|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On September 22 2018 02:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 01:47 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 00:42 Danglars wrote:If you’re not going to say any new questions this news story raises, don’t pretend it’s very interesting that a gun rights proponent hasn’t spoken up. It just marks you as the kind of person interested in cheap rhetorical points. On September 21 2018 23:52 JimmiC wrote: Exactly do all these small shootings even matter? I mean it has to be what at least 10 people dead before anyone pretends to care.... Almost obligatory follow up accusation that people are uncaring, or if they care in bigger instances, are only pretending to care. If shaming strategies like these worked, you would have your glorious public policy changes achieved a long time ago. Sometimes when peoples heels are dug in a little quip can loosen things up so they are willing to think about things again instead of just win an argument. Logic and reason was not getting anywhere so why not try another tact? I mean there is so many shootings everyday it would be a full time job to just post them. I think it is very scary that there are so many people that think this is "normal" and "ok". It is a very bad sign that it takes mass fatalities to even move the needle. Trust me, the gun rights people I know constantly wonder when the gun control people will turn to reason and logic and stop the shaming and emotional pleas. It's mutually assured in political life. The Parkland shooting was about more gun control and more gun control NOW, rather than looking at systemic mistakes of the Sheriffs department and the educational establishment. It's a tad too inconvenient for gun control proponents to acknowledge failures under current laws as they push for new ones. But, I don't want to sound too dour on that topic, since there was a bit of good news recently on the front. A student who co-founded the March For Our Lives movement calling for stricter gun laws in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting says he has left the group and regrets trying to "embarrass" Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) about gun-control.
"I left the organization and if I thought that my friends and the people I worked with couldn't do it without me I would not have done that," Cameron Kasky told Fox News Radio's Guy Benson in an interview Wednesday.
Kasky, who was among several students who began advocating for gun control in the wake of the February mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, said that he is "very regretful of a lot of the mistakes that I made along the way."
He expressed regret about how he handled an exchange with Rubio during a live town hall televised on CNN shortly after 17 students and faculty died when a former student opened fire at the school.
Kasky told Rubio at the town hall, "Sen. Rubio, it’s hard to look at you and not look down a barrel of an AR-15 and not look at Nikolas Cruz, but the point is you’re here and there are some people who are not."
He then questioned Rubio aggressively for taking money from the National Rifle Association.
"I look back on that and I say, you know what, there were people who had just been buried and when you're looking at somebody that you find might in some way have been complicit in this murderer obtaining the weapon it's hard not to say something like that," Kasky said Wednesday. "But, I went into that wanting less conversation and more to embarrass Rubio and that was my biggest flaw."
Kasky said he did not regret trying to put Rubio "on the spot" – expressing his frustration with politicians not offering direct responses to questions – but said he should not have invoked the alleged shooter's name.
He also said that he came to appreciate views that are different than his during his time with March For Our Lives.
"This summer when March For Our Lives went on the summer tour that we embarked on I met that person in Texas whose got that semi-automatic weapon because that's how they like to protect their family," Kasky told Fox News Radio. "I met the 50 some odd percent of woman who are pro-life, even though I thought it was preposterous that a woman could be pro-life and not pro-choice at the time."
"I learned that a lot of our issues politically come from a lack of understanding of other perspectives," he added. The HillBig time gun shamer and March for our Lives founder goes out and meets Americans on a summer tour and changes his mind. It's the generational churn that gives me great hope for change in the next decade. I think many have asked you, what is your solution. What measure do you think should be taken to reduce gun violence. I think I answered you on several points you simply refused to acknowledge or respond to only two weeks ago. My big question is do you seriously expect posters to repeat themselves twice a month or they don't pass your solutions bar? I will remain convinced that you know my solutions, don't like them, but are politically happy to pretend they don't exist or aren't real solutions. You did just finish calling the shaming of gun rights supporters "a little quip" and had no comment on my article and great hope on the future, so maybe this is all a little joke to you anyways. I try not to assume I know what the other person is talking about, so is it?
