[POLITICS] Two Mass Shootings in 15 Hours, and O'Rourke on Trump

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

erttheking:
...What, you think I'm utterly ignorant of it and/or support because I'm not opposed to the idea of gun control? Not banning all guns, I mentioned earlier in the thread that I'm thinking about buying one, but stricter gun control?...

Lots of people in the thread argle-bargling about white supremacy and gun control, no discussion of the other side of it yet, ergo I brought it up. I won't let that discussion remain one-sided, period, especially for the fact it doesn't go discussed in generalized "conversation" about the topic pretty much anywhere you go, and a lot of people would prefer to remain ignorant or denialist about it.

Especially for the fact gun owners and Second Amendment advocates are often characterized as paranoid anti-government types. You know what, people are well within their rights and perfectly justified in having healthy skepticism of and distrust for their government, especially historically-disadvantaged groups. Keyword, healthy. Absolutely, an unstable and dangerous hyper-vocal minority has an unhealthy skepticism and distrust, I'd even go so far as to say hatred, of government which should absolutely be addressed as a social issue, but the alternative should be in no way construed as only slavish, uncritical nationalism, or hyper-partisanism.

This matters, because people who go onto execute spree killings still manage to pass background checks and legally purchase firearms. That kid who shot up the Madden tournament had actually been institutionalized for mental health problems that made him a danger to himself and those around him, and still managed to legally purchase in a state with some of the strictest mental health-based purchase restrictions in the country. Closing the "gun show loophole" won't stop straw purchases; straw purchases are already criminal acts, and performed with mens rea.

The law enforcement "solution" (which is ultimately addressing a symptom, not the cause) would require an expansion of state surveillance power unprecedented by either the war on drugs or war on terror. Monitoring not just purchase, but possession and availability, of firearms, as well as extensive monitoring of online and offline activity for red flags and evidence of planning. Well in excess of PRISM's touted mission, and lest we forget the mere revelation of PRISM's existence and abuses of it, and like programs by NSA agents, was such a gross overreach of power it damn well should have gotten Obama impeached on the spot. Yet, here we are six years later, and not only has it not been put to an end, but it and programs like it are being outsourced to fuckin' Amazon in highly-lucrative, classified, defense contracts.

All without dismantling, or even a good-faith attempt to dismantle, the white supremacy already baked into the system. And as far as I can tell, Democrats and liberals are lionizing the intelligence community and surveillance state to dunk on Trump and execute neo-McCarthyist masturbatory fantasy. Sorry, but after the last two years, I can no longer take "the same people who are pro-gun control are also anti-police state" line in good faith; I used to buy it, but not any more. Especially when the talking heads are already on -- and have been for days -- about classifying the alt-right as domestic terrorists and advocating for greater power and scope of the law enforcement and intelligence communities in domestic surveillance.

evilthecat:

Schadrach:
Enemies on all sides. Nothing new here. Before Jack Thompson it was Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore, and Joe Lieberman. The only real variation was the names and the detour from "games cause violence" into "games cause sexism" for a while.

Let's talk about Jack Thompson.

Jack Thompson never actually said that video games cause violent behaviour in adults.

He never said that the sale of violent video games should be banned to adults.

Jack Thompson's primary argument was that exposure to violent video games in childhood could cause violent behaviour in children and young adults.

There is an overwhelming consensus among researchers that exposure to violent media in childhood has detrimental effects, such as increased aggression and reduced empathy. Here is the APA's current official position on the subject of violent games https://www.apa.org/about/policy/violent-video-games

I said on another thread that I was getting tired of the argumentum ad Thompsonium, and this is a perfect illustration of why. Almost everyone who brings up Jack Thompson has absolutely no idea what he argued or why he was wrong, and also has no interest in what is actually right unless it can be twisted it to fit their own narrative, much as Jack Thompson did himself when he misrepresented legitimate scientific findings in order to advance his own career.

Jack Thompson is a fucking creep. Even a cursory summary of his career will reveal a highly manipulative individual who preyed on vulnerable people (either grieving or themselves children) to advance his own agenda and raise his own profile. It will also reveal someone who is (ironically) highly aggressive and prone to personally harassing people to get his own way. But this is not Jack Thompson's crime. This is not why anyone cares about him. You see, Jack Thompson did the most terrible thing imaginable, worse than any of the stuff I just mentioned. Jack Thompson... said mean things about video games.

I dunno. If you want to demonstrate that video games haven't warped your perspective, it may not be a great idea to lump anyone who criticises the medium in any way in as "enemies" and harbour some kind of twisted grudge against them for years or decades on end because they said a thing you like might be a societal ill (or even just have a problem). That's not exactly the sign of a healthy, prosocial person.

Can we hate him for how he was an abject embarrassment to the legal profession as a whole, and that he turned his disbarment proceedings into an absurd farce? I mean, goodness, just take a look at his behavior. It would be unbecoming of a 1L with a chip on their shoulder, let alone a supposed member of the Bar.

trunkage:
This guy is a journalist, so he's more likely to make an impact in that space

No he won't, don't kid yourself. I actually find his point quite persuasive, but it wouldn't drive ratings and ad revenue quite the same way as talking heads yelling at a camera for weeks on end.

Eacaraxe:
white supremacy already baked into the system

Do you know something more about that?

Leg End:
Just because we don't have your regulations, doesn't mean we don't have regulations.

Regulations which don't prevent people with zero training, or criminals, from legally obtaining guns aren't really worth very much, are they?

It's a bit like saying a country has a "regulated" industry in car sales, if someone who hasn't passed any kind of test can wander in and buy one, even if they ran someone over a week ago.

Leg End:
Ever consider the defensive gun uses preventing things from actually happening? Rapes, Robberies and Murders that don't happen, don't happen.

