|
Liquid Communism posted:You should tell that to SCOTUS. They seem to have stated repeatedly that self defense stands up to their level of scrutiny. Not that they're universally correct, but trying to pretend the argument you personally believe 'reasonable' is the only one isn't going to get far in discussion. That argument doesn't stand up to the data as I've already posted. It's the weakest argument for gun ownership. The conservative justices and reasonable arguments aren't exactly bedfellows either.
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 14:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
Mulva posted:You do know that plenty of states do require licenses and renewals both to own a gun, right? Like say....Massachusetts is just that. You need to talk to your local police department, you need to take a firearms course, and you need to get it renewed every....I wanna say six years? There's also strict rules for transport. You think it's a counterpoint to bring up that a handful of states have strict firearm laws? What exactly is your point with this response? Massachusetts has one of the lowest rates of gun deaths in the country, tying New York and only beat by Hawaii. Xombie fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Jun 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 14:53
|
|
|
I think this is the point where we're supposed to talk about how the state borders aren't mile high impenetrable walls and state/local gun control measures can only do so much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 14:56
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:I think this is the point where we're supposed to talk about how the state borders aren't mile high impenetrable walls and state/local gun control measures can only do so much. They do actually work in Massachusetts though because it's surrounded by other permit states. Whereas in Chicago it's next to useless, because its southern border is Indiana.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 15:01
|
|
|
Xombie posted:You think it's a counterpoint to bring up that a handful of states have strict firearm laws? What exactly is your point with this response? Massachusetts has one of the lowest rates of gun deaths in the country, tying New York and only beat by Hawaii. What's yours? Driver's licenses are also state based, and states that think it matters put the same level of restrictions on guns. Others didn't because they didn't care. It's not some massive impossibility that is never done, roughly 1/5th the country is required to do it. And no, Massachusetts isn't surrounded by other permit states. Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York are all far more lax. So again: What is your point?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
Mulva posted:What's yours? Driver's licenses are also state based, and states that think it matters put the same level of restrictions on guns. Others didn't because they didn't care. It's not some massive impossibility that is never done, roughly 1/5th the country is required to do it. Car licensing and registration is effectively uniform throughout the entire country. On top of that, the US regulates safety standards for the cars themselves at the federal level. When the US enacted a universal 21 year old drinking age in order to cut down on drunk driving, they enforced it via withholding highway funds. So no, it is not the same situation as guns right now. quote:And no, Massachusetts isn't surrounded by other permit states. Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York are all far more lax. New York has an assault weapons ban and the permit requirements for handguns. That is not "far more lax".
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:That argument doesn't stand up to the data as I've already posted. It's the weakest argument for gun ownership. The conservative justices and reasonable arguments aren't exactly bedfellows either. Yes, people with a history of severe depression shouldn't own a gun. But the other statistics are complete rubbish. Statistically some people are careless with their firearms so that must mean you will be too! Statistically some people keep a gun in the house for criminal reasons, so having a gun increases the likelihood that you'll commit a crime with it! If rights were withheld because of bumblefucks who abuse it, we wouldn't have any rights left. And as far as I'm concerned as long as police have a Supreme Court precedent that says they have zero obligation to defend your life, and plenty of real world examples illustrating exactly that thing happening, you can't fault people for wanting the capacity to defend themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 15:24
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Yes, people with a history of severe depression shouldn't own a gun. But the other statistics are complete rubbish. Statistically some people are careless with their firearms so that must mean you will be too! Statistically some people keep a gun in the house for criminal reasons, so having a gun increases the likelihood that you'll commit a crime with it! Next up: not requiring drivers licenses or car insurance for everyone that believes they're a perfect driver.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 15:27
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Car licensing and registration is effectively uniform throughout the entire country. There's a variation of 2 years for full license throughout vast swaths of the country, and those are the especially stupid teenage years. So not quite uniform. Nor are the requirements in testing for the various licenses all the same. But I guess it's all 'basically' the same to you. quote:New York has an assault weapons ban and the permit requirements for handguns. That is not "far more lax". New York City has different laws than the entire state, and a whole lot of guns in New York in general require no license to speak of. So yeah, less strict. But again, what is your point beyond random trivia?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 15:32
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Yes, people with a history of severe depression shouldn't own a gun. But the other statistics are complete rubbish. Statistically some people are careless with their firearms so that must mean you will be too! Statistically some people keep a gun in the house for criminal reasons, so having a gun increases the likelihood that you'll commit a crime with it! This is exactly why we everyone should be permitted to drink and drive. Just because some people get into accidents doesn't mean that I will get into an accident. If we tried to make it illegal to do things just because some people doing those things killed themselves or others then we wouldn't be able to do anything!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 15:32