This is going to surprise and shock you but it is not all about you. I stopped discussing with you because you cherry picked my posts to disagree with a few things and ignore the rest. You reengaged with me, so I asked a simple question which you avoided again. I'm perfectly content to go on in this thread with talking to you or not. But stop pretending like it is all about you.
|
On September 22 2018 03:04 ShoCkeyy wrote:Posting this here because I think it's also relevant in both threads. The video in the link is quite loud, and a lot of gun fire, it literally sounds like a war zone for the time being. This was about 15mins from me. A man with an AK-47 went head to head with police. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article218773495.htmlShow nested quote +A man who was at the center of an armed kidnapping FBI case was shot and killed late Thursday by police after he fired at several officers with an assault rifle, police said.
Rapid gunfire erupted near Northwest 72nd Avenue and Seventh Street — just blocks away from Miami International Airport. Police officials said City of Miami police and Miami-Dade police were working with the FBI in an ongoing kidnapping case when the shooting happened.
“The FBI was investigating a fugitive case. The suspect of this investigation fled the scene. And he was armed,” FBI spokesman Brian Waterman told reporters early Friday. “He [the suspect] was involved in a hate crime investigation.” In California 3 gang members took on 2 police officers and their ride along. All the gang members were killed and the 3 police were injured. It is crazy all this goes on and is so under the radar, because so much of it goes on!
|
On September 22 2018 03:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 03:04 ShoCkeyy wrote:Posting this here because I think it's also relevant in both threads. The video in the link is quite loud, and a lot of gun fire, it literally sounds like a war zone for the time being. This was about 15mins from me. A man with an AK-47 went head to head with police. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article218773495.htmlA man who was at the center of an armed kidnapping FBI case was shot and killed late Thursday by police after he fired at several officers with an assault rifle, police said.
Rapid gunfire erupted near Northwest 72nd Avenue and Seventh Street — just blocks away from Miami International Airport. Police officials said City of Miami police and Miami-Dade police were working with the FBI in an ongoing kidnapping case when the shooting happened.
“The FBI was investigating a fugitive case. The suspect of this investigation fled the scene. And he was armed,” FBI spokesman Brian Waterman told reporters early Friday. “He [the suspect] was involved in a hate crime investigation.” In California 3 gang members took on 2 police officers and their ride along. All the gang members were killed and the 3 police were injured. It is crazy all this goes on and is so under the radar, because so much of it goes on! Mostly beacuse cases that like are minorities and the media doesn't consider gang violence as a news worthy item unless it involves non minority gang members or non gang members. Most of the stats about "mass shootings happen every day in america" happen from events like that.
But its the people who follow the law are the ones we should go after on gun control.
|
On September 22 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 00:42 Danglars wrote:If you’re not going to say any new questions this news story raises, don’t pretend it’s very interesting that a gun rights proponent hasn’t spoken up. It just marks you as the kind of person interested in cheap rhetorical points. On September 21 2018 23:52 JimmiC wrote: Exactly do all these small shootings even matter? I mean it has to be what at least 10 people dead before anyone pretends to care.... Almost obligatory follow up accusation that people are uncaring, or if they care in bigger instances, are only pretending to care. If shaming strategies like these worked, you would have your glorious public policy changes achieved a long time ago. Sometimes when peoples heels are dug in a little quip can loosen things up so they are willing to think about things again instead of just win an argument. Logic and reason was not getting anywhere so why not try another tact? I mean there is so many shootings everyday it would be a full time job to just post them. I think it is very scary that there are so many people that think this is "normal" and "ok". It is a very bad sign that it takes mass fatalities to even move the needle. But, I don't want to sound too dour on that topic, since there was a bit of good news recently on the front. Show nested quote +A student who co-founded the March For Our Lives movement calling for stricter gun laws in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting says he has left the group and regrets trying to "embarrass" Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) about gun-control.
"I left the organization and if I thought that my friends and the people I worked with couldn't do it without me I would not have done that," Cameron Kasky told Fox News Radio's Guy Benson in an interview Wednesday.
Kasky, who was among several students who began advocating for gun control in the wake of the February mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, said that he is "very regretful of a lot of the mistakes that I made along the way."
He expressed regret about how he handled an exchange with Rubio during a live town hall televised on CNN shortly after 17 students and faculty died when a former student opened fire at the school.
Kasky told Rubio at the town hall, "Sen. Rubio, it’s hard to look at you and not look down a barrel of an AR-15 and not look at Nikolas Cruz, but the point is you’re here and there are some people who are not."
He then questioned Rubio aggressively for taking money from the National Rifle Association.
