different" but almost never specify how that is relevant.
[QUOTE=_Axel;53167049]Simply controlling proliferation seems to be a functional enough technique for most of Europe.
Why is it "not like Europe" in a way that is relevant to the issue? Americans often defend their own take on things by saying "America is different" but almost never specify how that is relevant.[/QUOTE]
Good grief. You've been shown multiple examples that "simple proliferation controls" don't work in the US and aren't required in many European countries to maintain a low crime rate.
Hell, there are plenty of countries with outright bans on firearms which still have unacceptably high crime rates, including firearms crime. Unless you have zero or next to zero proliferation caused by extremely draconian laws and very zealous enforcement, you aren't going to put a dent in it. That isn't practical in the US and it hasn't worked in many countries. Stable societies are not the result of gun laws.
In a stable country like the Czech Republic, it doesn't matter how many guns you have, because people aren't going out and stealing them from each other to commit crimes with. Once again, pointing at stable European countries with overall low crime rates and saying "they also have strict gun laws" is an example of spurious correlations.
Serbia is probably the closest comparison to the United States in terms of proliferation with almost 60 guns per 100 people. I don't know about their firearm laws, but they have a LOT of guns - yet the overall crime rate is significantly lower than the US. There is not a direct correlation between firearm proliferation and crime rates and it is repeatedly provable. Stop trying to find one. Just because two points of data line up at certain intersections does not make them connected.
[QUOTE=chocolatedrop;53166931]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.[/QUOTE]
Tbh, I don't have much sympathy
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Low effort posting again" - Kiwi))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53167184]Tbh, I don't have much sympathy[/QUOTE]
Can you please start posting with more substance? You seem to have very strong convictions on this matter and I would be interested to see you actually justify your opinions rather than just sprinkling them around through a series of 200 6-word posts.
Because the subject of gun control is about avoiding deaths, so when people bring up the idea of hobbyists missing out, I really don't care
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53167184]Tbh, I don't have much sympathy[/QUOTE]
Why is it that every time you start to lose an argument you duck out and then make baity shitposts like these
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53167192]Because the subject of gun control is about avoiding deaths, so when people bring up the idea of hobbyists missing out, I really don't care[/QUOTE]
The same justification was used for Prohibition and was also the driving force behind recent attempts to ban video games and other forms of media. "It might make things better so we have to do it, regardless of how it affects law abiding citizens" is not the correct approach to lawmaking, and not a good way to justify not bothering to research what you're talking about.
You probably wouldn't be very happy if violent video games were banned at your expense because it might prevent some fringe cases, so let's try to come up with a more mature discussion on the matter. I think even people on the anti side of this debate can agree that is not a material argument.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53167209]The same justification was used for Prohibition and was also the driving force behind recent attempts to ban video games and other forms of media. "It might make things better so we have to do it, regardless of how it affects law abiding citizens" is not the correct approach to lawmaking, and not a good way to justify not bothering to research what you're talking about.
You probably wouldn't be very happy if violent video games were banned at your expense because it might prevent some fringe cases, so let's try to come up with a more mature discussion on the matter. I think even people on the anti side of this debate can agree that is not a material argument.[/QUOTE]
No, that's not my argument. If there was actually a correlation between games and murders I would be fine with legislation on them. My point was that arguments about peoples enjoyment of guns is irrelevant if it can save lives to limit them
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53167209]The same justification was used for Prohibition and was also the driving force behind recent attempts to ban video games and other forms of media. "It might make things better so we have to do it, regardless of how it affects law abiding citizens" is not the correct approach to lawmaking, and not a good way to justify not bothering to research what you're talking about.
You probably wouldn't be very happy if violent video games were banned at your expense because it might prevent some fringe cases, so let's try to come up with a more mature discussion on the matter. I think even people on the anti side of this debate can agree that is not a material argument.[/QUOTE]
In fairness, I don't think there's nearly as much a direct correlation between video games, media, and prohibition as there is between guns and gun-violence.
