Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004

Professor Beetus posted:

There aren't any with higher gun ownership rates either, so even here your initial assertion is false and it's really on you to show that gun ownership isn't the problem in the country with the most mass shootings, the most guns, and the highest rate of gun ownership.

cross posting this because it's a great example of how suddenly everyone seems to be forgetting that correlation is not causation. If you forced all the collectors to go down to five gun max each we'd still have a mass shooting problem.

Also worthing that the mass shooting problem is recent while we've been gun nutty forever.

I fully support a national handgun ban. I don't think we'll ever get it, but it's what we need.

Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Jun 2, 2022

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
What is an unprovable simplification? That stockpiles of guns correlate but do not cause the mass shootings? Your own point about recently purchased guns supports this. Easy availability, not existing stockpiles.

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
It's great say there's all sorts of ways to counteract an argument from futility but you also have to actually be able to do so and it doesn't look like we're actually getting gun control anytime soon no matter how much it's l good and we want it

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004

Xombie posted:

Your argument is that there will be no gun control because the GOP will win senate seats in four of: Vermont, New York, Illinois, Maryland, California, Washington, and Hawaii?

Obviously not. the Dems aren't getting the 60 votes they need.

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
Either way they don't really have to pass anything, just prevent the Dems from doing so, which is easily done by them. And they will have no qualms about nuking the filibuster with their secure control of various state houses and SCOTUS

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004

Xombie posted:

It doesn't seem like they've ever had any trouble doing this without a majority.

All the more reason not to expect gun control legislation to pass. :smith:

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
The more infallible the government is the more I don't want to give up my guns right before Republicans take it over permanently. You've got a serious messaging problem on your hands even if you're right

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
Yeah be even more suspicious of anything the GOP is willing to let get to biden's desk.

I'm okay with background checks and handgun bans but we're never getting those. We're probably never getting anything.

Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jun 6, 2022

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004

Dietrich posted:

No, the point is that hundreds of children must die every year so that leftists can have zero-friction access to military style semi-automatic weapons, it's actually the lesser of two evils. Ignore the fact that the fascists are actually way more likely to have them.

You're confusing correlation with causation and somehow that has you attacking people with the least power to do any of the things you want.

get a loving grip

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004

Dietrich posted:

No, you're right, zero-friction access to weapons that only exists in america can't possibly be related to our several orders of magnitude higher levels of gun violence and deaths both here and in all the countries that our guns end up being smuggled into, it's just a coincidence.

Correlation is in fact a relationship. You may notice some etymological similarity if you examine the words closely.

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004

Jaxyon posted:

Taking guns away from fascists is bad actually, I guess?

Passing more antigun laws won't actually get the fascist police to take the guns away from their fascist friends but it will give them cover of law to take them away from people they would like to abuse who aren't already involved in drugs

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
Edit- Very good Dietrich. Now that we have reached this understanding can you see where you went wrong in saying that some dumb internet leftist's opinion lead to a bunch of people dying?

The problem isn't "criminals don't follow the law" its that we don't actually have law enforcement that we can rely on as a nation. Doesn't look like there's really much in the way of solutions going forward for us though

Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Jun 6, 2022

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004

Xombie posted:

This is your blueprint for a leftist anti-whole-government armed insurrection that justifies our society continuing to use children as bullet sponges?

I don't think this is happening and is aggressively unfair to the people making arguments about various efforts being misguided.

When we give you a big long list of other things that need to be addressed in order to have a chance of enacting meaningful gun control that achieves your aim, which inevitably circles back to the eternal argument of D*D, it's only an argument from futility if you don't want to do those other, also good, things.


Also reciting the number of people charged doesn't rebut his analysis of the ultimate punishment as a slap on the wrist because you aren't actually making an argument. I don't know that it can be rebutted but maybe we can total the jailtime and number of participants once the dust settles and see how we feel, you are right that it is ongoing.

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
It's not really the argument, but the mistakes made arguing against it are pretty distracting.

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
I'm perfectly fine with gun control after the revolution. The list of things that need to be fixed before gun control seems like it's achievable is quite long

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
Bish wants to keep his low odds die roll available and you pounding on the low probability he has already acknowledged is just beating a dead horse for pages and pages.

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004

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.

Is this how you think owning a gun works in practice at the individual level? This isn't how statistics apply to reality at all so it's a really super ineffective argument at the individual level.

If I buy another gun and stick it in my safe, I was able to do so extra easily due to an extensively sick society. But there's no magical propagation of gun culture deaths radiating out from my safe. Your loving up causality again.

Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Jun 7, 2022

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
You should sell your gun. I don't know how you can make these bad statistical arguments with a straight face while owning one.