"I look back on that and I say, you know what, there were people who had just been buried and when you're looking at somebody that you find might in some way have been complicit in this murderer obtaining the weapon it's hard not to say something like that," Kasky said Wednesday. "But, I went into that wanting less conversation and more to embarrass Rubio and that was my biggest flaw."
Kasky said he did not regret trying to put Rubio "on the spot" – expressing his frustration with politicians not offering direct responses to questions – but said he should not have invoked the alleged shooter's name.
He also said that he came to appreciate views that are different than his during his time with March For Our Lives.
"This summer when March For Our Lives went on the summer tour that we embarked on I met that person in Texas whose got that semi-automatic weapon because that's how they like to protect their family," Kasky told Fox News Radio. "I met the 50 some odd percent of woman who are pro-life, even though I thought it was preposterous that a woman could be pro-life and not pro-choice at the time."
"I learned that a lot of our issues politically come from a lack of understanding of other perspectives," he added. The HillBig time gun shamer and March for our Lives founder goes out and meets Americans on a summer tour and changes his mind. It's the generational churn that gives me great hope for change in the next decade. I find your takeaway from this story hilarious and sad. The so many'th school shooting ending in the deaths of 17 students and faculty staff but you're happy one of the people who actually rose up and said this shit needs to end has now 'come to his senses'?
You're going to need people to organize marches, to protest, to actively stand up and start building a nation without a proliferation of tools which exist for the sole purpose of killing humans.
Is a blanket ban on every single type of weapon required? Probably not, there are plenty of countries where you can have hunting rifles or shoot for sport. But the ingrained gun culture, and the absolutely obscene amount of guns in america need to go, before you might be able to have a country where students don't need shooting drills, and where employees don't need to be on the lookout for a disgruntled ex-employee with an assault rifle.
I'm not expecting it to happen soon, but with enough push, maybe in a few decades the percentage of people who think they need guns or should have a right to them will decrease, and we can see some actual change happen.
|
On September 22 2018 03:30 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 03:16 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 03:04 ShoCkeyy wrote:Posting this here because I think it's also relevant in both threads. The video in the link is quite loud, and a lot of gun fire, it literally sounds like a war zone for the time being. This was about 15mins from me. A man with an AK-47 went head to head with police. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article218773495.htmlA man who was at the center of an armed kidnapping FBI case was shot and killed late Thursday by police after he fired at several officers with an assault rifle, police said.
Rapid gunfire erupted near Northwest 72nd Avenue and Seventh Street — just blocks away from Miami International Airport. Police officials said City of Miami police and Miami-Dade police were working with the FBI in an ongoing kidnapping case when the shooting happened.
“The FBI was investigating a fugitive case. The suspect of this investigation fled the scene. And he was armed,” FBI spokesman Brian Waterman told reporters early Friday. “He [the suspect] was involved in a hate crime investigation.” In California 3 gang members took on 2 police officers and their ride along. All the gang members were killed and the 3 police were injured. It is crazy all this goes on and is so under the radar, because so much of it goes on! Mostly beacuse cases that like are minorities and the media doesn't consider gang violence as a news worthy item unless it involves non minority gang members or non gang members. Most of the stats about "mass shootings happen every day in america" happen from events like that. But its the people who follow the law are the ones we should go after on gun control.
We have criminals in our country as do they in Australia, UK so on. And yet the gun control seems to work to curb the violence of those criminals. I really don't get the "gun control only impacts law abiding citizens" argument. If that was the case you would think in heavily controlled areas, gun violence would run a muck.