"A gun caused this gun violence" is really just the truth (even if we're to argue 'but it was the person who pulled the trigger that made the gun fire') where "A video game caused this gun violence" makes many assumptions. Ultimately, the gun is responsible for the violence that ensues from the firing of it. We could perhaps argue that 'if there was no gun there would still be violence' and that'd be fair - but nonetheless the weapon did cause the damage it caused. That doesn't necessarily mean the gun is the primary fault at play - but it's a much stronger link than stating that, for instance, people wearing cotton clothes causes gun violence.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53167242]No, that's not my argument. If there was actually a correlation between games and murders I would be fine with legislation on them. My point was that arguments about peoples enjoyment of guns is irrelevant if it can save lives to limit them[/QUOTE]
Then you should be willing to look at data indicating there isn't a direct correlation between firearm proliferation and murders, but you aren't, because a ban doesn't affect you, therefore to you it's worth going for a ban just in case.
[editline]28th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53167251]In fairness, I don't think there's nearly as much a direct correlation between video games, media, and prohibition as there is between guns and gun-violence.
"A gun caused this gun violence" is really just the truth (even if we're to argue 'but it was the person who pulled the trigger that made the gun fire') where "A video game caused this gun violence" makes many assumptions. Ultimately, the gun is responsible for the violence that ensues from the firing of it. That doesn't necessarily mean the gun is the primary fault at play - but it's a much stronger link than stating that, for instance, people wearing cotton clothes causes gun violence.[/QUOTE]
My guns don't whisper in my ear and tell me to commit violence. If you have experienced that yourself, there are special doctors to help with that. Guns are not a cause of violence.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53167253]Then you should be willing to look at data indicating there isn't a direct correlation between firearm proliferation and murders, but you aren't, because a ban doesn't affect you, therefore to you it's worth going for a ban just in case.[/QUOTE]
Never said ban. You can say if guns weren't around, people would would murder each other just as easily (somehow) but it's ridiculous
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53167253]My guns don't whisper in my ear and tell me to commit violence. If you have experienced that yourself, there are special doctors to help with that. Guns are not a cause of violence.[/QUOTE]
Didn't imply they did. I stated that if a gun was fired at someone it is literally gun violence. If I attacked you with a knife, that would be knife violence. If I smashed your head in with a rock that'd be rock violence.
Which of these we feel require legislation to attempt to fix, or whether or not we feel they aren't necessarily the 'cause of the violence', they are nonetheless directly linkable to the violence that ensued in a way that video games/media/etc. are not.
E: You may argue 'a videogame caused the feelings that led to this violence' and be wrong or right but you can't argue 'a knife was used for this knife-based violence' - if a knife was used, it was used. The aforementioned media can't be the thing used in the violence - unless you're going around beating people's faces with a gameboy or something I guess.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53167257]Never said ban. You can say if guns weren't around, people would would murder each other just as easily (somehow) but it's ridiculous[/QUOTE]
How is it ridiculous if data from other countries and even the US supports that? It's ridiculous because it doesn't support your 6 word musings?
[editline]28th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53167258]Didn't imply they did. I stated that if a gun was fired at someone it is literally gun violence. If I attacked you with a knife, that would be knife violence. If I smashed your head in with a rock that'd be rock violence.
Which of these we feel require legislation to attempt to fix, or whether or not we feel they aren't necessarily the 'cause of the violence', they are nonetheless directly linkable to the violence that ensued in a way that video games/media/etc. are not.[/QUOTE]
And as we can see clearly in other countries (and the US for that matter, depending on locale), putting up barriers to guns shifts the type of violence to knife or rock or truck violence rather than actually preventing the violence, which is why I'm not saying "removing guns won't stop gun violence," I'm saying "it won't impact the violent crime rate," which is statistically demonstrable across every country that tracks these statistics. Additionally, the gun still didn't "cause" the gun violence.
You may have succeeded in making the violence arguably less fatal, but you didn't do anything about the violence occurring, which is what we should really strive to do, and what many stable countries have achieved with or without strict gun laws. Clearly you do not need strict gun laws to have a stable society.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53167259]And as we can see clearly in other countries, putting up barriers to guns shifts the type of violence to knife or rock or truck violence rather than actually preventing the violence, which is why I'm not saying "removing guns won't stop gun violence," I'm saying "it won't impact the violent crime rate," which is statistically demonstrable across every country that tracks these statistics. Additionally, the gun still didn't "cause" the gun violence.[/QUOTE]
Firstly, I don't think the argument would be that it would 'stop gun violence' - I think the argument is that it would reduce gun violence. The statistics bear that out; access [I]is[/I] an important part to the committal of many a type of crime. A higher difficulty in access tends to make the crime less probable. There are a huge number of guns out there, sure, and illegal ways to obtain them -- but access to those people and events where those guns may be obtained is less than trivial to accomplish than the much more simple act of a (even if questionable) legal purchase. I don't think we'll ever stop illegal purchase or sales of guns - or stop people from offering them - because demand fundamentally drives supply, even in illegal and sketchy arenas. That said, I do think we can make it more feasible to safeguard against tragedies through cool-off periods, requiring parental permission for those under 21, and so forth.