Given how the United States fares very poorly in those areas, it doesn't seem like the preponderance of available weaponry is doing a very good job of lowering the crime rate, does it?

Leg End:
Statistically, he's going to have a knife. Statistically here, they're likely to have a gun or a knife. Within the realm of reality, there is no way we can manage to flush out the supply of firearms held by criminals without actually going 1984 overnight and performing the action over several decades, as well as building what amounts to a giant dome around the country because we're not an island, and we kind of have what amounts to an open border with a country that is more or less being controlled by organized crime. The situation, as you have previously stated months back, is not the same. What you are proposing would not in fact work. The amount of firearms floating around exceeds the number of people to use them. You will never, ever be able to tell me you can actually prevent someone from using a gun to rob me.

What I'm proposing? I haven't proposed any particular approach, and I'm not suggesting that banning guns overnight would work at all. Obviously it wouldn't. Attitudes need to change first-- step one might be loosening the vice-like grip the gun industry and its lobbyists have on the political debate.

Leg End:
Operating under the assumption this is how mass shootings work? Alright, brutal, cold numbers. 340 people died in a mass shooting in 2018, according to a quick Google search. The amount of defensive gun uses varies depending on the source, but the lowest reported estimate by anyone was the Gun Violence Archive at a hair over two thousand. Other estimates skyrocket above that at at least 55,000 a year bare minimum as a common number, with other numbers ranging up to six digits, and surveyed usage has gone as high as over four million uses. It's not hard to imagine that, even with the lowest number possible, defensive uses may have saved as many or more lives than people died in mass shootings here in 2018.

So in short? Yeah. That sounds like a lot more life saved.

I would be very interested in finding out where these sky-high numbers are coming from, considering the violent crime rate in the US is still staggeringly high even despite all these supposedly-averted crimes.

Does this just mean the likelihood of Americans attempting to commit crime is already, at a base level, many hundreds of times higher than any other country? Or does it mean every other country is supernaturally good at preventing crime as well? I'm interested to see your workings.

Leg End:
From what I've experienced firsthand? No, they'd actually be less safe in your country. The things I've seen your government do to someone to cover up their own fuck ups is probably what made me go from entertained with firearms, to fanatical devotion to never leave myself at the mercy of government, or anyone else for that matter.

You believe that people are at greater risk of the UK government whisking them away to "cover up" something, than being the victim of violent crime in the USA? Am I understanding that right?

Because that's just utterly ludicrous, completely unsupported by either statistics or faint common sense.

Eacaraxe:
...but the intersection of that with Jim Crow 2.0 (AKA the drug war)...

Harsh but fair.

Silvanus:

Leg End:
Operating under the assumption this is how mass shootings work? Alright, brutal, cold numbers. 340 people died in a mass shooting in 2018, according to a quick Google search. The amount of defensive gun uses varies depending on the source, but the lowest reported estimate by anyone was the Gun Violence Archive at a hair over two thousand. Other estimates skyrocket above that at at least 55,000 a year bare minimum as a common number, with other numbers ranging up to six digits, and surveyed usage has gone as high as over four million uses. It's not hard to imagine that, even with the lowest number possible, defensive uses may have saved as many or more lives than people died in mass shootings here in 2018.

So in short? Yeah. That sounds like a lot more life saved.

I would be very interested in finding out where these sky-high numbers are coming from, considering the violent crime rate in the US is still staggeringly high even despite all these supposedly-averted crimes.

Does this just mean the likelihood of Americans attempting to commit crime is already, at a base level, many hundreds of times higher than any other country? Or does it mean every other country is supernaturally good at preventing crime as well? I'm interested to see your workings.

It's also worth noting that that particular citation is a bit of a misleading comparison. Note what's being compared here: Deaths from Mass Shootings, and Defensive Gun Use.

The former is very specific and accounts for a small proportion of gun deaths. For instance, in 2016, there were 38,658 gun deaths in the United States. 71 of those were from Mass Shootings, meaning that mass shootings accounted for 0.18% of gun fatalities that year. The principle driver of firearm fatalities was suicide (22,938 deaths)[1] and homicide (14,415, or 14,344 without the mass shootings). The remaining 1,305 fell into the "Other" category, and lumped together everything from accidental deaths to war casualties.

Defensive Gun Use, however, is a general statistic not limited to a specific type of crime. It's further rendered a case of apples to oranges in that where the former statistic tracks deaths, this one tracks use and is not measured by corpses or injury.

To better illustrate this issue, let's look at the year 2011. That year, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of Firearm Homicides was 11,101. Much bleaker statistic than the 19 deaths from mass shootings that year, right? Well, yes, but it's also not the statistic that would turn this into an apples to apples comparison. It's still counting in corpses as opposed to gun usage. To make the statistic comparable to "Defensive Gun Use" you want to track "Offensive Gun Use". The closest I've found for that is "Criminal Firearm Violence" - which tracks both fatalities and injuries from firearms in victims of violent crimes - which was 478,400 that year.

Topping it all off is a bit of equivocation between "Defensive Gun Use" and "lives saved", wherein it's assumed that all reported instances would have included manslaughter or homicide if the gun had not been used. And that is simply not a tenable assumption, as evidenced by the aforementioned distinction between Firearm Homicides and Criminal Firearm Violence.

[1] Tangentially, here's another sobering pair of statistics. Only 6% of suicides use a gun, but attempts that use a gun represent over 50% of completed suicides.

Eacaraxe:

trunkage:
This guy is a journalist, so he's more likely to make an impact in that space

No he won't, don't kid yourself. I actually find his point quite persuasive, but it wouldn't drive ratings and ad revenue quite the same way as talking heads yelling at a camera for weeks on end.