|
On September 22 2018 03:15 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 02:29 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2018 01:47 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 00:42 Danglars wrote:If you’re not going to say any new questions this news story raises, don’t pretend it’s very interesting that a gun rights proponent hasn’t spoken up. It just marks you as the kind of person interested in cheap rhetorical points. On September 21 2018 23:52 JimmiC wrote: Exactly do all these small shootings even matter? I mean it has to be what at least 10 people dead before anyone pretends to care.... Almost obligatory follow up accusation that people are uncaring, or if they care in bigger instances, are only pretending to care. If shaming strategies like these worked, you would have your glorious public policy changes achieved a long time ago. Sometimes when peoples heels are dug in a little quip can loosen things up so they are willing to think about things again instead of just win an argument. Logic and reason was not getting anywhere so why not try another tact? I mean there is so many shootings everyday it would be a full time job to just post them. I think it is very scary that there are so many people that think this is "normal" and "ok". It is a very bad sign that it takes mass fatalities to even move the needle. Trust me, the gun rights people I know constantly wonder when the gun control people will turn to reason and logic and stop the shaming and emotional pleas. It's mutually assured in political life. The Parkland shooting was about more gun control and more gun control NOW, rather than looking at systemic mistakes of the Sheriffs department and the educational establishment. It's a tad too inconvenient for gun control proponents to acknowledge failures under current laws as they push for new ones. But, I don't want to sound too dour on that topic, since there was a bit of good news recently on the front. A student who co-founded the March For Our Lives movement calling for stricter gun laws in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting says he has left the group and regrets trying to "embarrass" Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) about gun-control.
"I left the organization and if I thought that my friends and the people I worked with couldn't do it without me I would not have done that," Cameron Kasky told Fox News Radio's Guy Benson in an interview Wednesday.
Kasky, who was among several students who began advocating for gun control in the wake of the February mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, said that he is "very regretful of a lot of the mistakes that I made along the way."
He expressed regret about how he handled an exchange with Rubio during a live town hall televised on CNN shortly after 17 students and faculty died when a former student opened fire at the school.
Kasky told Rubio at the town hall, "Sen. Rubio, it’s hard to look at you and not look down a barrel of an AR-15 and not look at Nikolas Cruz, but the point is you’re here and there are some people who are not."
He then questioned Rubio aggressively for taking money from the National Rifle Association.
"I look back on that and I say, you know what, there were people who had just been buried and when you're looking at somebody that you find might in some way have been complicit in this murderer obtaining the weapon it's hard not to say something like that," Kasky said Wednesday. "But, I went into that wanting less conversation and more to embarrass Rubio and that was my biggest flaw."
Kasky said he did not regret trying to put Rubio "on the spot" – expressing his frustration with politicians not offering direct responses to questions – but said he should not have invoked the alleged shooter's name.
He also said that he came to appreciate views that are different than his during his time with March For Our Lives.
"This summer when March For Our Lives went on the summer tour that we embarked on I met that person in Texas whose got that semi-automatic weapon because that's how they like to protect their family," Kasky told Fox News Radio. "I met the 50 some odd percent of woman who are pro-life, even though I thought it was preposterous that a woman could be pro-life and not pro-choice at the time."
"I learned that a lot of our issues politically come from a lack of understanding of other perspectives," he added. The HillBig time gun shamer and March for our Lives founder goes out and meets Americans on a summer tour and changes his mind. It's the generational churn that gives me great hope for change in the next decade. I think many have asked you, what is your solution. What measure do you think should be taken to reduce gun violence. I think I answered you on several points you simply refused to acknowledge or respond to only two weeks ago. My big question is do you seriously expect posters to repeat themselves twice a month or they don't pass your solutions bar? I will remain convinced that you know my solutions, don't like them, but are politically happy to pretend they don't exist or aren't real solutions. You did just finish calling the shaming of gun rights supporters "a little quip" and had no comment on my article and great hope on the future, so maybe this is all a little joke to you anyways. I try not to assume I know what the other person is talking about, so is it? This is going to surprise and shock you but it is not all about you. I stopped discussing with you because you cherry picked my posts to disagree with a few things and ignore the rest. You reengaged with me, so I asked a simple question which you avoided again. I'm perfectly content to go on in this thread with talking to you or not. But stop pretending like it is all about you. Then I can't help but conclude you're being quite dishonest here. I have a few simple ideas about what I'd like answers on, and sometimes when you want to wander into other topics, I'll follow along thinking sometime after you respond to other things, you'll get around to addressing what I was interested in with my first post. If every exchange ends in wanting broad based solutions detailed, and ignoring or outright dismissing every one up to this point, I must group you in the kind of gun control proponent too caught up in his own ideology to hold serious discussion.
You'll also have to pick a side of the street. Either I'm not worth engaging with, or too big on cherry-picking, at which point stop responding, or I am worth engaging with, in which case actually give me an answer instead of dithering about what you'd rather I asked you about. Secondarily, if I think some of your buried points are exactly the kind of things that are making the gun debate so terribly stuck, I'll point to them as an example, such as I did with your remarks on coming after our guns, and did again when you brought up news stories followed immediately by petty shaming and belittling.