That said, people predisposed to engage in violence are willing to use whatever they get their hands on, where the argument then becomes 'how can you/we limit the amount of damage they cause' rather than an argument for 'how do you/we stop that damage from ever happening' -- which is an unrealistic goal. I think we can make it so that a person who wishes to engage in violence has more difficulty obtaining arms that cause much more violence than others and may instead opt for the easier, cheaper, less scrutinized route -- which would limit harm despite not eliminating it.
The world will never be perfect and there will always be crime. What sorts of crime people commit and on what scale, though, is something that we can work on and work with.
Additionally, the gun was the means through which the gun violence was caused; without it the gun violence would not be possible.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53167192]Because the subject of gun control is about avoiding deaths, so when people bring up the idea of hobbyists missing out, I really don't care[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53167184]Tbh, I don't have much sympathy[/QUOTE]
Do you actually give a shit at all about having a conversation about how to stop people from dying or are you just here for sanctimonious holier than thou political grandstanding so you look like a good boy on the internet?
Which I'll note is what happened with machine guns. Regardless of your opinion on whether or not machine guns should be legal, the fact of the matter is they currently [I]are[/I] - but without legitimate cause or correct legal process, the registry was closed, making it impossible to obtain new ones. In other words, gun owners were lured into accepting a registry for a certain type of weapon in the name of preventing crime and protecting them, which was suddenly closed, creating a de facto ban on the type.
You might think "well that's OK machine guns shouldn't be legal anyway" and I won't fault you for holding that opinion but the lesson is that the US is no stranger to deception of that nature.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53167347]And the california AWB, that originally started as a registry, then the registry was closed, meaning you can't follow the required "register all assault weapons" law, so you've effectively banned them.
Because we've been burned before, its REALLY hard to justify entertaining the discussion of a license/registration system, because in the back of all of our minds, we know that all it's going to take to become a ban/confiscation system is a single incident, and some politicians with a misguided hateboner for guns.[/QUOTE]
Ignoring the problem or fighting against any solutions for it though will only drive people's outrage. It would be better to work with them than to tell them 'we're not going to support anything because it could be abused' as in the former at least you're trying to compromise where in the second you might inspire them to simply ignore your opinion altogether as it seems you don't care about theirs.
The more this comes up, the more people are going to demand action, and the more they're fought back against the less they'll be willing to compromise for anything less than extreme measures. The shootings don't appear to be stopping anytime soon - if anything they're picking up in frequency - and so [I]something[/I] is going to give. Maybe not today. Maybe not next week or next month. But it's coming so long as these shootings keep happening. Choosing not to participate in the discussion of [i]what[/i] will give isn't really an option if you don't want drastic measures to be taken.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53167434]Ignoring the problem or fighting against it though will only drive people's outrage. It would be better to work with them than to tell them 'we're not going to support anything because it could be abused'.
The more this comes up, the more people are going to demand action, and the more they're fought back against the less they'll be willing to compromise for anything less than extreme measures.
The shootings don't appear to be stopping anytime soon - if anything they're picking up in frequency - and so [I]something[/I] is going to give. Choosing not to participate in the discussion of what gives isn't really an option if you don't want drastic measures to be taken.[/QUOTE]
Have you seen SIRIUS' posts? He's basically posting right from the democratic lawmaker's playbook. There is no compromise to be had in the current battle - the end goal for lawmakers is to ban firearms.
Besides, again, compromise isn't about repeatedly coming back to take more away. Who was it that made a great post recently about the nature of gun compromises? Catbarf?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53167435]Have you seen SIRIUS' posts? He's basically posting right from the democratic lawmaker's playbook. There is no compromise to be had in the current battle - the end goal for lawmakers is to ban firearms.
Besides, again, compromise isn't about repeatedly coming back to take more away.[/QUOTE]
I've seen the national discussion which drives those policies. Boogeyman-ing any and all solutions will only result in your loss of control in this situation.
