Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Aug 30, 2015 17:38:44 GMT -5
I do not know the solution either. But I will tell you that it is remarkably tiresome to hear the evils of the guns in exponentially higher volume than the evils of the gun users.
Let me be clear. I don't care if all assault weapons are banned tomorrow. Killers will kill be it with sticks, knives or matches. It might be harder and itight be slower but the same low life killers using the guns will find a way to act as is their wont.
Book it.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on Aug 30, 2015 18:56:53 GMT -5
Let me be clear. I don't care if all assault weapons are banned tomorrow. Killers will kill be it with sticks, knives or matches. It might be harder and itight be slower but the same low life killers using the guns will find a way to act as is their wont. Book it. Desperately wanting the last word and not being capable of admitting that guns are different than sticks makes you look dumb.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Aug 30, 2015 19:04:29 GMT -5
Thanks. Potshots at those with whom you disagree makes one look small and petty.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 30, 2015 21:42:28 GMT -5
Thanks. Potshots at those with whom you disagree makes one look small and petty. Classic liberal debate tactic: if you disagree with them, you're dumb.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on Aug 31, 2015 11:42:07 GMT -5
When you put strawmen out there like "people will still kill", sorry, that's dumb. No one argued anywhere in this thread that any form of gun control - be it background checks, smart guns, or just plain coming for everyone's guns in a black helicopter in the middle of the night - is a panacea.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Aug 31, 2015 11:52:52 GMT -5
But this is exactly what I mean. So it's not the gun, it's the gun user. Fine, let's say that's true. Does the pro-gun lobby have a history of seeking to reduce poverty, focus on mental illness, or anything of that sort?
The pro-gun lobby is run by trade groups masquerading as defenders of the Bill of Rights. They don't care about people dying unless it impacts their bottom line. Thus, a huge swath of the pro-gun debate is guided by people parroting the talking points of a trade group, which focuses on picking apart efforts to reduce gun violence and does nothing to address the serious issue of the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of violent incidents every year.
It's very easy to just criticize ideas without ever offering of your own, and that's where we're at with this.
Either it matters or it doesn't. But it can't matter and have the solution be nothing.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 31, 2015 12:24:44 GMT -5
But this is exactly what I mean. So it's not the gun, it's the gun user. Fine, let's say that's true. Does the pro-gun lobby have a history of seeking to reduce poverty, focus on mental illness, or anything of that sort? The pro-gun lobby is run by trade groups masquerading as defenders of the Bill of Rights. They don't care about people dying unless it impacts their bottom line. Thus, a huge swath of the pro-gun debate is guided by people parroting the talking points of a trade group, which focuses on picking apart efforts to reduce gun violence and does nothing to address the serious issue of the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of violent incidents every year. It's very easy to just criticize ideas without ever offering of your own, and that's where we're at with this. Either it matters or it doesn't. But it can't matter and have the solution be nothing. I'm sorry. I must've missed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Poverty campaign. And the Everytown for Mental Illness lobbying. Do you have the URLs for their website so I can read up on their histories of seeking to reduce poverty, focus on mental illness, or anything of that sort?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 31, 2015 12:26:24 GMT -5
When you put strawmen out there like "people will still kill", sorry, that's dumb. No one argued anywhere in this thread that any form of gun control - be it background checks, smart guns, or just plain coming for everyone's guns in a black helicopter in the middle of the night - is a panacea. Jeez. I think the liberals (or firearm-phobes like thebin) reference black helicopters more than the Cliven Bundy types.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on Aug 31, 2015 12:36:02 GMT -5
I'm sorry. I must've missed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Poverty campaign. And the Everytown for Mental Illness lobbying. Do you have the URLs for their website so I can read up on their histories of seeking to reduce poverty, focus on mental illness, or anything of that sort? Why should they? The Brady Campaign and Everytown blame gun violence on the access to guns. They have specific proposals to reduce gun violence by reducing access to guns. If you don't think the access to guns is the cause of gun violence, but a failure in individual responsibility (i.e. the NRA, the conservative movement), where's the proposals to fix those problems (mental illness, poverty, etc)?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 31, 2015 12:51:08 GMT -5
I'm sorry. I must've missed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Poverty campaign. And the Everytown for Mental Illness lobbying. Do you have the URLs for their website so I can read up on their histories of seeking to reduce poverty, focus on mental illness, or anything of that sort? Why should they? The Brady Campaign and Everytown blame gun violence on the access to guns. They have specific proposals to reduce gun violence by reducing access to guns. If you don't think the access to guns is the cause of gun violence, but a failure in individual responsibility (i.e. the NRA, the conservative movement), where's the proposals to fix those problems (mental illness, poverty, etc)? So it's only the "pro-gun lobby" has to come up with a plan to reduce poverty and address mental illness? Ok.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Aug 31, 2015 12:54:31 GMT -5
So your response to the lack of solutions by pro-gun advocates is to point out that pro gun control groups exist? Well done!
