|
Liquid Communism posted:You're never going to convince them with 'If guns didn't exist they couldn't kill anybody!' You might have better luck with 'This specific and well-defined policy has these upsides, which may outweigh your concerns', but as hakimashou notes there's been enough bad faith in the past that many gun rights proponents will regard your suggestions with suspicion at best because they'be been burned before. This seems to lead to the catch 22 outcome of being damned if we suggest any sort of regulation and damned if we do nothing. mobby_6kl posted:Representative government loving lmao. Yea I'm sure once elections are more fair, Jimbo isn't going to care about potentially overthrowing the government anymore. Did you see Oregon? WampaLord fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Mar 7, 2018 |
#
¿
Mar 7, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Burned in the sense of 'put up with restrictions as suggested by the NRA to no clear effect' in the form of the '94 AWB. That was pretty much the litmus test for gun control legislation, and the fact that it didn't have the effect it was sold as going for is a big part of why the next attempt will be a harder sell. I think it is honestly a better argument that the '94 AWB was not capable of having any real effect, because it was targeted based on fear rather than data. The weapons it attempted to restrict were already rarely used in crime, so no measure of further restriction on them could cause a meaningful change in crime rates. So how many more people have to die because we tried gun control once before and did a bad job of it? Like, ultimately all you're saying is "some people tried it before and it didn't work. Better not try again."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:Their conclusions were that poverty/income inequality were the common factors to having high homicide rates. Gun availability/ownership and tight gun regulations did not correlate with having a low homicide rate. Cool, I'm glad the NRA spends their time and money and energy promoting policies that reduce poverty and inequality to make sure that gun owners aren't being unfairly stigmatized for a problem that's not actually related to their toys. Oh, wait? They don't do that? In fact, they align with the party who's most interested in increasing poverty and inequality? WELL I'LL BE DAMNED! mobby_6kl posted:...yeah? Not every single last one of course, there are always going to be some hardliners but on the whole I would bet it would help lower this kind of sentiments dramatically. This seems painfully naive. You don't change people's crazy rear end conspiracy worldviews by making elections fairer, what in the gently caress are you on about? I say "did you see Oregon?" because a man decided to "make a stand against the government" and got shot the gently caress up by the feds and died. Do you think he wouldn't have done that if gerrymandering had been fixed? WampaLord fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Mar 8, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2018 15:04
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Yeah why doesn't the NRA fix banking regulations. Also why doesn't MADD campaign for animal welfare and can the NFL please do something about Syria??? loving woooooooooooooooosh CONTEXT motherfucker, do you understand it? Maybe look at the post I'm responding to?  - "Actually, homicides are linked to inequality"me - "Weird how the NRA isn't trying to lower inequality, thus lowering the homicide rate, and taking the heat off guns. In fact, they side with the GOP, a group who favors inequality"  "WHY WOULD THE NRA WANT TO DO ANYTHING BUT FIGHT GUN CONTROL LAWS?"
WampaLord fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Mar 8, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Also it's a good lol that your issue with the NRA is i's failure to help implement the thing it exists to lobby against and not, you know, all the racism. Man being shown countless problems with NRA: "lmao that you're showing off all of these problems when they actually have more problems. I am winning this argument."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2018 15:25
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I still think that gun control folks ought to build a big stately monument as a memorial to all the people who give their lives for the Second Amendment. Michael Bloomberg or any one of a number of philanthropists could pay for it. If we did this, people like you would accuse us of politicizing tragedies. "It's too soon to talk about gun control!" - the refrain after every single shooting Can't wait for the next bad faith argument about how the gun control side should actually try to accomplish anything.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:People like me? People who say the phrase "gun control folks" and have very opinionated ideas about how they should be behaving.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2018 03:09
|
|
|
"You have to do gun control the right way, not just poo poo like the AWB that banned attachments! IT POISONED THE WELL!" "Okay, fine, let's ban all handguns because they're used the most in killings" "THAT'S SO UNREASONABLE, SEE IF YOU GIVE AN INCH THEY'LL TRY TO BAN ALL GUNS!" 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2018 03:12
|
|
|
r.y.f.s.o. posted:I will point out that school shootings are not the only unacceptable ones loving A. "Well school shootings are only .3% of all shooting deaths, why should we bother?" is a loving ghoulish argument. As if all people killed by guns who weren't at a school don't matter. twodot posted:Finally, jeez. Ok so mass shooting "incidents" are 346 in 2017. Gun violence "incidents" are 61,522 in 2017. I'll just go ahead and concede we should definitely care about "incidents" even though I don't know what that means. That means we're talking about 0.6% of the problem (I would normally argue it's actually less than this, but for this purpose, I'll go ahead and also concede that "gun violence incidents" are a thing we should care about more than "violence incidents"). This is still too small a number to care about. Spending any amount of time talking about 0.6% of the problem is a waste of effort. How is the logical endpoint of this line of thought not "Okay, seems like we should ban all guns" twodot posted:Should's a weird word. Obviously everyone would prefer if no children died. Spending effort crafting policy to reduce 1 kid dying to 0 kids dying is just stupid. There's literally like 10,000 things you would be better off spending time on. How would you feel about this statement if the 1 kid you're talking about was yours? WampaLord fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
