|
twodot posted:I'm not the one who knows for sure, r.y.f.s.o. is the one making those assertions. If you don't like them reply to them. edit: Thus my use of the word "if".
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Gun control cannot fail. It can only be failed. Since we have over a hundred studies that tell us gun control is effective if done right, and ineffective if done badly, then yes this statement is literally 100% true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is a little weird to me, I'm not even disagreeing, I just don't understand how you could make these observations and then think that anything could even happen in this thread. What do you imagine a thing happening in this thread looks like? Like if we for sure know that other countries gun control systems would work in America, and we for sure know enacting those systems is untenable in America, what's left to talk about other than pedantry? Lots of policies and social movements were untenable until they weren't - so I think it can become a thing even if it isn't, and wasn't, practical or possible. We have a better chance of getting somewhere if we address the fundamental differences in philosophy instead of getting lost in the statistical weeds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Since we have over a hundred studies that tell us gun control is effective if done right, and ineffective if done badly, then yes this statement is literally 100% true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I am glad we agree that passing stupid gun control laws doesn't work. When can I expect to see your full throated opposition to the stupid laws currently in place? I wholeheartedly support replacing them with effective gun control laws
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I wholeheartedly support replacing them with effective gun control laws Finally we are bridging the ideological divide.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Ammo is heavily regulated in Norway, but not that regulated. You need a license and identification to buy ammo, you don't need to wait three months.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
Elizabethan Error posted:no, that would be you. r.y.f.s.o. said they have worked. he didn't say 'in america', you did. r.y.f.s.o. posted:Lots of policies and social movements were untenable until they weren't - so I think it can become a thing even if it isn't, and wasn't, practical or possible. quote:We have a better chance of getting somewhere if we address the fundamental differences in philosophy instead of getting lost in the statistical weeds. A: "I think further gun control regulations are net beneficial due to my value system." B: "I disagree, my value system says further gun control regulations are not net beneficial" A: "Well my value system is better so you should adopt mine." B: "Well my value system is better so you should adopt mine."
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Ammo is heavily regulated in Norway, but not that regulated. You need a license and identification to buy ammo, you don't need to wait three months. even if you did... so what? I buy any number of commodities to support my desired lifestyle months in advance. Try getting firewood around here in the middle of winter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:even if you did... so what? I buy any number of commodities to support my desired lifestyle months in advance. Try getting firewood around here in the middle of winter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
twodot posted:Like how could this work? The whole purpose of a difference in philosophy is that they're not reconcilable. Is the thread you want: Well you still have people arguing against gun control within the confines of value system A ("actually, gun control doesn't reduce homicides", "actually, shooting at kids and missing them isn't a problem for kids") and they are factually wrong so there's that to discuss.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
twodot posted:Like how could this work? The whole purpose of a difference in philosophy is that they're not reconcilable. Is the thread you want: That's pretty much this thread in a nutshell. With a side of: A: "You're a babykilling monster for not sharing my value system on this topic." B: "No compromise, then. Come and take them." A: "Why won't these people listen to -reason-?!?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:"No compromise, then. Come and take them." Agreed, compromise is impossible because the compromises gun nuts demand make gun control ineffective, and they immediately use that ineffectiveness to lie about gun control and also to cry that they're being persecuted with laws that don't work but are passed anyway because everyone hates them for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
twodot posted:I literally can't possibly care if you think I'm misinterpreting r.y.f.s.o.'s posts, they're active in the thread, they can correct me if they like. Liquid Communism posted:That's pretty much this thread in a nutshell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
twodot posted:Like how could this work? The whole purpose of a difference in philosophy is that they're not reconcilable. Is the thread you want: One of these value systems leads to increased actual deaths in the actual real world, that's why it's not just a loving philosophy debate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
r.y.f.s.o. posted:Pro-Gun arguments come in the form of: This feels a bit disingenuous. There are definitely some people who see right to hunting and right to self defense as the end all to gun control. However, you are leaving out probably the one compelling argument for it being a right (aka probably the founder's actual intention) that armed revolution is the final protection against tyranny. Of course, your typical NRA member ain't about to sign up for Marxist revolt so  Rent-A-Cop posted:Some goons would probably need a forklift to move 3 months worth of ammo. I think the idea is if you're queuing a stockpile over the wait it'll raise some flags.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:One of these value systems leads to increased actual deaths in the actual real world, that's why it's not just a loving philosophy debate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Ammo is heavily regulated in Norway, but not that regulated. You need a license and identification to buy ammo, you don't need to wait three months. Switzerland, you do. Liquid Communism posted:That's pretty much this thread in a nutshell. A: "We want a system of licenses and registration with mental health checks and proper background checks!" B:"But what about fighting tyranny, my gubamint is gonna take my guns RA RA COME AND TAKE EM!" Yeah, you guys are totally the rational bunch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
twodot posted:I totally agree, I'm replying to a poster that appears to want a philosophy debate, and I'm asking what in the world that's supposed to look like. Philosophy debates are a thing that happen... You might say all of Western reason is based around philosophical debate. The goal would be to work out what our underlying axioms are and find where there may be a contradiction. MixMastaTJ fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Mar 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:The goal would be to work out what our underlying axioms are
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:Philosophy debates are thing that happen... You might say all of Western reason is based around philosophical debate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:In this thread? I think it's pretty clear the underlying axiom is "Everyone who disagrees with me is evil." Well, they ARE condoning murder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Well, they ARE condoning murder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
