The problem with gun control legislation in the US:
*dozens and dozens of shootings happen per year*
*US Government introduced gun control legislation*
*months pass without incident*
*one shooting happens*
US GUN LOBBY: SEE GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK! ALL GUNS ALL THE TIME!
And anyway, there are like a quadrillion guns in circulation in the US, you can't just magic them away with legislation.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
No you need to do a buyback like Australia did.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Even if there was a similar participation rate, (something that is by no means certain) that would hardly make a dent in the number of guns in America.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-obama-america
It depends on whether or not you are looking at overall firearms violence or the number of mass/active shooters. The short answer is yes, shootings are down since the 1990's.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/...ublic-unaware/
Of only the government could do actual research on what types of gun control would work and what wouldn't... Except doing that kind of research is banned by congress.I suppose that means that the pro gun lobby is worried facts are not on their side? Either way that is utterly stupid.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Thanks! I remember reading that somewhere. Appreciate the 'facts'
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/17/po...ate-guns-vote/
So that would be Obama's fault and not, you know, of the people who voted against it?
Also mass shootings have not increased.. though if you exclude things like robberies and gang violence (which leaves spree killings I guess) they have.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I don't particularly want Congress performing "research," especially when it comes to politically charged topics. Given how easy it is to make statistics lie it seems ripe for abuse.Of only the government could do actual research on what types of gun control would work and what wouldn't... Except doing that kind of research is banned by congress.
No, congress banned the federal government from spending money on almost any kind of research into gun violence. Given that it's clearly a big issue, you don't think that's stupid?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
No, I'm not particularly bothered by it, but then again you are talking to someone who doesn't want the federal government spending money on research I actually do find worthwhile. If it is any consolation I'd feel similarly about federally funded research into the acceptable limits of free speech, the economic impact on southern plantation owners as a result of the ban on slavery, or the risks associated with women's suffrage.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 10-07-2015 at 09:46 PM.
Do you consistently ignore deeper principles, or only when it's convenient to do so? It's ok to discriminate against Muslims, because it's ok to discriminate against all religions...even though Muslims are the ones being discriminated against. It's ok to not fund gun control research, because it's ok to not fund any research...even though it's only the gun control research that's not being funded. Let me guess: it's ok to only execute black murderers, because executing murderers is ok?
What happened to the libertarian principle of not allowing the government to pass legislation aimed at specific individuals?
Hope is the denial of reality
First, you are conflating several different topics, so let me try and clear the air. I think it's idiotic to say that all *insert group here* are monolithic in their beliefs or approach to anything. Whether that be Muslims or Christians, Republicans or Democrats, gun-owners or gun control advocates. Do I think it is morally just to discriminate against Muslims? No. I find it personally abhorrent. Would you feel better knowing that I support an atheist's right to discriminate against Christians, or a homosexual's right to discriminate against heteronormative couples? Do I find such discrimination distasteful? Absolutely. Do I think that everything I find idiotic or distasteful should be prohibited? No, I do not.
Second point, and perhaps it's because it hasn't come up recently, but I'm hardly an advocate of government spending, even in areas that I am excited about. I love the idea of space exploration, and the sheer wealth of knowledge and understanding that NASA has been able to add to our understanding of the universe. I don't support public funding for it though. You seem to be thinking that because Congressional understanding happens to align with my own here, that it is somehow, (and somewhat puzzlingly I might add) a violation of a deeper principal. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
Third point, I am not an advocate of capital punishment, but then I suppose the question would become, would I be okay with laws saying a white person could not be put to death? The answer is yes. I would be supportive, or at least willing to use, a law that could in theory prevent any innocent person from being subjected to state sanctioned murder, even if the law itself was woefully inadequate. I would do everything in my power to better the law and make the application universal, but that doesn't mean that it would somehow be morally wrong to use a law that is unjust in it's scope - not it's intent - to save an inmate from wrongfully being put to death. Would you prefer that an innocent white inmate be put to death in order to make the law somehow more fair? You seem to believe that justice is somehow zero sum. I do not.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 10-08-2015 at 02:40 PM.
Seems to be a waste of money if they did research gun violence. Even if a million people died a year, unless you're willing to amend the constitution...
I actually expect most of them think the facts are on their side. A lot of them are ideologues and we've all seen the analyses about the increasingly "insulated bubble" nature of social ties and community formation in the US. But whether they think others are out to "steal" their rights away or they're just astute observes, they recognize that it doesn't really matter if the facts are on their side or not. Gun laws are fairly loose and unrestricted overall. The status quo is already on their side. So even if the facts bear them out, research isn't going to lead to any significant improvements for them. So whether or not the facts are on their side, research can only pose a risk to their treasured rights.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Fair enough. But with your examples, for example, it would have been a good idea to research the economic impact of abolishing slavery before doing so, if only to be able to anticipate it and perhaps take measures to ease the impact. Generally speaking, I think it's a good Idea to know the facts of a situation, and assessments of the effects and impact of all your options, before making decisions that affect an entire country. Unless you prefer to just guess what would happen, we all know that reasoning that sounds logical always works in the real world...