I meant, he's more likely to have an impact that us. But, you're right, he isn't following one of the two acceptable narratives and won't make waves

I actually unironically want Trump to ban all video games in NA in response to this so that America's grip and monopoly on the international video game market loosens and non-American devs can stop pandering to NA identity politics. This the exact kind of VG crash modern America deserves.

CM156:

evilthecat:

Schadrach:
Enemies on all sides. Nothing new here. Before Jack Thompson it was Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore, and Joe Lieberman. The only real variation was the names and the detour from "games cause violence" into "games cause sexism" for a while.

Let's talk about Jack Thompson.

Jack Thompson never actually said that video games cause violent behaviour in adults.

He never said that the sale of violent video games should be banned to adults.

Jack Thompson's primary argument was that exposure to violent video games in childhood could cause violent behaviour in children and young adults.

There is an overwhelming consensus among researchers that exposure to violent media in childhood has detrimental effects, such as increased aggression and reduced empathy. Here is the APA's current official position on the subject of violent games https://www.apa.org/about/policy/violent-video-games

I said on another thread that I was getting tired of the argumentum ad Thompsonium, and this is a perfect illustration of why. Almost everyone who brings up Jack Thompson has absolutely no idea what he argued or why he was wrong, and also has no interest in what is actually right unless it can be twisted it to fit their own narrative, much as Jack Thompson did himself when he misrepresented legitimate scientific findings in order to advance his own career.

Jack Thompson is a fucking creep. Even a cursory summary of his career will reveal a highly manipulative individual who preyed on vulnerable people (either grieving or themselves children) to advance his own agenda and raise his own profile. It will also reveal someone who is (ironically) highly aggressive and prone to personally harassing people to get his own way. But this is not Jack Thompson's crime. This is not why anyone cares about him. You see, Jack Thompson did the most terrible thing imaginable, worse than any of the stuff I just mentioned. Jack Thompson... said mean things about video games.

I dunno. If you want to demonstrate that video games haven't warped your perspective, it may not be a great idea to lump anyone who criticises the medium in any way in as "enemies" and harbour some kind of twisted grudge against them for years or decades on end because they said a thing you like might be a societal ill (or even just have a problem). That's not exactly the sign of a healthy, prosocial person.

Can we hate him for how he was an abject embarrassment to the legal profession as a whole, and that he turned his disbarment proceedings into an absurd farce? I mean, goodness, just take a look at his behavior. It would be unbecoming of a 1L with a chip on their shoulder, let alone a supposed member of the Bar.

Please do. Professional dishonour among his peers is the least of what he deserves but its as good as anything.

Alright, you know what's been bugging me for 20 years: 'Gun restrictions aren't followed by criminals. they will still get them and there will be more crime.' Has there been any evidence that this is true in Western Society?

On a related note, and it's ludicrous to think this, but criminals like drug dealers, gangs, etc, aren't responsible for these mass shootings. Therefore even if gun laws didn't work on these criminals, the country would still be much safer because they aren't causing the problem of mass shootings.

trunkage:
Alright, you know what's been bugging me for 20 years: 'Gun restrictions aren't followed by criminals. they will still get them and there will be more crime.' Has there been any evidence that this is true in Western Society?

Whether or not you consider it Western Society is up to you, but I found this interview with a retired Japanese cop.

TLDR Japanese gun laws are super strict with severe penalties. Yakuza shy away from guns because even top level guys can get jail time just for illegal possession.

Trump with a baby who's parents were killed in the El Paso shooting

image

Reminds me of this:

image

trunkage:
Alright, you know what's been bugging me for 20 years: 'Gun restrictions aren't followed by criminals. they will still get them and there will be more crime.' Has there been any evidence that this is true in Western Society?

On a related note, and it's ludicrous to think this, but criminals like drug dealers, gangs, etc, aren't responsible for these mass shootings. Therefore even if gun laws didn't work on these criminals, the country would still be much safer because they aren't causing the problem of mass shootings.

You're "no true Scotsman"-ing your own argument before anyone can even respond, I think you already know the answer to your own question.

Some guy tried to walk in on a Walmart at Missouri with a gun. He was luckily stopped before he did damage.

Eacaraxe:

erttheking:
...What, you think I'm utterly ignorant of it and/or support because I'm not opposed to the idea of gun control? Not banning all guns, I mentioned earlier in the thread that I'm thinking about buying one, but stricter gun control?...

Lots of people in the thread argle-bargling about white supremacy and gun control, no discussion of the other side of it yet, ergo I brought it up. I won't let that discussion remain one-sided, period, especially for the fact it doesn't go discussed in generalized "conversation" about the topic pretty much anywhere you go, and a lot of people would prefer to remain ignorant or denialist about it.

Especially for the fact gun owners and Second Amendment advocates are often characterized as paranoid anti-government types. You know what, people are well within their rights and perfectly justified in having healthy skepticism of and distrust for their government, especially historically-disadvantaged groups. Keyword, healthy. Absolutely, an unstable and dangerous hyper-vocal minority has an unhealthy skepticism and distrust, I'd even go so far as to say hatred, of government which should absolutely be addressed as a social issue, but the alternative should be in no way construed as only slavish, uncritical nationalism, or hyper-partisanism.

This matters, because people who go onto execute spree killings still manage to pass background checks and legally purchase firearms. That kid who shot up the Madden tournament had actually been institutionalized for mental health problems that made him a danger to himself and those around him, and still managed to legally purchase in a state with some of the strictest mental health-based purchase restrictions in the country. Closing the "gun show loophole" won't stop straw purchases; straw purchases are already criminal acts, and performed with mens rea.