You kind of sum up the point neatly, thanks for that. Zero substance, but awesome job hilariously pointing out flaws in other people's reasoning - especially in contrast to your own carefully crafted, thoughtful comments on the subject!
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 31, 2015 14:54:28 GMT -5
So your response to the lack of solutions by pro-gun advocates is to point out that pro gun control groups exist? Well done! You kind of sum up the point neatly, thanks for that. Zero substance, but awesome job hilariously pointing out flaws in other people's reasoning - especially in contrast to your own carefully crafted, thoughtful comments on the subject! So it's only the "pro-gun lobby" has to come up with a plan to reduce poverty and address mental illness? Ok.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Aug 31, 2015 15:09:46 GMT -5
Wow KC what a surprise! An idiotic pivot requiring intentionally misrepresenting other people's points! The only question I have about you is if you're actually stupid or just pretend to be. All you do is derail conversations with stupid crap like this. If that's your thing, cool, but I hope you don't actually feel as superior as your tone indicates.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 31, 2015 16:01:38 GMT -5
Wow KC what a surprise! An idiotic pivot requiring intentionally misrepresenting other people's points! The only question I have about you is if you're actually stupid or just pretend to be. All you do is derail conversations with stupid crap like this. If that's your thing, cool, but I hope you don't actually feel as superior as your tone indicates. I'm not superior to anyone. I'm a white male. My life doesn't matter. Answer me this: why would the NRA -- whose purpose is to promote shooting, hunting and firearm training, education and activities -- be interested in solving poverty? Or treating mental illness? My references to Brady and Everytown were to point out the double standard. You asked, "Does the pro-gun lobby have a history of seeking to reduce poverty, focus on mental illness, or anything of that sort?" I asked the same, but with respect to the anti-gun lobby. If you find that to be an idiotic pivot requiring intentionally misrepresenting your argument, I can't help you.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Aug 31, 2015 16:23:15 GMT -5
Of course, "why would the NRA be interested in solving these things" is entirely different than what you said, but we can leave that there.
Context matters, and asking why the NRA would want to solve poverty does sound pretty silly, because you stripped away all context.
My point is that being a pro-gun activist in America generally just means you ignore the problem of gun violence. Of course, it's fair to ask if gun violence is an issue in this country. If not, that position makes sense. But if you believe the thousands and thousands of Americans killed every year by guns is an issue, it's worth exploring.
Unfortunately, that's impossible, and this thread is a great representation of why. We can argue all day about whether snobby coastal-dwelling dweebs really "get" guns, or the difference between an assault weapon and scary looking weapon. Meanwhile people are dying at insane rates. Eventually we'll actually have to discuss whether or not we should put in some kind of effort to reducing gun violence.
Pro-gun activists are quick to say 'mental health' or 'poverty,' but don't do anything to address those issues. They're only brought up to push blame somewhere else. Similarly, demanding more personal responsibility is a useless claim that could be said as a response to just about any problem anywhere.
So while the NRA shouldn't necessarily be concerned with poverty or mental health, pro-gun activists who use those issues to take the blame away from our gun culture should be held to address those issues. Being pro-gun should NOT mean don't do anything to reduce gun violence, and the fact that that is all that side represents right now isn't sad in an abstract sense, it's sad because of how many people are dying because of it.
|
|
SirSaxa
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by SirSaxa on Sept 1, 2015 21:19:50 GMT -5
Part 1Informative piece linked below, entitled: TSG IntelBrief: Gun Violence in America Excerpts• While terrorism dominates U.S. political and foreign policy concerns, the threat posed by domestic gun violence—from a statistical standpoint—far outweighs the threat of terrorism within the United States • With over 30,000 gun-related deaths a year (less than half of which are murders, and the rest suicides and accidental deaths), the United States experiences a death toll of ten 9/11 attacks each year from gun violence• As noted last week in the New York Times, there have been more domestic gun deaths in the United States since 1968 than in all of America’s wars since the Declaration of Independence.
- While other comparable threats are analyzed and addressed, gun violence is alone ignored.
soufangroup.com/tsg-intelbrief-gun-violence-in-america/------------------------ The bullet points above remind us of just how massive and tragic the issue of gun violence in America is -- and yet still we take no action. While the right continues to insist on absolutely unfettered access to any and all weapons, unlimited-sized magazines, and a never ending supply of ammo (including armor piercing bullets), we have lost another 85,000 Americans just since the Newtown Massacre of 6 year olds at school. Still, nothing gets done. No amount of denial, deflection, or intentional creation of confusion will change these basic facts. Part 2As to the gun issue, it's as simple as this: Republicans see this kind of violence as a failure of individual responsibility. Democrats see this kind of violence as a failure of government responsibility. Neither side will admit the other has a point. DFW, I can hardly believe that you posted such absolute nonsense. "as simple as this"? Seriously? Clearly each instance starts as a failure of individual responsibility. That is not in dispute. The question is what are we going to DO about it? Individuals fail all the time. We know this. We expect this. That's why we have police forces, laws, governments, armies. At least some Democrats -- including leadership -- have tried to address the issue. Republicans settle for, "it's too tough, there's nothing we can do about it". What is the real reason Republicans fail to even make an attempt? 1. Fear of the NRA (for non-support) 2. Embracing support from the NRA, for doing their bidding. 3. Active cultivation of the issue to fire up their base with outright lies and disinformation to increase voter turn out, e.g. "Obama is going to take your guns away!!"