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Yes, people with a history of severe depression shouldn't own a gun. But the other statistics are complete rubbish. Statistically some people are careless with their firearms so that must mean you will be too! Statistically some people keep a gun in the house for criminal reasons, so having a gun increases the likelihood that you'll commit a crime with it! Even if I were to grant the silly argument that those statistics don't matter (you're not the only one making it in fairness) defensive gun uses are incredibly rare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 15:33
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Next up: not requiring drivers licenses or car insurance for everyone that believes they're a perfect driver. Go ahead and mandate training and licensing for firearms just like a vehicle, I wholeheartedly support it. Car insurance, just like health insurance, is a complete scam intended to squeeze people for as much profit as possible while outright preventing or delivering the minimum amount of service. It also wouldn't do poo poo to stop mass shootings if applied to firearm ownership.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
Mulva posted:There's a variation of 2 years for full license throughout vast swaths of the country, and those are the especially stupid teenage years. So not quite uniform. Nor are the requirements in testing for the various licenses all the same. But I guess it's all 'basically' the same to you. That's very uniform compared to guns, where it varies from "very strict" to "absolutely loving nothing". quote:New York City has different laws than the entire state, and a whole lot of guns in New York in general require no license to speak of. So yeah, less strict. The two I just mentioned are New York state laws. quote:But again, what is your point beyond random trivia? If you don't want to discuss gun control, you're welcome to go somewhere else. No one is forcing you to be in the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
Xombie posted:The two I just mentioned are New York state laws. And I didn't mention them! I mentioned the others. Funny how that works right? quote:If you don't want to discuss gun control, you're welcome to go somewhere else. No one is forcing you to be in the thread. ....someone is forcing you to be in this thread? No but serious, what's the conclusion or argument here? It's just a series of disparate facts that amount to nothing. That's not a discussion, it's a loving pub quiz.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:This is exactly why we everyone should be permitted to drink and drive. Just because some people get into accidents doesn't mean that I will get into an accident. If we tried to make it illegal to do things just because some people doing those things killed themselves or others then we wouldn't be able to do anything! We've already discovered that you're arguing from a position of hypocrisy but now this bad faith garbage? Make sure you tear down that straw man real good for everyone to see, gun ownership is exactly the same as drunk driving you see.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:We've already discovered that you're arguing from a position of hypocrisy but now this bad faith garbage? Make sure you tear down that straw man real good for everyone to see, gun ownership is exactly the same as drunk driving you see. You're literally arguing that gun death statistics don't apply to you because you're real safe and careful-like. No public policy should ever be passed to reduce the danger that guns pose to the public because you're special.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 15:48
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:You're literally arguing that gun death statistics don't apply to you because you're real safe and careful-like. No public policy should ever be passed to reduce the danger that guns pose to the public because you're special. Yeah, that's how rights and privileges work. If I obey the rules I get to keep them, and people who abuse them lose them. Our whole goddamn society is built around this concept.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
Mulva posted:And I didn't mention them! I mentioned the others. Funny how that works right? Then I'll just repeat myself: New York has an assault weapons ban and the permit requirements for handguns. That is not "far more lax". That New York City has even more gun laws doesn't change that. quote:....someone is forcing you to be in this thread? I'm not the one complaining about the direction of discussion. quote:No but serious, what's the conclusion or argument here? It's just a series of disparate facts that amount to nothing. That's not a discussion, it's a loving pub quiz. I'm not quite sure how you aren't able to connect different facets of "guns should, at the minimum, be regulated at the same level of cars", when "guns should, at the minimum, be regulated at the same level of cars" is what started this thread of discussion. But again, if you're upset that you're discussing it, no one is making you respond.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:We've already discovered that you're arguing from a position of hypocrisy but now this bad faith garbage? Make sure you tear down that straw man real good for everyone to see, gun ownership is exactly the same as drunk driving you see. That isn't bad faith or a straw man.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
Xombie posted:That isn't bad faith or a straw man. The same poster thinks owning a shotgun while saying that it should be harder to buy semi-auto handguns and rifles is hypocrisy, so I don't think logic is their strong point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 16:01
|
|
|
Wrong. The hypocrisy is posts like this:Dietrich posted:If I invented a magic box that you could put in your house and told you that it would protect your property from bad people, but for every time it protected your property from a bad person, 11 good people were killed, you wouldn't buy the loving box. When you already have the magic box. It's not our fault you present your poor arguments vaguely enough that they could apply to all sorts of guns and not the ones you re now claiming are "the bad ones"
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 16:04
|
|
|