Also, feel free to retract the
On September 21 2018 23:52 JimmiC wrote: Exactly do all these small shootings even matter? I mean it has to be what at least 10 people dead before anyone pretends to care.... if you do not with to be held accountable for what you say in this forum. That option is forever open to you. I'm forced to go off of what you say, not what you privately think are "little quips," as you previously described them.
|
United States24339 Posts
On September 22 2018 03:43 solidbebe wrote: You're going to need people to organize marches, to protest, to actively stand up and start building a nation without a proliferation of tools which exist for the sole purpose of killing humans.
I generally agree with the rest of your post but, once again, I need to point out that mischaracterizing guns like that only brings us further from any solutions to the USA's current problems. Do you want to argue about what the purpose of guns are or do you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths? You won't be able to successfully do both.
|
On September 22 2018 04:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 03:15 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 02:29 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2018 01:47 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 00:42 Danglars wrote:If you’re not going to say any new questions this news story raises, don’t pretend it’s very interesting that a gun rights proponent hasn’t spoken up. It just marks you as the kind of person interested in cheap rhetorical points. On September 21 2018 23:52 JimmiC wrote: Exactly do all these small shootings even matter? I mean it has to be what at least 10 people dead before anyone pretends to care.... Almost obligatory follow up accusation that people are uncaring, or if they care in bigger instances, are only pretending to care. If shaming strategies like these worked, you would have your glorious public policy changes achieved a long time ago. Sometimes when peoples heels are dug in a little quip can loosen things up so they are willing to think about things again instead of just win an argument. Logic and reason was not getting anywhere so why not try another tact? I mean there is so many shootings everyday it would be a full time job to just post them. I think it is very scary that there are so many people that think this is "normal" and "ok". It is a very bad sign that it takes mass fatalities to even move the needle. Trust me, the gun rights people I know constantly wonder when the gun control people will turn to reason and logic and stop the shaming and emotional pleas. It's mutually assured in political life. The Parkland shooting was about more gun control and more gun control NOW, rather than looking at systemic mistakes of the Sheriffs department and the educational establishment. It's a tad too inconvenient for gun control proponents to acknowledge failures under current laws as they push for new ones. But, I don't want to sound too dour on that topic, since there was a bit of good news recently on the front. A student who co-founded the March For Our Lives movement calling for stricter gun laws in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting says he has left the group and regrets trying to "embarrass" Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) about gun-control.
"I left the organization and if I thought that my friends and the people I worked with couldn't do it without me I would not have done that," Cameron Kasky told Fox News Radio's Guy Benson in an interview Wednesday.
Kasky, who was among several students who began advocating for gun control in the wake of the February mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, said that he is "very regretful of a lot of the mistakes that I made along the way."
He expressed regret about how he handled an exchange with Rubio during a live town hall televised on CNN shortly after 17 students and faculty died when a former student opened fire at the school.
Kasky told Rubio at the town hall, "Sen. Rubio, it’s hard to look at you and not look down a barrel of an AR-15 and not look at Nikolas Cruz, but the point is you’re here and there are some people who are not."
He then questioned Rubio aggressively for taking money from the National Rifle Association.
"I look back on that and I say, you know what, there were people who had just been buried and when you're looking at somebody that you find might in some way have been complicit in this murderer obtaining the weapon it's hard not to say something like that," Kasky said Wednesday. "But, I went into that wanting less conversation and more to embarrass Rubio and that was my biggest flaw."
Kasky said he did not regret trying to put Rubio "on the spot" – expressing his frustration with politicians not offering direct responses to questions – but said he should not have invoked the alleged shooter's name.
He also said that he came to appreciate views that are different than his during his time with March For Our Lives.
"This summer when March For Our Lives went on the summer tour that we embarked on I met that person in Texas whose got that semi-automatic weapon because that's how they like to protect their family," Kasky told Fox News Radio. "I met the 50 some odd percent of woman who are pro-life, even though I thought it was preposterous that a woman could be pro-life and not pro-choice at the time."