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,727
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Sept 1, 2015 21:50:23 GMT -5
DFW, I can hardly believe that you posted such absolute nonsense. "as simple as this"? Seriously? Yes, it's supposed to be simplistic, but that's the point here: neither side listens to each other and neither side concedes the others' fundamental concerns. A segment of the country has no faith that "sensible" gun control, however defined, would not lead to wholesale arms confiscations and mass arrests. It's a conspiracy theory, sure, but that's the world we live in. Yet, the other segment is beholden to its own special interests and has failed to engage a bipartisan approach on the need to reduce handgun penetration in a way that can put the hunter and the sportsman on their side. If each side is unwilling to discuss compromise, it's hard to see any meaningful path to progress. As someone stated earlier, for this needle to move, it has to be a Republican president has to make the move. Imagine if a Republican president said: " I have always felt there should be a Federal law for the control of handguns...The problem there is to write the law, the legislation, in such a way that it is precise and deals with that kind of handgun which ought to be controlled. And I am referring now to the Saturday night specials. These are ones where you would have Federal jurisdiction because many of them come in from abroad and, being imported from abroad, it would be particularly a matter for Federal control.
"I believe, however, that the legislation, if it is therefore precisely written...that the Congress should pass such a law, and I will sign it, ruling out Saturday night specials, which I think is the major source of this kind of crime you speak about."
Well he did. That was Richard Nixon in 1972, before Watergate obliterated his legislative agenda, and that's as far as this debate went.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Sept 2, 2015 7:21:29 GMT -5
I'm a Republican that owns a gun that is very supportive of gun control measures. And in that context, I have to say that the stalemate on any such legislation is entirely the fault of the Republican party or rather an interest group to which it is beholden (along with those Democrats that share its views on this issue). This is not a "both sides need to compromise" sort of issue. I would gladly support a measure that eliminated assault weapons (defined as specifically as you'd like) and established more concrete background checks on all purchasers and transferors of guns. I think many Americans agree with those proposals, I don't think they infringe on any Constitutional freedoms (no matter how broadly interpreted), and most important from my perspective I would challenge anyone to demonstrate to me how they would negatively affect the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves (through legal gun purchases) and enjoy sporting activities. I would also challenge anyone to demonstrate to me how these regulations would fail to prevent at least some of the mass violence that has occurred in recent years. Sure, we don't enforce our existing laws as well as we could, and, sure, there will be plenty of people that find loopholes or just ignore whatever new laws we put in place. But that happens with every single law we pass. Banning assault weapons won't stop someone like the recent murderer in Virginia, but it ought to make mass school (and movie theater) shootings more difficult. And increasing the difficulty level may be enough to dissuade a would-be perpetrator from acting.
It's not that Democrats are beholden to their own interest groups (unless by that you mean the NRA, to which many Dems are also beholden). It's that this issue presents precisely the sort of tyranny of the narrow-interested that the authors of the Federalist Papers and others railed against. It's one thing if the majority position is unwise; the republican (small r) system seeks to correct for that. It's another altogether when the majority position IS wise, but the democratic/republican system still can't enact it.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on Sept 2, 2015 8:14:40 GMT -5
DFW, I can hardly believe that you posted such absolute nonsense. "as simple as this"? Seriously? Yes, it's supposed to be simplistic, but that's the point here: neither side listens to each other and neither side concedes the others' fundamental concerns. A segment of the country has no faith that "sensible" gun control, however defined, would not lead to wholesale arms confiscations and mass arrests. It's a conspiracy theory, sure, but that's the world we live in. Yet, the other segment is beholden to its own special interests and has failed to engage a bipartisan approach on the need to reduce handgun penetration in a way that can put the hunter and the sportsman on their side. If each side is unwilling to discuss compromise, it's hard to see any meaningful path to progress. As someone stated earlier, for this needle to move, it has to be a Republican president has to make the move. You can't claim this is a problem where neither side is willing to compromise and then the next sentence say that only one party's leadership will ever be able move us forward on this issue due to the intractability of their constituents.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,727
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Sept 2, 2015 8:26:20 GMT -5
You can't claim this is a problem where neither side is willing to compromise and then the next sentence say that only one party's leadership will ever be able move us forward on this issue due to the intractability of their constituents. That was not the intent. Either party can lead, but leadership from the GOP would certainly be more impactful than a Democratic president trying to force-feed the opposition on this.
|
|