Xombie posted:I'm not quite sure how you aren't able to connect different facets of "guns should, at the minimum, be regulated at the same level of cars", when "guns should, at the minimum, be regulated at the same level of cars" is what started this thread of discussion. But again, if you're upset that you're discussing it, no one is making you respond. I don't like putting words in people's mouths, it's better people just say they mean straight up. Also, you know, how the whole debate and discussion thing works. You debate and have a discussion, you don't drop random thoughts and then go "GOD JUST INTUIT WHAT I MEANT GEEZ!". Now that you've actually said something that is a point: None of that matters at all to any real problem facing the country. None of the mass shooters would have been caught up by that requirement, nor would any randos buying illegal guns. Fine, go ask your local government to get on that if they aren't already, all seems fairly straightforward and non-objectionable. It like literally any gun control is never going to happen at a federal level, but we've already established all change doesn't have to be federal. It all kind of seems like the most pointless sort of rules lawyering masturbation that follows all gun control conversations. Nothing that matters, but it makes someone feel like they are being the adult in the room...which is all they cared about in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 16:10
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:The same poster thinks owning a shotgun while saying that it should be harder to buy semi-auto handguns and rifles is hypocrisy, so I don't think logic is their strong point. All we need to do for safe gun ownership is move our arm slightly between each shot with a weapon that can strike several people at once? Why didn't someone tell me sooner!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Wrong. The hypocrisy is posts like this: I didn't buy a magicbox to make my house safer, I bought a dangerbox to shoot birds for fun. I hope this helps?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:I didn't buy a magicbox to make my house safer, I bought a dangerbox to shoot birds for fun. I hope this helps? I'm glad the line in the sand is being drawn based on the thoughts in your head prior to purchase. By the way, murdering animals for fun is absolutely psychotic. Seek help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:I'm glad the line in the sand is being drawn based on the thoughts in your head prior to purchase. By the way, murdering animals for fun is absolutely psychotic. Seek help. The argument was about if guns make you safer. They do not. Owning a gun doesn't mean you are unable to make this argument or risk hypocrisy, so long as you did not buy it for the purposes of being safer. Just like logic 101 here pal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
Mulva posted:I don't like putting words in people's mouths, it's better people just say they mean straight up. Also, you know, how the whole debate and discussion thing works. You debate and have a discussion, you don't drop random thoughts and then go "GOD JUST INTUIT WHAT I MEANT GEEZ!". What in the hell are you on about? Literally the first and only thing I said to you was: "You mean the magic box that requires classes and a continually renewed license to operate, which has to be registered with the state and inspected upon being re-registered across state lines? The box where your safe operation of it is under constant, direct, strict police observation and enforcement?" How was this too vague for your comprehension? You brought up state-level enforcement. Those are the only two topics I've discussed with you and I have to spell it out for you how they're connected? quote:None of that matters at all to any real problem facing the country. None of the mass shooters would have been caught up by that requirement, nor would any randos buying illegal guns. Fine, go ask your local government to get on that if they aren't already, all seems fairly straightforward and non-objectionable. It like literally any gun control is never going to happen at a federal level, but we've already established all change doesn't have to be federal. Again: if you don't want to discuss gun control, maybe you shouldn't be in thread whose title is "Gun Control." You don't get to just amble into the conversation and declare it moot and everyone has to move on. Xombie fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Jun 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 16:44
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Again: if you don't want to discuss gun control, maybe you shouldn't be in thread whose title is "Gun Control." You don't get to just amble into the conversation and declare it moot and everyone has to move on. One of the favorite approaches of gun-nuts is to point out how policy a wouldn't help with gun suicides, so we shouldn't do it, policy b wouldn't help with mass shootings, so we shouldn't do it, and policy c wouldn't help with violent crime, so we shouldn't do it. Never mind that policy a was supposed to address mass shootings, while b was for violent crime and c was for suicides. Their stance is that you must address ALL PROBLEMS that guns pose with a single policy change or do nothing! Since any given policy is incapable of addressing everything at the same time, then the only thing that will work is forced buybacks and police going door to door shooting people who have guns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 16:50
|
|
|
Do we care about political realities in this thread or only theoretical fantasies where we get to implement every idea we have perfectly? I thought we were having a serious discussion but maybe I was just interrupting your solo fantasies? Because the more different measures you are tacking on that we should do the less likely we are to reach your goal
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
I mean you can get as aggro as you want, it's not going to change anything. Which is the point unless you are using this as a circle jerk chamber. If everything remains equal and nobody changes their mind "Anti-gun control" wins. For gun control to win you actually have to change minds. You seem a charismatic and persuasive group, I'm sure you have that winning argument right in your pocket. I mean you haven't made it yet but I'm sure it's there. Maybe it's throwing about the word "Gun nut" some more. No? Well poo poo. Plan B?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 16:58
|
|
|
Mulva posted:I mean you can get as aggro as you want, it's not going to change anything. Which is the point unless you are using this as a circle jerk chamber. If everything remains equal and nobody changes their mind "Anti-gun control" wins. For gun control to win you actually have to change minds. Again: if you don't want to discuss gun control, you're welcome to go discuss things you do want to discuss in threads whose title isn't "Gun Control."