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
Okay sure funny haha but can you actually reconcile gun ownership with the various bad arguments you've made? Because it's pretty glaring what a massive hypocrite you are.

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004

Dietrich posted:

No, the point is that hundreds of children must die every year so that leftists can have zero-friction access to military style semi-automatic weapons, it's actually the lesser of two evils. Ignore the fact that the fascists are actually way more likely to have them.

Like you're literally the one arguing that your gun ownership is responsible for the death of children.

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
The magic box that is literally murdering the planet and we also can't do anything about that

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
Can you quote a post saying that? There's a lot of straw flying around.

I don't think the localized unsafety is a significant increase. There's a lot of correlating factors being conflated as causing the epidemic of gun violence in this country and I think counterarguments to those incorrect conflations are being misconstrued.

Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Jun 7, 2022

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
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"

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
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

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
gently caress off with trying to frame disagreeing with you as deserving of punishment.

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004

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" :mods:

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
"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+"

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
You keep framing disagreement with you as disagreement with the conversation itself, to tell people that disagreeing with you is not productive participation. gently caress you. You stop disagreeing with me.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
I'm pretty sure you keep using regular quotes and not forum quotes because no one actually said that.

And I have been repeatedly assured that reality is relevant to our conversations. which definitely sucks as a Leftist

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004

Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:

weird gun hoarders are going to hoard guns regardless, what they waste their disposable income on is of little consequence when it comes to public health

this is a bit like saying encouraging vaccines just puts more money into the pockets of big ivermectin. so what?

The laws we are most likely to get aren't the ones most likely to benefit public health. We aren't getting handgun bans.

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004

Main Paineframe posted:

Yes, the perception that gun control is coming drives gun sales...but this perception is largely independent of whether there's actually any gun control coming. .

Don't know if I would go quite as far as this. I don't think you're going to be slipping any gun control bills past them without their perception picking it up.

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004

Cease to Hope posted:

It's not hard to compare numbers of rejected 4473 (not 4437, whoops) applications (a half million annually) to actual prosecutions for those violations (hundreds). And these are all clear-cut cases of people attempting to buy guns illegally. It's a reasonable extrapolation to look at that and assume that the anecdotes of the ATF letting people skate are part of an unmeasurable systemic problem.

Do you have any data on the basis of rejection? There's all sorts of room for confounding factors here, it seems like quite a leap from "government rejected a form" to "hundreds of thousands of crimes just being ignored apparently."

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004

Cease to Hope posted:

No, you've convinced yourself to accept an ocean of blood to offer you this opportunity to indulge in the fantasy of being one of the vanishingly rare "good guys with a gun".

This implies a level of control that I don't think exists for any of us.

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004

Cease to Hope posted:

And the idea that guns are somehow fending off Jim Crow is laughable. Who do you think is pushing the gun sales and Stand Your Ground laws?

I don't think they were saying that, it was more an example commentary on general American shittiness.

Not if "you do this then" but "even if you got us to do a good thing, we'd still be us and this horrific idea would be unsurprising"

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
It has everything to do with why Americans are constantly killing and the possible effectiveness of any gun control we manage to get

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
So stats are ok to use when you want to say how they will affect what happens when an individual chooses to arm themself, but not ok to use to describe the collective behavior of a broad group? It seems like you have this exactly backwards.

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004

Cease to Hope posted:

It's American politics in general. It's hardly limited to guns. If you find discussing American politics futile, I'm not sure what this discussion has for you.

Where did they say the discussion is futile? It really seems like y'all just keep twisting new ways to tell Mulva that they should stop posting here

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004

Kalit posted:

I'm still confused. If this is your argument, why have you stated, or at least inferred, multiple times that passing gun control legislation doesn't matter because of SCOTUS (bolded parts mine)?

What's confusing about this? In addition to getting laws passed we have to deal with a corrupted system and unaccountable wizards. These are not contradictory arguments, these are barriers that exist.

Edit- were you actually confused by the rhetorical use of "you only have to"? I think that was meant not so much as a statement that there was only one barrier but a rhetorical statement on the unlikelihood of overcoming that barrier and reaching the next.

Edit- on for further reflection the unaccountable wizards are included in the "and their state".

Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Jul 1, 2022

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
And of course we also have federal and state layers. Important because you can align everything up at the state level and then get shut down by scotus. Lots of different places agents of capital can step in and shut it all down.

I guess if we're already just talking about the federal layer is covered.

Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Jul 1, 2022

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
Bullying is the norm among conservatives, who believe everyone else exists to the detriment of themselves. So while they themselves are likely bullies, they are often learning it at home. Hurt people hurt people and all that jazz

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply