|
Rangpur posted:Would said demographic accept a knowledgable, carefully thought out law instead? What would such regulations entail? I know these threads degenerate into unparseable recursive layers of shitposting but it's a genuinely interesting question to me. If you want to reduce gun violence the best way is to reduce poverty. Guns are a symptom of a real problem, but the problem isn't that the guns themselves exist. And no, this thread isn't doing anything useful. It is a quagmire of terrible posts and the best thing for anyone reading this to do is to add every single person in the thread to their ignore list, turn off their computer and go outside.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 03:26 |
|
|
Rangpur posted:Would said demographic accept a knowledgable, carefully thought out law instead? What would such regulations entail? I know these threads degenerate into unparseable recursive layers of shitposting but it's a genuinely interesting question to me. I want to say yes, as an eventuality. Maybe not all: the "government shouldn't touch anything of mine!" mindset is strong for a subset of gun owners, just like for enthusiasts of any other individual right or activity. But the bulk of gun owners are used to guns seeing some regulation, know they're practically always going to see some regulation, and would kinda like to see regulation thought out by people who know the topic rather than just how guns work in the movies. At the same time, right now the well is just so poisoned by the character of current gun control that even many pro-gun people who honestly believe this are still going to clam up because they're just that used to talking to incrementalists. Considering that gun violence has continued to fall pretty similarly both in states which have loosened gun laws the last twenty years and in those which have tightened them, it seems the best approach there is to wait some years before even making carefully worded proposals. Maybe it will change someday, but for now if you want to reduce violence and societal problems, every breath and every penny spent on guns would be better placed toward literally any progressive cause. If the thread serves a purpose, it's in letting the more fervent anti-gun advocates show watching progressives that they are not actually allies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Maybe it will change someday, but for now if you want to reduce violence and societal problems, every breath and every penny spent on guns would be better placed toward literally any progressive cause. If the thread serves a purpose, it's in letting the more fervent anti-gun advocates show watching progressives that they are not actually allies. ...maybe a railgun would do it; I'm only human.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Rangpur posted:But right there, you've already run headlong into one of the major stumbling blocks. You are correct as a matter of pure ideology--gun control is not an inherently progressive idea. In actual practice any politician I'm likely to vote for probably has gun control in their platform somewhere. Not because it's a decisive issue, but because there is no gun cool enough for me to prioritize owning it over potential appointments to the Supreme Court. Asking people to vote against their own interests and rights for the nebulous greater good is only slightly above loving child hookers on the political scale of suicide.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Asking people to vote against their own interests and rights for the nebulous greater good is only slightly above loving child hookers on the political scale of suicide. And yet the Republican party somehow still exists. What's your point, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
I can't believe this thread still exists. It proves the title "Debate and Discussion" is a lie. There hasn't been debate or real discussion in this thread since post #1. Its literally nothing but one side being insane, hurling insults and fabricated lies and the other side being gun owners who are correct.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Rangpur posted:But right there, you've already run headlong into one of the major stumbling blocks. You are correct as a matter of pure ideology--gun control is not an inherently progressive idea. In actual practice any politician I'm likely to vote for probably has gun control in their platform somewhere. Not because it's a decisive issue, but because there is no gun cool enough for me to prioritize owning it over potential appointments to the Supreme Court. No one's asking you to become a single issue pro-gun voter, certainly. But if you want to be a responsible progressive working to reduce violence in society, the place to start is by not feeding or actively supporting anti-gun laws that consume your political capital only to energize your opposition. Keep your money and time out of organizations and candidates that make it a priority, put it on those that focus on other things. If you're asked, make the point clear: a new AWB or whatever isn't a useful cause for your needs: reducing poverty and ending the drug war are. Tezzor's not entirely wrong in playing the long game, even if his specifics are kinda paranoid and xenophobic. For other approaches? Waving a magic wand to make gun control leave the Democratic platform for is as fanciful as waving a magic wand to make guns themselves vanish from the country no matter how much greater good either will do. But making it less a campaign or legislative priority over time? That's a lot more doable. Active gun haters on the left are fewer and fading faster than active gun lovers on the right, and when they don't get to control the narrative, since gun control isn't a cause that's necessary to the party's ideology it can pretty easily fall out of the platform in a few election cycles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:And yet the Republican party somehow still exists. What's your point, exactly? The Republicans aren't even selling the greater good, it's just a whole lot of "gently caress those guys" which actually sells pretty well on both sides.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Asking people to vote against their own interests and rights for the nebulous greater good is only slightly above loving child hookers on the political scale of suicide. EDIT: the hypothetical 'you,' that is. I make no assumptions about your actual politics outside this specific issue. Rangpur fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
BarkingSquirrel posted:I can't believe this thread still exists. It proves the title "Debate and Discussion" is a lie. There hasn't been debate or real discussion in this thread since post #1. Its literally nothing but one side being insane, hurling insults and fabricated lies and the other side being gun owners who are correct. Ah yes the wonderful pro-gun arguments we've gotten in this thread. Let's peruse the greatest hits shall we? There's "You can't comment on this because you haven't had arbitrary experience x", "ignore almost all the citations and data and acknowledge only the one citation I found a canned response to on a pro-gun website" "question the masculinity (hilariously by the way), sanity, and honesty of the opposition" "insist on impossible standards of evidence (except when it supports my side!)" and, oh yes, who could forget "look over there!". Bravo guys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Ah yes the wonderful pro-gun arguments we've gotten in this thread. Let's peruse the greatest hits shall we? There's "You can't comment on this because you haven't had arbitrary experience x", "ignore almost all the citations and data and acknowledge only the one citation I found a canned response to on a pro-gun website" "question the masculinity (hilariously by the way), sanity, and honesty of the opposition" "insist on impossible standards of evidence (except when it supports my side!)" and, oh yes, who could forget "look over there!". Bravo guys. Remember that time I had a good sense of humor and told you what college I went to and how many sexual partners I had but you still refused to answer if you had fired a gun? I remember.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