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
Plan B is fundraise when the Republicans show no interest in another warmed over '90s crime control bill to give police more power, or another warmed over '90s era features-based bill that gives police more latitude to arrest minorities on weapon charges. I don't see how that would benefit anyone in this thread, but that does appear to be the plan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Do we care about political realities in this thread or only theoretical fantasies where we get to implement every idea we have perfectly? I thought we were having a serious discussion but maybe I was just interrupting your solo fantasies? Because the more different measures you are tacking on that we should do the less likely we are to reach your goal This "political reality" isn't any different for any topic where you're proposing a solution from the left. I fail to see why it's a trump card for gun control when it isn't for any other topic of conversation. Like Mulva, if you don't actually like the topic of gun control, no one is forcing you to be part of it. But if all you have to add to the discussion is the thought-terminating cliché of "America is pretty conservative", what exactly do you want people to discuss with you? It isn't actually up to anyone here to "sell" the idea of gun control, because none of us are actually politicians.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 17:19
|
|
|
gently caress off with trying to frame disagreeing with you as deserving of punishment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:gently caress off with trying to frame disagreeing with you as deserving of punishment. What in the hell are you talking about?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 17:21
|
|
|
Xombie posted:What in the hell are you talking about? Your repeated declarations that we aren't talking about gun control correctly, obviously. you bad faith rear end in a top hat "Relating gun control to other issues is off topic in the gun control thread" 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 17:22
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Your repeated declarations that we aren't talking about gun control correctly, obviously, you bad faith rear end in a top hat I'm pointing out that you're stating that discussing gun control is useless, in the gun control discussion thread. In what way is it "bad faith" to point out that this is just a thought-terminating cliche that doesn't add anything purposeful to the discussion, any more than it does on proposing any leftist solution to any problem in the United States. I'd still like to know how that, in any way, shape, or form is saying you "deserve punishment". quote:"Relating gun control to other issues is off topic in the gun control thread" I didn't ask anyone to moderate you. I said that if you don't like discussing the topic, there's lots of other topics on the forum you can discuss. But people don't have to stop talking about gun control just because, some poster, think it's pointless. Xombie fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Jun 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 17:25
|
|
|
Xombie posted:This "political reality" isn't any different for any topic where you're proposing a solution from the left. I fail to see why it's a trump card for gun control when it isn't for any other topic of conversation. Like Mulva, if you don't actually like the topic of gun control, no one is forcing you to be part of it. But if all you have to add to the discussion is the thought-terminating cliché of "America is pretty conservative", what exactly do you want people to discuss with you? It isn't actually up to anyone here to "sell" the idea of gun control, because none of us are actually politicians. Mulva seems to like the topic of gun control just fine, and his posts have been operating more in the realm of reality than the virtue signaling clowns that want to circlejerk about how much smarter they are than a gun-owner. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 17:26
|
|
|
"I keep telling you that your posts on this topic are not relevant and don't belong here I can't understand why you'd interpret that as an effort to have your posts removed forcibly in this, the forum where that has been SOP for a decade+"
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:"I keep telling you that your posts on this topic are not relevant and don't belong here I didn't say your posts about how we should stop discussing this "don't belong here". In reality, what I said is that they don't add anything to the conversation except to state that you don't like having the conversation. If you don't like having the conversation, no one is making you be part of it. quote:I can't understand why you'd interpret that as an effort to have your posts removed forcibly in this, the forum where that has been SOP for a decade+" I'm curious what "force" is being used in reminding you that you don't actually need to be part of a discussion you don't see as purposeful. And reminding you that it doesn't mean other people can't continue with the discussion just because you don't see it as purposeful. And once again, I'll ask what you think "this idea is pointless because conservative America hates it" adds to a discussion in a forum where the vast majority of posters are coming from the left side of the spectrum with their solutions to any political problem in the US.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 17:32
|
|