The law enforcement "solution" (which is ultimately addressing a symptom, not the cause) would require an expansion of state surveillance power unprecedented by either the war on drugs or war on terror. Monitoring not just purchase, but possession and availability, of firearms, as well as extensive monitoring of online and offline activity for red flags and evidence of planning. Well in excess of PRISM's touted mission, and lest we forget the mere revelation of PRISM's existence and abuses of it, and like programs by NSA agents, was such a gross overreach of power it damn well should have gotten Obama impeached on the spot. Yet, here we are six years later, and not only has it not been put to an end, but it and programs like it are being outsourced to fuckin' Amazon in highly-lucrative, classified, defense contracts.

All without dismantling, or even a good-faith attempt to dismantle, the white supremacy already baked into the system. And as far as I can tell, Democrats and liberals are lionizing the intelligence community and surveillance state to dunk on Trump and execute neo-McCarthyist masturbatory fantasy. Sorry, but after the last two years, I can no longer take "the same people who are pro-gun control are also anti-police state" line in good faith; I used to buy it, but not any more. Especially when the talking heads are already on -- and have been for days -- about classifying the alt-right as domestic terrorists and advocating for greater power and scope of the law enforcement and intelligence communities in domestic surveillance.

So you do think I'm utterly ignorant of it. Well, hate to burst your bubble, I'm well aware of it. I just happen to think your argument of "well criminals can't own guns" isn't really connected to the overall gun debate. Frankly it comes off as a derailing "liberals are the REAL RACISTS1!1!1!1!" talking point. Also. This is the third time I'm going to ask you this question, and I'm starting to take your refusal to answer it as a sign of bad faith debating. Do you think the government shouldn't be allowed to take children away from parents ever considering it was historically used to abuse Native American families? Kindly actually answer the fucking question this time.

Health skepticism of government is totally a good mindset to have. *Looks at Leg End* That ain't what gun owners are putting forward. It ain't what the 5 million-member NRA is putting forward. Oh wait, I forgot, they changed their rhetoric now that Trump is in power. It isn't "buy a gun to stop the evil government." It's "buy a gun to kill evil Democrats opposing our beloved government." Fifty bucks say they switch back when Trump loses in 2020. It's just that the idea of keeping guns in the idea that it'll protect you against the government is a pipe dream. Let's get something straight, ok? If the government wants you dead? You're dead. If the government wants you arrested, you're arrested. Doesn't matter how many AR-15s you have. If you own a gun because you want to protect yourself from the government, you own a gun for delusional reasons. Pontificate about historical cases of abuse all you want, just because a person belongs to a group prone to abuse their ideas don't magically become not stupid. Own a gun to defend your homes against people who wish you harm who don't have government backing. It's why I'm considering buying one.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't regulations on buying guns when you have a mental illness vastly loosened by Trump? And forgive me if I'm not really sympathetic to the idea of "oh an institutionalized kid managed to buy a gun, closing loopholes doesn't work." My reaction is for "if people with mental health issues aren't allowed to buy guns and this kid did, who dropped the ball and why do they still have a job?" And it won't stop all sales? People need to stop dismissing ideas because they're not magic solutions that will stop everything in one go. I'm at the point where I'll be happy with a noticable decrease in gun violence because you don't solve these things with the stroke of a pen.

What solution? We haven't agreed on a solution yet, the conversation never actually gets that far because there's a right-wing ban on researching gun violence. How about we repeal that and get some research done? Maybe have increased background checks and mandatory training like what my state does (The state with the lowest amount of gun deaths per capita in the entire country as of 2016). Baby steps as opposed to the utter nothing the federal government has been providing for the past few years?

Also, you're confusing being anti-abusive police state and being anti-law enforcement in general. Sorry, but I believe we live in a world where we need police and intelligence to enforce the law. I also think that said law enforcement needs to be held to high accountability. It's the right who screeches when the idea of holding police and law enforcement accountable for abuses of power, not the left. The left are the ones pointing out that the FBI said that white supremacists are infiltrating law enforcement. That doesn't mean the left think that people should be allowed to go about and do whatever the hell they want because law enforcement have no power. Also, neo-McCarthyist. Oh yes, because suggesting that people who openly advocate for killing people maybe shouldn't have a platform for spewing their hate is exactly the same as ruining the lives of people who think capitalism isn't the ultimate be all end all. Let me know when the state actually executes someone for being pro-Trump and then you can bring up McCarthism without me rolling my eyes at your limp-wristed attempt to get an emotional reaction out of me. Don't just throw around meaningless buzz terms and expect me to act like they're deep points, they're knee jerk reactions.

Eacaraxe:

erttheking:
...What, you think I'm utterly ignorant of it and/or support because I'm not opposed to the idea of gun control? Not banning all guns, I mentioned earlier in the thread that I'm thinking about buying one, but stricter gun control?...

Lots of people in the thread argle-bargling about white supremacy and gun control, no discussion of the other side of it yet, ergo I brought it up. I won't let that discussion remain one-sided, period, especially for the fact it doesn't go discussed in generalized "conversation" about the topic pretty much anywhere you go, and a lot of people would prefer to remain ignorant or denialist about it.

Especially for the fact gun owners and Second Amendment advocates are often characterized as paranoid anti-government types. You know what, people are well within their rights and perfectly justified in having healthy skepticism of and distrust for their government, especially historically-disadvantaged groups. Keyword, healthy. Absolutely, an unstable and dangerous hyper-vocal minority has an unhealthy skepticism and distrust, I'd even go so far as to say hatred, of government which should absolutely be addressed as a social issue, but the alternative should be in no way construed as only slavish, uncritical nationalism, or hyper-partisanism.

This matters, because people who go onto execute spree killings still manage to pass background checks and legally purchase firearms. That kid who shot up the Madden tournament had actually been institutionalized for mental health problems that made him a danger to himself and those around him, and still managed to legally purchase in a state with some of the strictest mental health-based purchase restrictions in the country. Closing the "gun show loophole" won't stop straw purchases; straw purchases are already criminal acts, and performed with mens rea.