Out of curiosity.. why not? NASA seems like a perfect example of what should be funded. You recognise the wealth of knowledge space exploration has for the world, which is enormous. But the costs are so prohibitively high while it benefits everyone, making it a perfect example of something that would not work with private funding. Even now as space is available to private companies, said companies depend extremely heavily on the knowledge provided by NASA et al. Without public funding, frankly I don't think there'd be a single satellite around the world, and I think I'm not exaggerating when I say those have improved the global economy (among other things) quite a bit. So while I can understand criticism of the amount of funding, how it's being spent, etc. , it's hard for nee to understand why you'd be against funding space travel altogether.On the flipside, by passing such a law you could make it harder to completely abolish it in the end, which altogether could cost more innocent lives.Third point, I am not a supporter of capital punishment, but then I suppose the question would become, would I be okay with laws saying a white person could not be put to death? The answer is yes. I would be supportive, or at least willing to use, a law that could in theory prevent any innocent person from being subjected to state sanctioned murder, even if the law itself was woefully inadequate. I would do everything in my power to better the law and make it's application universal, but that doesn't mean that it would somehow be morally wrong to use a law that is unjust in it's scope - not it's intent - to save an inmate from wrongfully being put to death. Would you prefer that an innocent white inmate be put to death in order to make the law somehow more fair? You seem to believe that justice is somehow zero sum. I do not.
First of all, research into these shootings could have other outcomes as well, from how to respond to shootings, to how to better enforce existing regulation, or which types of regulation would have no impact. And knowing, for example, what the motivations of spree shooters are could be valuable too.
Second, I call bullshit. The 2nd amendment clearly does not give a blanket right to keep any arms. First of all you're not allowed to keep tanks or missile launchers, second there were stricter bans in the 90s I believe that were apparently also not unconstitutional. So it obviously is a matter of where to draw the line, and obviously there is room for regulations.
Good point.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Ah, the old "well, of course I'm against that too" syndrome.
No, I think what a person spends their time talking about and the issues they focus on tell you a lot more about their real values and goals than the positions they claim to support in abstract.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I must have missed the discussion we were previously having about hypothetical capital punishment for all races but white folks. You got me.
Or maybe one shouldn't pretend to extrapolate data about someone that they clearly don't have, and couldn't know in some vain attempt at scoring rhetorical points. Or should I hold you to account for positions you have not taken in discussions we have not had?
er I didn't mention any kind of hypothetical punishment, capital or otherwise.
I just said the issues a person spends most of their time talking about tell you more about their values and goals than what they *say* their principles are in abstract. Do you disagree with that statement? If so, why?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Perhaps you would like to, or already have taken the time to break down all my posts and perform some kind of regression analysis based on the topics of discussion that were currently available and my posting times, and the content of my writings, and discovered what you could about my values and goals. (If so, I'm very curious at your results - please share.) Even that would hardly be a multidimensional portrait of an individual that exists beyond the confines of The World Forgotten, but maybe it would have some value - or maybe you didn't say anything of value at all, and instead snarkily implied that I did not care about the things I was taking the time to respond to in an attempt to discredit my argument without having to address what was actually said. Because your post was so bereft of context or meaning it is really rather difficult to say one way or the other.
What I said wasn't specific to you at all. The exchange you were in was about about the statements and actions of other groups - specifically the pro-gun section of the American political spectrum in regard to the prohibition of congressional research into gun violence specifically - so I replied in that spirit. For example, if a group or section of the political spectrum (rather than you personally) claims to be very interested in preventing the government overstepping it's bounds, but the only areas where it ever bothers to actually do anything about this are when guns are involved then it's hardly unreasonable to conclude that all they really give a shit about are guns and that their so called libertarianism is just a performative display to provide cover for their real interests.
Likewise, in the context of your hypothetical example of a law prohibiting the death penalty for whites, what you should really do with my statement is not point it at yourself and consider it a veiled accusation of racism but that the hypothetical you should point it at the people who proposed that law before he decides how to react, i.e. as an attack on non-whites, an attack on the principle of equality before the law and not an 80% repeal of the death penalty.
So the same point I tried to make in our last exchange about campaign finance and the point Loki tried to make: you can't do politics just with platonic principles, context is all important.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Aside from being complete and utter bullshit, in what world could anyone intuit any of that from what was said?
Oh, right it's all bullshit.
In a world where people read things without massive chips on their shoulder?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Just to be clear, in your mind if you directly quote someone and say:
The onus is clearly then on them to know you were not talking about or even necessarily to them*, but instead were referencing statements and actions of other, unnamed, somewhat nebulous groups who as of yet have not been mentioned or defined at all. Groups who are only interested in actually doing something about government interference when guns are involved**. Further, contained somewhat cunningly between the lines, and in response to what was actually contained in the post itself, it should be clear that there is an additional critique of a hypothetical, clearly unjust, unequal law as being in fact unjust and unequal.Ah, the old "well, of course I'm against that too" syndrome. No, I think what a person spends their time talking about and the issues they focus on tell you a lot more about their real values and goals than the positions they claim to support in abstract.