If it comes to it, which would you rather: Semi-sensible if possibly abusable gun control laws -- or fiat-driven gun bans with enforcement initiatives that include the government literally taking your guns and smelting them ala Fahrenheit 451. People aren't going to stand for inaction while their sons and daughters are being killed - and politicians can't be re-elected if nobody votes for them.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53167441]I've seen the national discussion which drives those policies. [B]Boogeyman-ing any and all solutions[/B] will only result in your loss of control in this situation.[/QUOTE]
Don't try that.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53167446]Don't try that.[/QUOTE]
If there is no compromise; if there is nothing that you're willing to even see other than 'the end goal is obviously a ban on firearms' - then I'd say you're boogeyman-ing any and all solutions.
If you think there's a compromise that [I]could[/I] be had and/or [I]should[/I] be had, it'd be better to advocate for that then say 'it's impossible' and flatly assert that no matter what, someone's coming for your guns. If those of us on the left or more center leaning politics need to oust some representatives who are offering solutions that you won't accept but which you have compromises that we might, it'd be a good time to point them out and say why.
Now's exactly the time to try and get that ball rolling because we are right now deciding who is staffing a lot of seats in congress.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53167454]If there is no compromise; if there is nothing that you're willing to even see other than 'the end goal is obviously a ban on firearms' - then I'd say you're boogeyman-ing any and all solutions.
If you think there's a compromise that [I]could[/I] be had and/or [I]should[/I] be had, it'd be better to advocate for that then say 'it's impossible' and flatly assert that no matter what, someone's coming for your guns. If those of us on the left or more center leaning politics need to oust some representatives who are offering solutions that you won't accept but which we might, it'd be a good time to point them out and say why.[/QUOTE]
I have posted paragraphs and paragraphs of recommendations and compromises and solutions. It isn't me that doesn't want solutions.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53167466]I have posted paragraphs and paragraphs of recommendations and compromises and solutions. It isn't me that doesn't want solutions.[/QUOTE]
I've not seen them, then, but I've come in late to this thread and haven't read all 4 pages of it - just the first and the third.
I have seen it often, though, this air that 'the other side simply doesn't want to compromise'. Even if that's so, the people who back 'the other side' are willing to compromise - and they aren't going to sit idly while their kin are being killed. Let's disperse with this 'Democrats don't want to compromise' shtick because it doesn't reflect what you actually think if what you wrote is what you actually think.
What you should write, instead, is 'your Senators and Congressmen refuse to cooperate on anything' rather than paint everyone of center-from-left leaning as 'not wanting compromise'. Also, providing evidence that they're not cooperating (from reputable and useful sources) despite attempts and reach-outs would go a long way to convincing people of that.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53167476]I've not seen them, then, but I've come in late to this thread and haven't read all 4 pages of it - just the first and the third.
I have seen it often, though, this air that 'the other side simply doesn't want to compromise'. Even if that's so, the people who back 'the other side' are willing to compromise - and they aren't going to sit idly while their kin are being killed. Let's disperse with this 'Democrats don't want to compromise' shtick because it doesn't reflect what you actually think if what you wrote is what you actually think.
What you should write, instead, is 'your Senators and Congressmen refuse to cooperate on anything' rather than paint everyone of center-from-left leaning as 'not wanting compromise'. Also, providing evidence that they're not cooperating despite attempts and reach-outs would go a long way.[/QUOTE]
Even in this thread at the top of the last page I attack the idea of partisanship:
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166686]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]
When I refer to "antis" I'm not referring to those gosh durn liberals, I avoid using the term liberal specifically because of this. I am referring to people who want to ban or otherwise institute draconian regulations on firearms... which is a bit too wordy to repeat every time I mention the other side of the debate. Democratic lawmakers, however, are virtually (or literally?) all opposed to guns... so referring to the "democratic lawmaker's playbook" is valid.
I am obviously not opposed to compromise or regulation. I even told you outright in that polidicks thread that I don't subscribe to the 'bulletproof' "2A IS MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT" defense. I really do feel like you are mischaracterizing my arguments.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53167484]Even in this thread at the top of the last page I attack the idea of partisanship:
When I refer to "antis" I'm not referring to those gosh durn liberals, I avoid using the term liberal specifically because of this. I am referring to people who want to ban or otherwise institute draconian regulations on firearms... which is a bit too wordy to repeat every time I mention the other side of the debate. Democratic lawmakers, however, are virtually (or literally?) all opposed to guns... so referring to the "democratic lawmaker's playbook" is valid.[/QUOTE]
But 'those people who want to ban or institute draconian regulations on firearms' could encompass anyone who wants to legitimately compromise. 'Draconian regulations' is often over-inflated to be 'anything under the sun'.