The law enforcement "solution" (which is ultimately addressing a symptom, not the cause) would require an expansion of state surveillance power unprecedented by either the war on drugs or war on terror. Monitoring not just purchase, but possession and availability, of firearms, as well as extensive monitoring of online and offline activity for red flags and evidence of planning. Well in excess of PRISM's touted mission, and lest we forget the mere revelation of PRISM's existence and abuses of it, and like programs by NSA agents, was such a gross overreach of power it damn well should have gotten Obama impeached on the spot. Yet, here we are six years later, and not only has it not been put to an end, but it and programs like it are being outsourced to fuckin' Amazon in highly-lucrative, classified, defense contracts.

All without dismantling, or even a good-faith attempt to dismantle, the white supremacy already baked into the system. And as far as I can tell, Democrats and liberals are lionizing the intelligence community and surveillance state to dunk on Trump and execute neo-McCarthyist masturbatory fantasy. Sorry, but after the last two years, I can no longer take "the same people who are pro-gun control are also anti-police state" line in good faith; I used to buy it, but not any more. Especially when the talking heads are already on -- and have been for days -- about classifying the alt-right as domestic terrorists and advocating for greater power and scope of the law enforcement and intelligence communities in domestic surveillance.

We are well aware that the true answer is more complex than a simple gun banning or whatever. But the answer is basically do everything that Republicans are against.

To really fix the problem we need to:

-Have far stricter and regulated gun control
-Have universal health care
-That also includes mental health
-Have a government that cares about its people, including the non-white people
-Not have a fucking violent racist for president
-Punish bad people who do bad things
-Make prison about rehabilitation, not private profiting
-Teach police to do their job, protect and serve, and how to de-esculate, not resort to shooting people who dont deserve it

trunkage:
Alright, you know what's been bugging me for 20 years: 'Gun restrictions aren't followed by criminals. they will still get them and there will be more crime.' Has there been any evidence that this is true in Western Society?

It's not just that criminals (being outside the law) will still get guns, revolutionaties (who are also outside the law) somehow won't be able to.

In Australia, you had razor gangs way back when, because you could carry a razor, but you'd be in for it if you were found carrying a gun. A razor posing a hell of a lot less of a risk to the general public than most firearms a gang member is likely to want.

Marik2:
Some guy tried to walk in on a Walmart at Missouri with a gun. He was luckily stopped before he did damage.

This does actually bring up one issue where liberals and gun control advocates get it categorically wrong, and won't listen to folks with more experience and expertise even when in agreement. Open carry is actually harmful to public safety in ways concealed carry isn't, with no real benefit to the carrier or those around. The only reason to open carry is to identify oneself as a carrier, and that spooks people, and it makes the carrier a target for someone who might want to take that gun and use it for nefarious purpose.

I actually do support prohibition on open (defensive) carry. There's no justifiable reason to open carry, and people who do, tend to do it for all the wrong reasons. And, folks who would get grouchy over open carry prohibition but not concealed, frankly aren't carrying for defensive purposes in the first place; they're carrying to show off, and likely aren't educated in proper firearm responsibility, safety, or self-defense in the first place.

Eacaraxe:

Marik2:
Some guy tried to walk in on a Walmart at Missouri with a gun. He was luckily stopped before he did damage.

This does actually bring up one issue where liberals and gun control advocates get it categorically wrong, and won't listen to folks with more experience and expertise even when in agreement. Open carry is actually harmful to public safety in ways concealed carry isn't, with no real benefit to the carrier or those around. The only reason to open carry is to identify oneself as a carrier, and that spooks people, and it makes the carrier a target for someone who might want to take that gun and use it for nefarious purpose.

I actually do support prohibition on open (defensive) carry. There's no justifiable reason to open carry, and people who do, tend to do it for all the wrong reasons. And, folks who would get grouchy over open carry prohibition but not concealed, frankly aren't carrying for defensive purposes in the first place; they're carrying to show off, and likely aren't educated in proper firearm responsibility, safety, or self-defense in the first place.

Unless you're going hunting, there is NO REASON to leave your house with a gun.

Both versions bother me, but just because I don't know about things around me that I should be concerned about, doesn't mean I wouldn't if I knew.

Just because you don't know you're in danger, doesn't mean you are safe.

Leg End:
I'm fairly certain that most people that aren't actually shells with unholy entities within would absolutely draw the line at doing nothing about executions at the facilities

Forgive my lack of faith in humanity, but as somoene who thinks that demons and so on are a load of bullpucky, and has seen the shit humans have done across time... I TOTALLY think someone like trump would care more about his approval rating and appearance than the immorality of mass slaughter.

There are people who are just plain sociopaths. No demons needed, they just don't give a shit. And people under them will be 'just following orders' out of fear for their lives or jobs.

I hope my colossal wall of watching myself type is actually informative, and that it brings some kind of understanding to my positions. Not necessarily agree with of course, but maybe you will change your mind, maybe you won't. Maybe you'll understand my craziness, probably won't. But I hope I, if anything, have been informative.

Yeah, I get why you hold your positions and some of it was informative.

I still fundamentally disagree, though, based on my own experience of living in a nation one hop over that has a very similar culture, and reasonable gun laws, which has a minuscule fraction of the slaughter in the US. Still I see no point further arguing, neither of us will convince the other at this point.

I think I ought to call my grandpa and thank him yet again for choosing Canada when he brought his family over from Hungary.

Leg End:

aegix drakan:
I notice you didn't reply about requiring training/barring paranoid schozoprenics from owning guns.....Are we in agreement on that at least, then?

...I'm going to sum it up to no, but because I really, really don't want to delve into the area of mental health, arms, and the government's role in that right now. Or possibly will not want to ever, or at least not on this forum because there are some things I'd rather talk about directly with people in real-time. That's one of the things.