twodot posted:Everyone knows where the contradiction is everyone who wants gun control values gun control over people buying guns and everyone who doesn't want gun control doesn't value gun control over people buying guns. If your response to that is "Well those people are monsters" then fine whatever, but I don't see any philosophical conversation to be had. "Gun control > buying guns" and "buying guns > gun control" are both pretty lovely axioms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:"Gun control > buying guns" and "buying guns > gun control" are both pretty lovely axioms. Feel free to prove me wrong. I'm not claiming to be an oracle of all philosophical discussion, I just don't see any philosophy to discuss here, and I'm asking the people who think there is to show me what they think it looks like. Anything I can imagine will reduce down to conflicting value systems. edit: One time I tried to have a philosophical discussion in a gun debate by arguing we need a rigorous argument against anti-gun control people that are deontologists, but the whole thread was just like "nope, deontologists are just monsters, just call them monsters". twodot fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Mar 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
It's "my fun toys/objects of violent fantasy" vs "less dead people", and weirdly the people who prefer the first idea are bothered when others act like they're anything less than morally pristine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
twodot posted:Everyone knows where the contradiction is everyone who wants gun control values gun control over people buying guns and everyone who doesn't want gun control doesn't value gun control over people buying guns. If your response to that is "Well those people are monsters" then fine whatever, but I don't see any philosophical conversation to be had. No, this isn't right, people can still buy guns in countries with effective gun control. And gun control isn't an end in itself it's a means to prevent murders. Everyone who doesn't want gun control values not being minorly inconvenienced and also resisting transparent to them culture-war issues like registration over people being murdered. But they won't say that hence pages of bad faith arguments like "it doesn't work anyway" or "drivebys at schools aren't bad look this time no one even got hit" or "when is a school shooting not a school shooting, whenever I can find an excuse to make the number look smaller" and also the argument you're making right now. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Mar 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Gun control is impossible because the NRA makes gun control advocates vote for stupid legislation. We've settled this guys. Pack it in. Good game everyone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
Everyone who wants a gun is limited to 25 rounds of ammunition. Period. If you want to buy more, you have to turn in an equal number of shell casings that are serialized and registered to you to buy it. Also all gun records should be digitized and electronically searchable (spoiler alert, they aren't right now). Or we could just, you know, ban guns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
I like the LC, R-a-C tag team of "why won't you be reasonable and compromise" and "it's your fault you compromised, now we will be unreasonable forever"
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:That's pretty much this thread in a nutshell. i'm sure it has nothing to do with asking people what kind of gun control they'd find acceptable and being told "none, dont write new laws" but fine i'll bite, what would you like to see, propose some poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:I mean value systems are complicated but come to simple conclusions, what's to do about it? Like if you hold such a specific principal as an axiom you probably haven't given a lot of thought to your actual core beliefs. The U.S. Constitution was written around the core axioms that "Every person is entitled to the right of life and liberty." Now, logically your right to life implies that you have the right to not be shot. But right to liberty implies you should be able to own a piece of metal that shoots things. So at what point is the risk to right of life more valuable than another's liberty? Or, more specifically, is it reasonable to encroach on liberty if it poses significant enough risk to lives? Can something so dangerous even be considered an implicit liberty?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Everyone who wants a gun is limited to 25 rounds of ammunition. Period. If you want to buy more, you have to turn in an equal number of shell casings that are serialized and registered to you to buy it. no, you get one bullet at a time, better get real good at aiming
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
The statistical analyses show that the vast majority of gun legislation has reduced the homicide and suicide rates whereas only a few laws have been shown to be ineffective One side points to that fact and says "we should enact some of these more effective forms of legislation nationwide" The other side chooses to only talk about the few laws that were ineffective and says "gun control can never work" Which side is more accurately describing reality? That's a rhetorical question, the anti-gun control people are ridiculous
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
Stupid laws aren't compromise. Gun control proponents love dumb laws and do them on purpose. There is no other explanation for the continued demands for another AWB, or something like CA's .50 ban.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I like the LC, R-a-C tag team of "why won't you be reasonable and compromise" and "it's your fault you compromised, now we will be unreasonable forever" It's super effective! at showing the catch 22 that gun control will always face because the pro-gun side all have the mentality of "don't give an inch"
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:Like if you hold such a specific principal as an axiom you probably haven't given a lot of thought to your actual core beliefs. The U.S. Constitution was written around the core axioms that "Every person is entitled to the right of life and liberty." Now, logically your right to life implies that you have the right to not be shot. But right to liberty implies you should be able to own a piece of metal that shoots things. quote:Or, more specifically, is it reasonable to encroach on liberty if it poses significant enough risk to lives? Can something so dangerous even be considered an implicit liberty?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Stupid laws aren't compromise. Gun control proponents love dumb laws and do them on purpose. They are misguided attempts to compromise with gun nuts in the foolish hope that leaving some of their guns alone will be okay, this is dumb as you demonstrate, if you give in to their demands and half-rear end it they will just cry that the half-rear end laws don't work and they're so oppressed blah blah blah. If you hate dumb laws then campaign for Norway style laws that work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
twodot posted:Ok but answering the question of "when is something more valuable than another thing" is a thing we resolve by employing value systems, so I don't see how this gets us out of the value system trap. Well, it certainly doesn't get us out of the "value systems" trap if your response to "what are your values?" Is "this is a value system trap" rather than just defining those values.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:28
|
|