twodot posted:If your plan to reduce violence in America is gun control, then you are pretty much stuck on ban all guns, because anything less will be ineffective, yes. Okay. So we're dead set on "ban all guns" Now cue the tears from the gun side saying that's a ridiculous demand and WHY WON'T YOU BE REASONABLE and just let us gut whatever lovely law you're making so later we can point to it failing and go "gun control doesn't work!" You see the dilemma we're in here, and I really don't appreciate your flippancy with people's loving lives. "Well, seems like the problem is bigger than just school shootings, better ban all guns,  GOOD LUCK WITH THAT LOSERS "twodot posted:I don't want to be a gun owner at all loving lmao, like you were forced to be one. Get your loving head examined.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:Is the end goal to save lives at any cost? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ogJmp2dMDs patonthebach posted:So unless you think banning pistols is possible, which I believe will never get done in USA, then we should work on reducing the drug war, improving housing, mental health support, etc. "Better things aren't possible" - the refrain of the loving idiot centrist
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:So do you feel the same way about banning swimming? 3500 lives a year we could be saving OH NO I AM UNDONE BY THIS ELBOW DROP OF LOGIC BAN ALL SWIMMING, BAN LITERALLY ANYTHING THAT MIGHT CAUSE DEATH! I AM A LIBERAL AND I LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE BANNING THINGS!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
twodot posted:I will never have a child, so I won't pretend to understand how I would behave in that counterfactual, but if your argument is "you would also do insane stuff if you had a kid" that doesn't seem great. Okay, pretend that you are the child in question. Would you like something to be done to prevent your death, or would it just be a waste of time and 10,000 other better things could be done instead? Does your empathy kick in when it's your own rear end on the line? patonthebach posted:Seriously, why are we building these murder water pits just so you have somewhere to sit while you drink your margaritas? Just for you sick hobby? People are dying by the thousands each year. gently caress you. You're being flippant with people's loving lives to score cheap points on a dying forum.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
twodot posted:Let me understand the scenario. I am in imminent danger of dying. I somehow got control of Congress and the Presidency. Do I spend my remaining time crafting federal policy to personally save my own life or dealing with the 17 million food insecure children (for example)? Of course I choose food security, what's 1 life against 17 million? Oh my god. Twodot, what do you even want? Or do you literally just want to argue and derail this thread? Because I have loving zero sense of your actual beliefs/ethics/etc from all of the posts you've made in this thread. WHAT DO YOU WANT? Predicting your response - "I just want perfect sensible gun control that literally everyone can agree on. And a pony. Why would this be unreasonable?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:I think the right to protect yourself with a firearm is important, you don't. It's ok to disagree on that. No, you loving dumbass, this is the stupid part, statistics prove that owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning one. So it's not okay to disagree on that, you're being objectively wrong but you defend guns because they're a culture thing to you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:If we really just wanted to save as many people as possible we should ban alcohol and cigarettes tomorrow. And cheeseburgers What is different about those things? Oh right, they aren't flung at you at supersonic speeds and implanted into your body without your consent.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
twodot posted:One thing I would definitely like if for people to stop talking about mass shooting as though they were a thing that mattered for the purpose of crafting policy. Do you honestly think this is a likely thing to happen given that it's only mass shootings that actually get people interested in pushing for gun control?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:where its better for a person to have a gun than not to This part is never going to be true no matter how many times you say it. E: VVV LMAO
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:I'm not sure what this even means. What legislation do you propose to stop mass shooters? Confiscate and melt all guns. Failing that, just melt only your guns.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:This is a perfect example of the "compromise" liberals love to crank themselves off over. Compromised so good they definitely just made things worse. Ah yes, noted Florida Democratic Governor Rick Scott, who signed this bill. What a fuckup. Bad job, Dems, picking Rick Scott to run for governor.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Sorry you like more guns in schools I guess?? Go gently caress yourself
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
PT6A posted:"We" do, because he's Canadian and he's arguing entirely based on what he imagines the USA is like, and having never actually dealt with the consequences of their lax gun regulations. loving  patonthebach posted:Disarmament of Americans isn't going to happen in this generation. Wonder how many Australians were saying this a couple decades ago.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:Australia didn't ban guns outright I'd be perfectly happy starting out with copying Australia's laws and seeing how well they work here, we can move up to full ban if the shootings are still too high. I AM COMING FOR YOUR GUNS, BITCH