Well good, if they do turn into extermination camps I hope to see you making a daring rescue. Although considering the terrible conditions are already killing people and they're not doing shit to make the conditions better, I`m already finding the situation unacceptable enough that they need to be abolished yesterday. They may not be intentionally killing children, but they are intentionally not trying to avoid it. That's monstrous enough.

That I can thus far gather and with all the evidence available, it does appear that a lot of, if not most of the deaths that are supposedly at the fault of ICE are actually things that I, in all good faith, could not say were actually their fault with the evidence currently available. I believe several of the deaths presented have been due to pre-existing conditions, or were generally things that they, from evidence currently available, took reasonable and expected steps to combat. Note I did not say all, and I'm wanting investigations into those even more than the ones that we do have a clearer picture on, because I want any and all deaths that the facilities are responsible for to be firmly established as such so we can hang them legally, and possibly literally depending on how pissed off I am that day. I'm not for capital punishment, but some days you just have some people you wish were at the end of a rope or in front of a firing line for their crimes.

And no, I actually don`t think trump is literally hitler. I think he's just so much of a visionless hateful doofus that he's just a large scale enabler of fascism in the US, not the driving source of it. I think it's more likely that some asshole at these camps would just get the idea of 'These migrants are pissing me off why dont we just shoot 'em' and he'd turn a blind eye or try to post-event deflect blame, rather than him ACTUALLY order it to happen. So....Very close, VERY close, but no cigar.

I'm fairly certain that most people that aren't actually shells with unholy entities within would absolutely draw the line at doing nothing about executions at the facilities. I myself do have a lot of problems with things going on in a lot of them, and disagree with how this administration is handling it. Some of it I'd personally describe as being treasonous, but I like that word and use it too much.

So does this mean you wont vote for Trump again? Like, seriously, you keep saying he is doing these bad things, but keep saying you will continue to support him.

How am I supposed to take that as anything but support of those things he does?

The 'Good guy with a gun' is SUPPOSED to be the police. That is why they get issued guns! Unfortunately, the police cannot be trusted and act more as a racist international gang than as protectors of peace and justice.

In a half-way decent world, we should be able to rely on the Police to save us, not some random gun nut. We should be able to rely that the Police are there to protect the innocent, stop the bad guy, and make things better for being there, not worse.

Saelune:
We are well aware that the true answer is more complex than a simple gun banning or whatever. But the answer is basically do everything that Republicans are against.

Yeah, Republicans have an absolute dogshit record on this subject. I fully grant that. However, this does not mean every guns rights advocate is a slack-jawed hillbilly, Trump supporter, or even conservative, and neither are arguments in favor of gun rights necessarily pro-Second Amendment absolutism. Nor, and this is by far the most important point I can make, are Democrat- or liberal-sponsored, advocated, or written legislation sensible or effective by fiat of who wrote them; in fact, for those groups' firearm illiteracy and refusal to learn, they're more likely to write bad legislation than good.

For example, I'm going to critique why H.R. 8 is insensible legislation more likely to backfire than succeed in reducing criminal possession.

That's why I support universal background checks and expansion of NICS access to private sellers, and mandatory NCIC serial number checks incorporated into that process. Simple, elegant, doesn't burden FFL's with potential liabilities, and doesn't chokepoint firearm transfers through FFL's.

Now, before I move into my next sub-chapter, let's have ourselves a pop quiz.

1. Which of these rifles is an assault weapon?

2. Which of these rifles is deadlier?

Answers:

This is why you don't let people who know diddly fuck about guns, write gun control legislation. Because they're more interested in legislating color and plastic goobers stuck to the gun, than they are the gun. The more I learned about guns, the more I learned how pointless, ineffective, and cynical Democratic-proposed legislation would really be, and the less I trust them to write effective gun control legislation. Frankly, it's to the point I wonder if Democrats do this shit on purpose, knowing their constituencies are firearm-illiterate enough that, even if they read it, they won't trust, listen, or reason with critics.

Case in point, the "firearm crime research" sawmill mentioned up-thread. No, we don't actually need more research. We have plenty research to act, and act effectively; people just like to pretend it doesn't exist, on both sides of the aisle, because it's inconvenient to their worldview. This:

...Have a government that cares about its people, including the non-white people...

is the closest thing to an accurate summation and proposal than anything that's come thus far. Why? Once again, removing suicide and accidental death from firearm fatality statistics, Gini coefficient is the (second) best predictor for violent crime and firearm fatalities available. Other than race which is the single best predictor, but race itself is a secondary factor which boils down to social, economic, and political inequality...and that's the point. Socioeconomic inequality and uncertainty, and civil unrest, are the problems.

rayman 101:
I actually unironically want Trump to ban all video games in NA in response to this so that America's grip and monopoly on the international video game market loosens and non-American devs can stop pandering to NA identity politics. This the exact kind of VG crash modern America deserves.

Talk about blowing your house up soley to kill a cockroach...

Smithnikov:

rayman 101:
I actually unironically want Trump to ban all video games in NA in response to this so that America's grip and monopoly on the international video game market loosens and non-American devs can stop pandering to NA identity politics. This the exact kind of VG crash modern America deserves.

Talk about blowing your house up soley to kill a cockroach...

Smith...are you implying gamers can be short-sighted and spiteful?

Eacaraxe:

trunkage:
Alright, you know what's been bugging me for 20 years: 'Gun restrictions aren't followed by criminals. they will still get them and there will be more crime.' Has there been any evidence that this is true in Western Society?

On a related note, and it's ludicrous to think this, but criminals like drug dealers, gangs, etc, aren't responsible for these mass shootings. Therefore even if gun laws didn't work on these criminals, the country would still be much safer because they aren't causing the problem of mass shootings.

