|
Calibanibal posted:Don't believe Big Med and Big Enviro, lead is fine. i take lead supplements every day Can't have leadership without lead!
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
iirc most states stipulate that steel birdshot must be usedTrabisnikof posted:Can't have leadership without lead! can't spell leadership without lead ship
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
I miss the Democrats thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:iirc most states stipulate that steel birdshot must be used In Trump's America you can even use lead in wildlife refuges http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/322058-interior-secretary-repeals-ban-on-lead-ammunition
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I miss the Democrats thread. that post / name combo though, holy poo poo Trabisnikof posted:In Trump's America you can even use lead in wildlife refuges Hey isn't that just loving swell, I was just looking at putting a reverse osmosis system in my house for drinking water that definitely everyone can afford so they can keep the gobs of lead that birdshot leeches into public waterways out of their blood we were just seeing lead concentrations dive meaningfully in wetlands, and now this Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:Don't believe Big Med and Big Enviro, lead is fine. i take lead supplements every day Are you related to Thomas Midgley Jr.?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:i mean, the effects of lead exposure on people and on the environment is kind of a well known thing at this point. and those lead bullets have to go somewhere. Yes, it does - https://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/lead_poisoning/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2673067
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Because as an absolute, the law against murder restricts my freedom to lash out angrily. "All freedoms, drat the cost" is Might Makes Right and so yeah it is a pretty monsterous ideology.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
By the way what I actually meant was Death To America.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
twodot posted:Even if Dead Reckoning is, specifically, full of poo poo, I do think you need a better answer to "my deontology tells me individual freedoms are good, and if increasing individual freedoms also increases injuries/deaths, so be it" than "oh, you're just a horrible monster". Like we pretty regularly see anti-gun control people compare guns to other freedoms like speech or printing presses, and there should be a counter argument that different freedoms have different values and we should tolerate different trade offs based on the comparative values. The answer is that one's freedom ends where it infringes on the freedom of others. If the externalites of exercising some form of freedom include injury and death of members of the public (i.e. limit their enjoyment of the most fundamental freedom), it is no longer in compliance with this very basic standard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
twodot posted:Even if Dead Reckoning is, specifically, full of poo poo, I do think you need a better answer to "my deontology tells me individual freedoms are good, and if increasing individual freedoms also increases injuries/deaths, so be it" than "oh, you're just a horrible monster". Like we pretty regularly see anti-gun control people compare guns to other freedoms like speech or printing presses, and there should be a counter argument that different freedoms have different values and we should tolerate different trade offs based on the comparative values. In the case of "increasing individual freedoms also increases injuries/deaths" - freedom from unjust injury and death is being lost. Our rights to express our freedoms extend only until they start interfering with somebody else's rights. I also do not agree that reasonable regulations of dangerous items represent a loss of individual freedom, and conversely, a lack of regulation is not a scenario of "increased freedom." e: fb
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
twodot posted:If you find someone arguing against laws against murder, then sure you can probably just call them a monster. Meanwhile non-idiots will see this post and think "murder is an action that reduces individual freedom, so a law against murder is increasing individual freedom". Like if you want a thread where a bunch of gun control advocates high five each other about how terrible the political other is, that's cool, but if you're going to engage in a discussion you need to actually address the philosophies of the people who disagree with you. Ok but if someone is willing to say "stopping murder is increasing freedoms" then getting them to admit "stopping murder via guns is increasing freedoms" sounds more doable than would be with most anti-regulation posters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
what about my freedom not be murdered?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
twodot posted:Even if Dead Reckoning is, specifically, full of poo poo, I do think you need a better answer to "my deontology tells me individual freedoms are good, and if increasing individual freedoms also increases injuries/deaths, so be it" than "oh, you're just a horrible monster". Like we pretty regularly see anti-gun control people compare guns to other freedoms like speech or printing presses, and there should be a counter argument that different freedoms have different values and we should tolerate different trade offs based on the comparative values. Your individual freedom to spew lead into the environment from a gun is just as valid as your individual freedom to spew lead into the environment from the exhaust of your car. Containing the negative externalities of behavior is a core function of government, and finding a balance between those externalities and the benefits of freedom happens all the time, including with printing presses (copyright) and speech (fraud, threats, and incitement).