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:At least with a gun, they'd think, they would have some control over their fate in many situations they can easily imagine. So we have to coddle this false belief despite the increasing body count? *looks at hands* Wow, this is all so hard. Is coddling idiots who think a gun makes them safer worth thousands of deaths? Gee whillikers, sure is a lot to think about. This isn't the Wild loving West, you don't have to defend yourself against """""evildoers""""" with a loving gun.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:What does relate to homicides is things like poverty. Maybe you should sell all of your guns and give the money to homeless people. Then convince your fellow gun owners to do the same thing. It's win-win!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
Azuren posted:The left is not anti-gun. Only liberals are. I notice all of those dates are way before drones were invented.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2018 02:59
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:Yes, but imagine if you had a gun. And the old lady behind you had a gun. And the car had a gun... 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
twodot posted:It literally doesn't. You're the one who literally made up a category that accounts for <1% of gun deaths, and then said "Oh no! This category that we artificially defined that accounts for <1% of gun deaths is very bad!" You can't make up a category, and then point out that events that don't belong in that category exist as though it's someone else's fault. There's a limited number of positive numbers under 4. If we called a mass shooting anytime 3 people were injured by a shooter would you be making the same post when two people were injured? One? Let me simplify this for you, to prevent you from freaking the gently caress out about numbers in the future: ALL GUN DEATHS ARE BAD Actually, all deaths are bad, but considering we're in the gunchat thread, we're primarily focused on gun deaths, meaning deaths that resulted due to a gun being fired. This includes suicides, accidents, intentional murders, etc. Every single time a gun was fired and a dead person resulted from it, that is a bad thing. Fake Edit: Can't wait for the response of "but what about when a bad guy is killed with a gun?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:So do you think suicides don't exist or what? (I realize suicides gets you up to 1.2%, but 1) Your numbers are bullshit you couldn't even bother to explain and you're still loving up and 2) If you want to quibble about 0.2% I'll edit my posts to say <1.2% if you want) What really is a "death" anyway?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
Twodot, if you would like to talk about drunk driving, maybe start a different thread for that. This thread is about guns. Please stop trying to shift the discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Which thread keeps buying you fun new titles? The centrists in the Trump thread apparently get really mad about people actually thinking things could be better and having the moral fortitude to express that belief.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
zapplez posted:Remember when gun nuts were all "THEY WANT TO BAN ALL UR GUNS !" Years of arguing with dipshits has radicalized me. I used to not give a poo poo, but posters like twodot and Dead Reckoning have convinced me that the true only solution is a full ban and meltdown.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2018 03:02
|
|
|
zapplez posted:Can we not argue which of the particular gun control measures are the most worth while? No, we can't, because as the other posters who agree with you have made perfectly clear, they will sabotage all gun control then point to it after and go "See, it doesn't work, never compromise ever again!" I'm loving taking all of your guns, binch.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
"Guns are for safety! I need one to protect my family!" https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/status/975686522338004992 Predicting the inevitable response - "Well that was just one bad owner who didn't secure his guns, I secure my guns all the time and thus I assume that 99.9% of fellow gun owners also secure their guns despite statistics proving me wrong!"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2018 12:27
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:I assume that fully 50% of other gun owners are complete idiots, and the number might be much higher given that gun ownership skews along party lines. I see motherfuckers every day that can't even be bothered to wipe off more than 15% of the snow from their front windshield before they get on the highway; think someone like that knows what a proper gun safe is? gently caress no. And yet you support their "right" to buy as many guns as they want?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Oh no my rights have been violated should I write a letter to Karl Marx or perhaps should I call the ACLU and sue somebody. *Rent-A-Cop bleeding out, having been shot* "But this piece of paper says I have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:But as far as the laws and the courts and the mainstream is concerned this debate over 'militia' and 'the people' and all the other stuff was settled definitively many years ago. "But as far as the laws and the courts and the mainstream is concerned, this debate over 'slavery' and 'owning people as property' and all the other stuff was settled definitively many years ago." - hakimashou in 1845 The law is not always right, my friend. Defending something because it's the law of the land has been used many times to justify terrible things, please don't continue the tradition.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
Clearly we need to arm fetuses so they can act in self defense.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2018 23:39
|
|