You're "no true Scotsman"-ing your own argument before anyone can even respond, I think you already know the answer to your own question.

Or I could just be asking for evidence that gun restrictions lead to greater crime levels.

And I'm also asking for evidence that 'criminals are the only ones with guns' is actually a bad thing. Because, I'm wondering if that would make society safer at least compared to the US.

Or am I Scotmaning this up to? I thought I was asking for evidence to the contrary, which, ne definition, is the litaral opposite of No True Scotsman

Depression over. Static Cling was fun.

aegix drakan:

Forgive my lack of faith in humanity, but as somoene who thinks that demons and so on are a load of bullpucky, and has seen the shit humans have done across time... I TOTALLY think someone like trump would care more about his approval rating and appearance than the immorality of mass slaughter.

There are people who are just plain sociopaths. No demons needed, they just don't give a shit. And people under them will be 'just following orders' out of fear for their lives or jobs.

Nah, I mean that The People would absolutely be getting up and start throwing out 1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN at the concept of government approved mass murder. Shit don't fly yo.

Yeah, I get why you hold your positions and some of it was informative.

Well, I'm glad.

I still fundamentally disagree

As is your right, as you pull from your own experiences as mentioned and make your own determination.

I think I ought to call my grandpa and thank him yet again for choosing Canada when he brought his family over from Hungary.

...Wait, Canada? Dude, you actually beat us in some regards when it comes to getting firearms, and I mean that from the perspective of someone for ease of access. That I am aware of, you guys still have online buying and mail delivery of guns, which is pretty much not a thing here. To put it as simply as possible, we have to have online stores send firearms to specific license holders to do a legal transfer of the gun to us. I wish I could have guns mailed straight to my door to avoid social anxiety and transfer fees.

Try going shooting sometime. It's a lot less of a hassle than other places, and you might just enjoy it.

trunkage:

On a related note, and it's ludicrous to think this, but criminals like drug dealers, gangs, etc, aren't responsible for these mass shootings.

You mean these specific kinds mass shootings? No, they're not.

Therefore even if gun laws didn't work on these criminals, the country would still be much safer because they aren't causing the problem of mass shootings.

That is completely wrong. Gang violence is a significant source of the mass shooting statistics you see.

erttheking:

Health skepticism of government is totally a good mindset to have. *Looks at Leg End* That ain't what gun owners are putting forward.

Hey bro, if that's meant to pair me as representation of gun owners, I represent myself and myself only, which is quite the minority even among my peers. Look at every pro-arms person on this forum, and even the take of second place is nowhere near as extreme or as absolutist to the 2A as mine. Ask anyone else here if they support private ownership of artillery pieces and armed aircraft.

Let's get something straight, ok? If the government wants you dead? You're dead. If the government wants you arrested, you're arrested. Doesn't matter how many AR-15s you have. If you own a gun because you want to protect yourself from the government, you own a gun for delusional reasons.

Your assessment. It's not universal, just as mine isn't.

Saelune:
We should be able to rely that the Police are there to protect the innocent, stop the bad guy, and make things better for being there, not worse.

Should, but you can't. That's the sad rub of it.

Kwak:

I, ah, was not aware I was making a controversial proposal.
I'm not attempting to 'solve' it. I don't suggest less easy access to guns will stop suicide or murder, it will still happen. It will just happen less and it will be demonstrable that it happens less. Those in the depths of despair will not reach for a quick literal trigger 'solution' if it's not so quick and easy. Those who deliberately and meticulously plan out their acts will still follow through, but the many who are just in the grip of momentary spasms of despair will live another day to see a sunrise or puppy or a smile that may change how they feel. I would be dead so many times if there were guns in easy reach.

...Thank you for replying, and I'm glad you're still here with us.

Eacaraxe:
Frankly, it's to the point I wonder if Democrats do this shit on purpose, knowing their constituencies are firearm-illiterate enough that, even if they read it, they won't trust, listen, or reason with critics.

It's not the firearm illiteracy that's the issue, it's legislation illiteracy. Democrats do it on purpose, but it's not because their constituents are firearm illiterate. That sounds like passing things for the sake of it, there's not really a point in that. Democrats do it on purpose to take advantage of people's legislative ignorance. Barely anyone reads bills, most people don't even read summaries of bills, they just get the headlines. Because people only get the headlines, Democrats propose terrible useless bills with good headlines. It doesn't matter if you know everything or nothing about guns, if you're for gun control, you can be supportive of a bill that bans some prevailing characteristics of guns used for mass murder. If you don't read the bill, you'd never know that they define that group of guns in a senseless way and would ban almost entirely aesthetics. A good headline gets them popular support, a stupid law gets voted down, the next headline trashes Republicans for voting it down, and then you get to do it again down the road to keep people voting for you.

Best example is "no fly, no buy". First headline: "Senators introduce legislation to ban gun sales to terrorists". Good PR. It doesn't matter that it would base that list of terrorists on a secret watch list of mostly minorities that violates due process, and that to enforce it you'd have to effectively release that secret watch list so that anyone planning a terrorist attack can find out if they're being watched just by going to the gun store. Nobody is going to read the bill, nobody is going to consider the consequences. Except the Republicans who then have to vote it down cause it's a bad law. Second headline "GOP blocks bill to stop terrorists from buying guns". Then just wait a few years and run it back.

For the record, I understand that Republicans can play the same games as Democrats, but Republicans don't get the luxury of controlling the headlines very often.

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
We are well aware that the true answer is more complex than a simple gun banning or whatever. But the answer is basically do everything that Republicans are against.