You've got an image problem. You don't need to use that phrase; just say 'the Congress which refuses to compromise on gun control laws' because it sounds to me like it's not a left vs right so much as a 'representation generally' problem.
[quote]I even told you outright in that polidicks thread that I don't subscribe to the 'bulletproof' "2A IS MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT" defense. I really do feel like you are mischaracterizing my arguments.[/quote]
I don't feel I am. I didn't state that you subscribed to the '2a is my god given right' defense at any point in that thread.
Draconian has a pretty clear definition and I think anyone reading it would understand the idea. "I want compromise and regulation but not draconian laws" isn't doublespeak of any kind. I want law abiding, responsible people to have access to firearms and criminals to have difficulty getting that same access.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53167500]Draconian has a pretty clear definition and I think anyone reading it would understand the idea. "I want compromise and regulation but not draconian laws" isn't doublespeak of any kind. I want law abiding, responsible people to have access to firearms and criminals to have difficulty getting that same access.[/QUOTE]
It does have a clear definition - but it's used all the time by politicians to discuss literally anything, so it's become more or less a 'draconian is what I say it is' problem in usage through political circles.
Actually draconian regulations would involve shooting anyone that owns a gun who doesn't immediately surrender it, smelting all the found guns down, and performing inspections of households on a weekly basis for the presence of guns - and shooting anyone on sight who aids or abets someone in finding or inquiring about firearms. Reminder that it's not just harsh or severe, Draconian means [I]excessively[/I] harsh or severe.
[quote=ilikecorn]But If we compromise, we lay the groundwork for something that's GOING to be abused.[/quote]
And if you don't you're going to be run over and ignored eventually. That doesn't sound like a situation that benefits you or, really, anyone.
[quote]We've got to start dealing with our societal problems eventually, do you wanna do it now, or later?[/quote]
If things continue as they are where nothing's being done about it, people might become so incensed about it that the answer might become 'later' by most.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53167530]So we're supposed to accept that a system that's going to be abused, is in our best interests?
So what do we do when the registry gets closed? Or the requirements for licensure preclude anyone who's not fabulously wealthy from owning a gun? Protest? Politicians don't give a shit. Write angry letters? The time for angry letters was before the license system got implemented in the first place, once a system is in place, its next to impossible to remove.[/QUOTE]
No, you need to accept that [I]something[/I] is going to be put into place. What gets put in is up to what we can get our politicians to agree on - which means that we, as citizens, also need to agree on it and demand they support what we do agree on.
Otherwise, you're just leaving it up to them to come up with a solution on their own when they start looking at slipping poll numbers and parents out for blood. That sounds a lot worse than compromise now and an ongoing discussion later. Digging your heels in against the headwind will only work so long and by the time you lose your grip you'll also have lost a 'seat at the table'. What we need is sensible reforms both sides are brought to agree on now, rather than later when politicians feel they need to do something that 'fixes the problem [I]now[/I]' rather than possibly lose their seat due to inaction.
[quote]When a political parties gun platform is basically "we'd like to ban almost every gun in the US that isn't single shot", its not exactly reasonable, now is it? It sounds pretty dumb, right? I mean, the logistics alone of implementing that would cost billions, not to mention the rate of non compliance, not to mention the states that flat out would tell you "eat shit". And i'm supposed to support this party as the lesser of two evils? The party that doesn't understand statistics, is supposed to fix our societal issues? Honestly, I don't believe it, at all.[/quote]
They gain favor when the other political party's platform is basically 'we'll do absolutely nothing about guns and in fact expand access to them and cheapen them where possible'. They gain that favor because people are mad and aren't being offered a sensible alternative by either political party -- but they're still willing to go for the one that is less likely to wind up killing their kids. One of these parties will be drawn to do something drastic if nothing is done - and neither option is particularly good for us from either political party right now because nobody's demanding sensible legislation on account of both political parties yelling about refusals to compromise (though one being less sensible to refuse to compromise on from a neutral stance).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