I'd also like to credit the lovely cast of characters that have made this thread so worth while. "Obvious racist", "xenophobic hick who talks like a mallard fillmore parody comic", and "random TFR shitposter #95630" are just a few of my favorites.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Let's peruse the greatest hits shall we? There's "You can't comment on this because you haven't had arbitrary experience x" Yes, in fact, it is a good idea to actually be educated about a subject when you try to suggest legislation on it. Weird, right? And yet you champion your position here. "Of course I'm ignorant, what sort of person would actually want to know anything before crafting laws? Expecting me to actually respond to questions of basic competency on the subject is just your attempt to gotcha me in some rhetorical trap! I don't need facts, I have emotion and bluster!". News flash: There is no gotcha anyone could come up with that makes you look worse than loud and ignorant by choice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 08:07
|
|
|
Rangpur posted:Your priorities are well established, yes. Political reality being what it is, presumably a Republican candidate would represent them better at the national level. However, unless you also support repealing the ACA, further restricting reproductive rights of women, etc., you are choosing to make that political trade-off. Not an invalid one, by any means, but far removed from mine. It doesn't really matter how I vote, I live in CA. The state with the tough gun laws that just had a mass shooting by a fully vetted, background checked loser.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Rangpur posted:Would said demographic accept a knowledgable, carefully thought out law instead? What would such regulations entail? I know these threads degenerate into unparseable recursive layers of shitposting but it's a genuinely interesting question to me. Any reasonable set of legislation would leave assault weapons and automatic rifles essentially untouched, because they are a minor blip in crime statistics. Despite this, anti-gun people have latched onto these as good places to start with gun legislation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
It's no great mystery why that particular type of firearm keeps getting singled out. People are generally pretty bad at evaluating risk. One school shooting with an assault rifle that gets national headlines garners more attention, and thus more concerted political action than the 100-odd handgun deaths that took place without 24-hour news coverage. Compounding that, the lone sociopath with no prior record who then goes on a premeditated rampage with a legally purchased weapon is a phenomenon the law is poorly equipped to prevent. At best it can alter the 'legally purchased' aspect, but at this point there are so many channels to obtain black market firearms it's not a meaningful solution. Maybe once it could have worked, but now it's a street level version of security theater. The fix with the best odds of derailing Elliot Rodgers' shooting spree was 'a less dense set of parents and/or cops. Unfortunately, there's no way to legislate that. Violent crime in the US is trending downward. Has been for years. The 'a mass shooting every week' factoid may be technically true, but the Sandy Hooks of that list represent a different problem than 'six drug dealers killed in a rival gang's drive-by.'
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Ah yes the wonderful pro-gun arguments we've gotten in this thread. Let's peruse the greatest hits shall we? There's "You can't comment on this because you haven't had arbitrary experience x", "ignore almost all the citations and data and acknowledge only the one citation I found a canned response to on a pro-gun website" "question the masculinity (hilariously by the way), sanity, and honesty of the opposition" "insist on impossible standards of evidence (except when it supports my side!)" and, oh yes, who could forget "look over there!". Bravo guys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
BarkingSquirrel posted:I can't believe this thread still exists. It proves the title "Debate and Discussion" is a lie. There hasn't been debate or real discussion in this thread since post #1. Its literally nothing but one side being insane, hurling insults and fabricated lies and the other side being gun owners who are correct.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 09:38
|
|
|
Yes it has made me a Hero among mere men.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 11:27
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Reminder that this whole debate over the state providing personal security is pointless because gun availability makes people less safe. The individual owning a gun is selecting "betray" in the prisoner's dilemma. Also, you're stubbornly refusing to pick a metric by which the strictness of firearms laws can be measured, or a definition of their success other than the nonsensical and tautological "less firearms deaths." You can't even define a percent reduction that would be considered "significant." Whenever you do latch on to a definition and other posters point out examples that defy your theory, you claim that this is due to Confounding Factors, but then refuse to acknowledge those examples you cite in support of your theory are subject to the same confounding factors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 03:26 |
|
|
BarkingSquirrel posted:I can't believe this thread still exists. It proves the title "Debate and Discussion" is a lie. There hasn't been debate or real discussion in this thread since post #1. Its literally nothing but one side being insane, hurling insults and fabricated lies and the other side being gun owners who are correct. You know, this is a really bad thread, I agree. I've been considering gassing it for a bit, but kept putting it off. I think I will close it, though. But first I'd like to make a statement: You're awful. You are utterly humorless and a giant whiny baby, and you've gotten onto my list of posters with such bad judgement that when I see a report made by you, I instantly know it's total bullshit. Some of your reports even attract mods from other subforums to comment on how bad and dumb you are. So when I saw that you had been reported, I was pretty amused. But I found that I largely agreed with your point--that it's a bad thread, not that it proves the Debate & Discussion forum name is a lie because it's not actually called Debate & Discussion right now. Nor that the gun owners are 100% correct all the time. In summation, I hate you, but only marginally less than I hate this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 19:35
|
|