Yeah, Republicans have an absolute dogshit record on this subject. I fully grant that. However, this does not mean every guns rights advocate is a slack-jawed hillbilly, Trump supporter, or even conservative, and neither are arguments in favor of gun rights necessarily pro-Second Amendment absolutism. Nor, and this is by far the most important point I can make, are Democrat- or liberal-sponsored, advocated, or written legislation sensible or effective by fiat of who wrote them; in fact, for those groups' firearm illiteracy and refusal to learn, they're more likely to write bad legislation than good.

For example, I'm going to critique why H.R. 8 is insensible legislation more likely to backfire than succeed in reducing criminal possession.

That's why I support universal background checks and expansion of NICS access to private sellers, and mandatory NCIC serial number checks incorporated into that process. Simple, elegant, doesn't burden FFL's with potential liabilities, and doesn't chokepoint firearm transfers through FFL's.

Now, before I move into my next sub-chapter, let's have ourselves a pop quiz.

1. Which of these rifles is an assault weapon?

2. Which of these rifles is deadlier?

Answers:

This is why you don't let people who know diddly fuck about guns, write gun control legislation. Because they're more interested in legislating color and plastic goobers stuck to the gun, than they are the gun. The more I learned about guns, the more I learned how pointless, ineffective, and cynical Democratic-proposed legislation would really be, and the less I trust them to write effective gun control legislation. Frankly, it's to the point I wonder if Democrats do this shit on purpose, knowing their constituencies are firearm-illiterate enough that, even if they read it, they won't trust, listen, or reason with critics.

Case in point, the "firearm crime research" sawmill mentioned up-thread. No, we don't actually need more research. We have plenty research to act, and act effectively; people just like to pretend it doesn't exist, on both sides of the aisle, because it's inconvenient to their worldview. This:

...Have a government that cares about its people, including the non-white people...

is the closest thing to an accurate summation and proposal than anything that's come thus far. Why? Once again, removing suicide and accidental death from firearm fatality statistics, Gini coefficient is the (second) best predictor for violent crime and firearm fatalities available. Other than race which is the single best predictor, but race itself is a secondary factor which boils down to social, economic, and political inequality...and that's the point. Socioeconomic inequality and uncertainty, and civil unrest, are the problems.

Anyone who cares about a thing should also care about safe and responsible use of said thing, from guns, to cars to woodworking to science to whatever. Pro-Gun people should be the most in favor of proper gun use.

The real reason most are against proper gun use is because gun manufacturers want to sell more guns, not less, and because alot of the people against gun laws are the very sort of people who should not have guns AND THEY KNOW THAT.

Leg End:

Saelune:
We should be able to rely that the Police are there to protect the innocent, stop the bad guy, and make things better for being there, not worse.

Should, but you can't. That's the sad rub of it.

You keep ignoring the things I actually want you to respond to. I really want to figure out where your line is for Trump.

Leg End:
ang violence is a significant source of the mass shooting statistics you see.

erttheking:

Health skepticism of government is totally a good mindset to have. *Looks at Leg End* That ain't what gun owners are putting forward.

Hey bro, if that's meant to pair me as representation of gun owners, I represent myself and myself only, which is quite the minority even among my peers. Look at every pro-arms person on this forum, and even the take of second place is nowhere near as extreme or as absolutist to the 2A as mine. Ask anyone else here if they support private ownership of artillery pieces and armed aircraft.

Let's get something straight, ok? If the government wants you dead? You're dead. If the government wants you arrested, you're arrested. Doesn't matter how many AR-15s you have. If you own a gun because you want to protect yourself from the government, you own a gun for delusional reasons.

Your assessment. It's not universal, just as mine isn't.

Conveniently cut off the part where I went on to talk about the 5 million members of the NRA, huh? And the NRA, when Trump wasn't the president and no doubt when he's gone, love to touch themselves to the idea of fighting the evil government. Nice little dishonesty there.

No, it's fact. There is no situation where you can win a shootout against the government. Go ahead and ask Robert Finnicum how it worked out for him. Guy bragged about how many federal agents he could kill and he got shot dead. Don't see how it would work any differently for you. Honestly, the whole "it's just my opinion thing" in this regard has the same tone as you posting the navy SEAL copypasta in terms how just how much you overestimate your ability to beat the police and/or military in a shootout.

Guns are not a holy grail that solve all your problems.

Saelune:
You keep ignoring the things I actually want you to respond to. I really want to figure out where your line is for Trump.

I'd like to figure that out too, girl. There's only so much rope I can give a guy, and I'm left to wonder if I've hit the Lewis Black point yet. I'll let you know when I figure it out.

erttheking:

Conveniently cut off the part where I went on to talk about the 5 million members of the NRA, huh? And the NRA, when Trump wasn't the president and no doubt when he's gone, love to touch themselves to the idea of fighting the evil government. Nice little dishonesty there.

You're finding what isn't actually there, my man. I specifically was pointing out how gun owners tend to be a wide spectrum of people and opinions on ownership. Is the NRA stupid? On quite a few levels, yes. I'm edging pretty close on them largely being in it for money and shilling these days and not doing enough as they should(and completely ignoring some things, or fucking endorsing gun control measures), but they can be useful. This is largely referring to organizational heads, because the membership is all over the place. Some people blindly support them and exactly down the line they tread, others do it because they think the American Left is absolutely fucknuts on restrictions, others do it because they are the most well-known gun rights group and do do heavy lifting, so backing them is smart for them in that context. If I were to give them any money, it'd be somewhere on that last one.

I didn't touch on them because I really don't care about them. As for the rest, you do you my dude. Enjoy your gun when you get it, have fun shooting, and I hope you need never use it in a situation where it's not for fun and practice.

Saelune:
Trump with a baby who's parents were killed in the El Paso shooting

image

Reminds me of this:

image

Trump had a better foreign policy, and George W Bush had a better domestic policy. Both of them are shitty people who didn't win the majority of the vote.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here