"I learned that a lot of our issues politically come from a lack of understanding of other perspectives," he added. The HillBig time gun shamer and March for our Lives founder goes out and meets Americans on a summer tour and changes his mind. It's the generational churn that gives me great hope for change in the next decade. I think many have asked you, what is your solution. What measure do you think should be taken to reduce gun violence. I think I answered you on several points you simply refused to acknowledge or respond to only two weeks ago. My big question is do you seriously expect posters to repeat themselves twice a month or they don't pass your solutions bar? I will remain convinced that you know my solutions, don't like them, but are politically happy to pretend they don't exist or aren't real solutions. You did just finish calling the shaming of gun rights supporters "a little quip" and had no comment on my article and great hope on the future, so maybe this is all a little joke to you anyways. I try not to assume I know what the other person is talking about, so is it? This is going to surprise and shock you but it is not all about you. I stopped discussing with you because you cherry picked my posts to disagree with a few things and ignore the rest. You reengaged with me, so I asked a simple question which you avoided again. I'm perfectly content to go on in this thread with talking to you or not. But stop pretending like it is all about you. Then I can't help but conclude you're being quite dishonest here. I have a few simple ideas about what I'd like answers on, and sometimes when you want to wander into other topics, I'll follow along thinking sometime after you respond to other things, you'll get around to addressing what I was interested in with my first post. If every exchange ends in wanting broad based solutions detailed, and ignoring or outright dismissing every one up to this point, I must group you in the kind of gun control proponent too caught up in his own ideology to hold serious discussion. You'll also have to pick a side of the street. Either I'm not worth engaging with, or too big on cherry-picking, at which point stop responding, or I am worth engaging with, in which case actually give me an answer instead of dithering about what you'd rather I asked you about. Secondarily, if I think some of your buried points are exactly the kind of things that are making the gun debate so terribly stuck, I'll point to them as an example, such as I did with your remarks on coming after our guns, and did again when you brought up news stories followed immediately by petty shaming and belittling. Also, feel free to retract the Show nested quote +On September 21 2018 23:52 JimmiC wrote: Exactly do all these small shootings even matter? I mean it has to be what at least 10 people dead before anyone pretends to care.... if you do not with to be held accountable for what you say in this forum. That option is forever open to you. I'm forced to go off of what you say, not what you privately think are "little quips," as you previously described them. I think it is shameful that people don't think people dying to gun violence is big news. Heck if it was knife violence I'd feel the same way. I'm sorry if my quip deeply offended you, it gets frustrating to see people brush off deaths as not a big issue. Though I find that very unlikely based on what you have said in the past, I do think you choose times to be offended and times not to be.
I'll make you a deal, I'll ask you one question you answer it directly. Then you ask me one question and I'll answer it directly so on and so forth, so points we both care about don't get missed.
What do you think the solution is to the gun violence in the states?
|
On September 22 2018 04:05 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 03:43 solidbebe wrote: You're going to need people to organize marches, to protest, to actively stand up and start building a nation without a proliferation of tools which exist for the sole purpose of killing humans.
I generally agree with the rest of your post but, once again, I need to point out that mischaracterizing guns like that only brings us further from any solutions to the USA's current problems. Do you want to argue about what the purpose of guns are or do you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths? You won't be able to successfully do both. How is it characterizing guns. Maybe the human part since they were also developed to kill game. Would it be fine to say exist for the sole purpose of killing.
I mean I guess there is some entertainment value in shooting at a range, but I don't think that was why guns were developed and I don't think that, that is what the second amendment was about. And I think almost all people in favor of gun control are not out to stop gun ranges.
|
On September 22 2018 03:43 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 00:42 Danglars wrote:If you’re not going to say any new questions this news story raises, don’t pretend it’s very interesting that a gun rights proponent hasn’t spoken up. It just marks you as the kind of person interested in cheap rhetorical points. On September 21 2018 23:52 JimmiC wrote: Exactly do all these small shootings even matter? I mean it has to be what at least 10 people dead before anyone pretends to care.... Almost obligatory follow up accusation that people are uncaring, or if they care in bigger instances, are only pretending to care. If shaming strategies like these worked, you would have your glorious public policy changes achieved a long time ago. Sometimes when peoples heels are dug in a little quip can loosen things up so they are willing to think about things again instead of just win an argument. Logic and reason was not getting anywhere so why not try another tact? I mean there is so many shootings everyday it would be a full time job to just post them. I think it is very scary that there are so many people that think this is "normal" and "ok". It is a very bad sign that it takes mass fatalities to even move the needle. But, I don't want to sound too dour on that topic, since there was a bit of good news recently on the front. A student who co-founded the March For Our Lives movement calling for stricter gun laws in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting says he has left the group and regrets trying to "embarrass" Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) about gun-control.