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:that post / name combo though, holy poo poo Also don't understand duck hunting. Duck isn't that good and chickens are way easier to shoot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Teriyaki Koinku posted:Holy poo poo, I can't even imagine the frame of mind you'd need to feel compelled to try and have your own stepson deported. Tons of Germans reported their neighbors to the gestapo for petty poo poo like playing music too loud or leaving a rake on the lawn. They just called the local police and said they had a communist to report and *poof* their rude neighbor would disappear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:what about my freedom not be murdered? Sorry, there's only one freedom allowed in the US
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
This is America where you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but not the right to food, shelter or medical care.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:This is America where you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but not the right to food, shelter or medical care. Also not to life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:This is America where you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but not the right to food, shelter or medical care. *Liberty subject to redefinition without notice. Not a guarantee
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:By the way what I actually meant was Death To America. Jesus loving Christ. I wish I hadn't read that. I really hope I'm wrong and there is a God and Hell because I will gladly burn if those fuckers are with me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
If a bunch of high school kids had up and lynched Ron Johnson I would have more faith in the American public to not warrant its own national suicide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:*Liberty subject to redefinition without notice. Not a guarantee The government can't interfere with those rights, but it doesn't say anything about other citizens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The answer is that one's freedom ends where it infringes on the freedom of others. If the externalites of exercising some form of freedom include injury and death of members of the public (i.e. limit their enjoyment of the most fundamental freedom), it is no longer in compliance with this very basic standard. captainblastum posted:In the case of "increasing individual freedoms also increases injuries/deaths" - freedom from unjust injury and death is being lost. Our rights to express our freedoms extend only until they start interfering with somebody else's rights. I also do not agree that reasonable regulations of dangerous items represent a loss of individual freedom, and conversely, a lack of regulation is not a scenario of "increased freedom." Trabisnikof posted:Ok but if someone is willing to say "stopping murder is increasing freedoms" then getting them to admit "stopping murder via guns is increasing freedoms" sounds more doable than would be with most anti-regulation posters. edit: JeffersonClay posted:Your individual freedom to spew lead into the environment from a gun is just as valid as your individual freedom to spew lead into the environment from the exhaust of your car. twodot fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
twodot posted:So this is a thing that Dead Reckoning complains about sometimes, and I think it's a legitimate complaint. There's no way you are generalizing this rule past guns. Functionally every action has some non-zero chance of impinging on other people, I can't drive a car without risking injuring someone, I can't throw a ball without risking injuring someone. Statistically, guns are roughly as dangerous as cars to Americans, but we never act concerned about the freedom of being able to drive having negative externalities imposed on pedestrians or other drivers. We build infrastructure and regulations to make driving as safe as possible, but that's all actions built on preserving people's ability to drive, I've never seen anyone argue that we need to fundamentally curtail the right to drive because of its externalities it imposes on everyone else (except obviously at the individual level with license suspensions and such). (And like I said earlier, I think the right to drive is a lot more important than the right to own guns, and it's appropriate we make different trade offs for those rights, but that's based on a value system, not on an idea that we need to balance rights that have hypothetical indirect impacts on each other) Cars and guns are different, in fact, guns are basically unique among objects in that all they do is shoot high velocity projectiles that seriously injure things (including targets), they have no other positive benefit, like quickly transporting a person from one place to another. Stop trying to compare how we treat anything else to how we should treat guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:Statistically, guns are roughly as dangerous as cars to Americans, but we never act concerned about the freedom of being able to drive having negative externalities imposed on pedestrians or other drivers. We build infrastructure and regulations to make driving as safe as possible, but that's all actions built on preserving people's ability to drive, I've never seen anyone argue that we need to fundamentally curtail the right to drive because of its externalities it imposes on everyone else (except obviously at the individual level with license suspensions and such). (And like I said earlier, I think the right to drive is a lot more important than the right to own guns, and it's appropriate we make different trade offs for those rights, but that's based on a value system, not on an idea that we need to balance rights that have hypothetical indirect impacts on each other) Cars are objectively useful for society, so making them available and as safe as possible is an overall net good. Guns are useless toys that are only good for killing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Cars are objectively useful for society, so making them available and as safe as possible is an overall net good. Guns are useless toys that are only good for killing. WampaLord posted:Cars and guns are different, in fact, guns are basically unique among objects in that all they do is shoot high velocity projectiles that seriously injure things (including targets), they have no other positive benefit, like quickly transporting a person from one place to another.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Cars are objectively useful for society, so making them available and as safe as possible is an overall net good. Guns are useless toys that are only good for killing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Alcoholic beverages have no redeeming social benefit and serious negative externalities, yet people will tie themselves in knots in order to insist that it shouldn't be subject to the same scrutiny as guns. Because it's not actually about some numeric calculation of lives lost. And no one would suggest banning cars for those who need them to get to work, or to get food, but any vehicle not deemed suitable for those purposes should be banned, as should all recreational car trips. Is saving time getting to the bar or the movie theater really worth the lives that would be saved by reducing passenger-miles? (Sound familiar?) Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