And then, for good measure some meaningless patter about context being all important. Come to think of it, it isn't patter, it is the punchline.
*It certainly should NOT be read as a criticism of them, or really meant to specifically reference them in any way.
**I can't think of anyone on these forums who fits that description, but maybe somewhere there's a constituency out there that only cares about government when it comes to guns but masquerades as libertarian in all other respects just to throw off the bloodhound like scent of Steely Glint. It is a big world.
If I was talking about you, I would not have used the words "a person", I would have referred to you directly. As I, I would have said "I think you're more interested in preserving your own rights than you are in small government".
I could have been clearer, yes, but this tantrum is absolutely ridiculous.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
If I am unwilling to support government spending for programs that I believe fundamentally better mankind and our understanding of the world, do you think I would also support some kind of financial restitution, support, or subsidy for plantation owners who profiteered off the backs, blood, and tears of slaves? Should I be willing to postpone emancipation by even one day for someone who has been enslaved their whole life because it might negatively impact a slave owners bottom line? That hardly seems right to me.
I don't believe everything of worth should be publicly funded. It's likely true that development in space would not be where it is today without federal funding. It's also true that there have been developments from the space race that have made lasting impacts on the global economy. I can recognize these things and still have a philosophical objection to public funding for space. Just as I can recognize that good can be done with social welfare and still be ideologically opposed to public funding for it. I do not believe that without government spending on space mankind would be forever terrestrially bound. There may not have been the rapid developments we saw in the 60's and 70's, but I think it would have inevitably happened one way or the other.Out of curiosity.. why not? NASA seems like a perfect example of what should be funded. You recognise the wealth of knowledge space exploration has for the world, which is enormous. But the costs are so prohibitively high while it benefits everyone, making it a perfect example of something that would not work with private funding. Even now as space is available to private companies, said companies depend extremely heavily on the knowledge provided by NASA et al. Without public funding, frankly I don't think there'd be a single satellite around the world, and I think I'm not exaggerating when I say those have improved the global economy (among other things) quite a bit. So while I can understand criticism of the amount of funding, how it's being spent, etc. , it's hard for nee to understand why you'd be against funding space travel altogether.
In that same vein, would you be willing to support funding increases to the US Military because that funding has also lead to technological developments that have had positive economic impacts? The internet and computing likely wouldn't be nearly as developed without substantial investments by them.
In the hypothetical I wasn't attempting to give the impression that I would be interested in passing such a law, but instead was using a clearly unjust law that is already on the books for good in the situations that it could. That may not have been clear through my wording. Apologies.On the flipside, by passing such a law you could make it harder to completely abolish it in the end, which altogether could cost more innocent lives.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 10-08-2015 at 11:12 PM.
Ah, the old "Well, of course I did not mean what I did say, and I did mean what I didn't say in a context that no reasonable person could have any way of knowing, and also stop throwing a fit, because I'm the misunderstood victim here" syndrome.
No, I think what a person says tells you a lot more about their real values and goals than the backpedaling and mental gymnastics they use to justify themselves after the fact.
I hope I'm being clear here, and you realize of course that I am obviously not talking about or to you, but rather broadly speaking and in general.
That awkward moment when someone writes something at you intended to be insulting but it just comes over as pitiful.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Yeah, great. Well done.
Anyway, any chance we can act like adults now? Are you really sat their at your computer, fuming at me because you genuinely think I was directing those original comments at you? Because I have no fucking idea what his brought this... behaviour on, but I give you my word: I was not talking about you. That is not my opinion of you. If I genuinely gave you that impression it was an error and I apologize.
On the other hand, if you're perfectly well aware I wasn't referring to you and are just continuing with this performance in the belief it will cause you to somehow... what? ... ""win""? Then please just a) grow up and b) fuck off.
EDITED FOR CLARITY: Enoch deleted a post that said "Sick burn" then made the one below.
Last edited by Steely Glint; 10-08-2015 at 11:53 PM.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I think you are reading far more emotion into my responses than there is, but sure, if it was an honest miscommunication no harm, no foul. Consider it dropped. I still can't say I fully comprehend the point you were trying to make, but that's on me.
That is an excellent idea.Consider it dropped.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
And what is it that you think Enoch (or whoever else you're referring to) has spent most of his time talking about.
Furthermore you're not with anyone except maybe your significant other most of the time. The context of a conversation and who you're talking to and why can shape what you discuss and how it is received. On this forum I've been called a eurosceptic little Englander and on another site I post in I've been called a Quisling traitor who wants a European superstate. For expressing the same opinion on both sites.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/680662/Mass_20Shootings_201980-2010-thumb-533x320-79419.0.jpg)