twodot posted:I was responding to posters that made a generalized argument (that freedoms having externalities is a reason to curtail freedoms, seems very "we had to burn the village to save the village" to me), so I replied in generalized terms. If you think gun control advocates should stop making generalized arguments, then I completely agree, it's like a huge rhetorical trap for them. I've repeatedly said the right way to deal with (read: trick them into consequentialism) deontologists is to get them to analyze the comparative values of different freedoms. No, you are making the dumbest argument that exists. Hmm, you claim "Nazis are bad" but what if I replace the word Nazis with the word Jews! Wow, guess your argument falls apart huh 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
twodot posted:So this is a thing that Dead Reckoning complains about sometimes, and I think it's a legitimate complaint. There's no way you are generalizing this rule past guns. Functionally every action has some non-zero chance of impinging on other people, I can't drive a car without risking injuring someone, I can't throw a ball without risking injuring someone. Statistically, guns are roughly as dangerous as cars to Americans, but we never act concerned about the freedom of being able to drive having negative externalities imposed on pedestrians or other drivers. We build infrastructure and regulations to make driving as safe as possible, but that's all actions built on preserving people's ability to drive, I've never seen anyone argue that we need to fundamentally curtail the right to drive because of its externalities it imposes on everyone else (except obviously at the individual level with license suspensions and such). (And like I said earlier, I think the right to drive is a lot more important than the right to own guns, and it's appropriate we make different trade offs for those rights, but that's based on a value system, not on an idea that we need to balance rights that have hypothetical indirect impacts on each other) Cars are pretty strictly regulated, my man, both from the manufacturing and end user standpoint. Though I bet there are still people who believe unleaded gasoline and safety belts are a UN conspiracy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
^^^ loving Sudafed is better regulated than guns or ammo purchases at this point. This is why you want the right to own guns. So you can kill as many police as possible before you kill yourself, instead of being taken into custody. It's the better option in america now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Lemming posted:No, you are making the dumbest argument that exists. steinrokkan posted:The answer is that one's freedom ends where it infringes on the freedom of others. If the externalites of exercising some form of freedom include injury and death of members of the public (i.e. limit their enjoyment of the most fundamental freedom), it is no longer in compliance with this very basic standard. steinrokkan posted:Cars are pretty strictly regulated, my man, both from the manufacturing and end user standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Also don't understand duck hunting. Duck isn't that good and chickens are way easier to shoot. Duck has to be cooked right and most get it wrong. Still, buying a gin and enough ammo to practice and getting a blind or boat plus a big enough truck to hold all this poo poo and take it to the woods or wetlands for a few days each year.... it might actually end up costlier than my own expensive hobby, backpacking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
twodot posted:Show me where the word "gun" or whatever word you think I've replaced is, is in this post: This entire loving post is you replacing "guns" with "cars" and ignoring all other context, idiot. There are more relevant factors than "how many people does this kill a year."
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
twodot posted:Show me where the word "gun" or whatever word you think I've replaced is, is in this post: You might have a "right" to buy a car but you certainly don't have a right to drive it. I wonder how many states have blue laws on gun sales?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You might have a "right" to buy a car but you certainly don't have a right to drive it.  !!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:considering how common lead rounds still are, a shooting range has gotta end up kicking up a bunch of lead dust. even somebody going hunting with lead rounds, that lead is gonna end up in the meat from what you kill, take home and eat. If someone wants to have lead in the thing they killed let them do so. Don't take it away from them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
The fundamental right is not disputed because the utility of owning a car is beyond doubt, and yet your ability to use it is still severely restricted. You also can't buy any car you want. You can't buy a car with rotating blades attached to it, or a car with spikes jutting from the front mask. Or a car designed to flood its surroundings with excessive amounts of carbon monoxide. Besides, buying a gun is more like buying a canister of DDT than a car (except people thought DDT was good at one point). Either you plan on keeping it locked in a safe, in which case what do you lose by not having it, or you plan on carrying it around, in which case you are a hazard and must accept that your behavior is going to be restricted by law. I say people should be allowed to buy guns, as long as they accept the selection is going to be restricted, and that their ability to use them and have them in public is going to be severely curtailed based on utilitarian principles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Cars are pretty strictly regulated, my man, both from the manufacturing and end user standpoint. No, they're not, not in the way you think at least. I can build a dragster with no plates, that runs on coal slurry, and has no seat belts, and let a felon with a suspended license drive it, and as long as I do it on private property for non-commercial purposes, the state DMV and Highway Patrol won't say squat. Virtually every law related to the operation of motor vehicles is with respect to operating them on public roads, lands, or waterways. I think gun ownership should be the same way, that you can more or less do as you please and own what you want on private property (so long as it doesn't endanger your neighbors) and that public activity should be regulated by a series of shall-issue licenses, depending on what you want to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 19:04
|
|