"I left the organization and if I thought that my friends and the people I worked with couldn't do it without me I would not have done that," Cameron Kasky told Fox News Radio's Guy Benson in an interview Wednesday.
Kasky, who was among several students who began advocating for gun control in the wake of the February mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, said that he is "very regretful of a lot of the mistakes that I made along the way."
He expressed regret about how he handled an exchange with Rubio during a live town hall televised on CNN shortly after 17 students and faculty died when a former student opened fire at the school.
Kasky told Rubio at the town hall, "Sen. Rubio, it’s hard to look at you and not look down a barrel of an AR-15 and not look at Nikolas Cruz, but the point is you’re here and there are some people who are not."
He then questioned Rubio aggressively for taking money from the National Rifle Association.
"I look back on that and I say, you know what, there were people who had just been buried and when you're looking at somebody that you find might in some way have been complicit in this murderer obtaining the weapon it's hard not to say something like that," Kasky said Wednesday. "But, I went into that wanting less conversation and more to embarrass Rubio and that was my biggest flaw."
Kasky said he did not regret trying to put Rubio "on the spot" – expressing his frustration with politicians not offering direct responses to questions – but said he should not have invoked the alleged shooter's name.
He also said that he came to appreciate views that are different than his during his time with March For Our Lives.
"This summer when March For Our Lives went on the summer tour that we embarked on I met that person in Texas whose got that semi-automatic weapon because that's how they like to protect their family," Kasky told Fox News Radio. "I met the 50 some odd percent of woman who are pro-life, even though I thought it was preposterous that a woman could be pro-life and not pro-choice at the time."
"I learned that a lot of our issues politically come from a lack of understanding of other perspectives," he added. The HillBig time gun shamer and March for our Lives founder goes out and meets Americans on a summer tour and changes his mind. It's the generational churn that gives me great hope for change in the next decade. I find your takeaway from this story hilarious and sad. The so many'th school shooting ending in the deaths of 17 students and faculty staff but you're happy one of the people who actually rose up and said this shit needs to end has now 'come to his senses'? I don't mind that you consider the story hilarious and sad. I'm looking for solutions in the dialogue between the two sides and finding the lines of compromise possible in today's society. He started out comparing Rubio to the barrel of an AR-15 and the school shooter Nicolas Cruz. After touring the country and thinking, he's moderated and found the humanity in people that think very differently than him. I think this is an extremely positive development, and hope others follow in his footsteps. Yelling at each other and making people out to be not just wrong for society, but actually evil killers, is a big problem in the debate. Also, I never said 'come to his senses,' so please don't put words in my mouth. I'll try not to do the same to you, but bring it up if you think I am.
You're going to need people to organize marches, to protest, to actively stand up and start building a nation without a proliferation of tools which exist for the sole purpose of killing humans. Micronesia already addressed this part.
Is a blanket ban on every single type of weapon required? Probably not, there are plenty of countries where you can have hunting rifles or shoot for sport. But the ingrained gun culture, and the absolutely obscene amount of guns in america need to go, before you might be able to have a country where students don't need shooting drills, and where employees don't need to be on the lookout for a disgruntled ex-employee with an assault rifle.
I'm not expecting it to happen soon, but with enough push, maybe in a few decades the percentage of people who think they need guns or should have a right to them will decrease, and we can see some actual change happen.
I think the culture that devalues life and teaches young kids there's no such thing as morality or personal responsibility is far more responsible than "the ingrained gun culture" and the rest. I'd much rather address why kids and disgruntled employees don't have community and foundation to their lives, rather than telling them to pick up a knife instead of a gun, because we're all about the weapon of choice and not the choice.
|
On September 22 2018 04:12 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 04:05 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2018 03:15 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 02:29 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2018 01:47 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 00:42 Danglars wrote:If you’re not going to say any new questions this news story raises, don’t pretend it’s very interesting that a gun rights proponent hasn’t spoken up. It just marks you as the kind of person interested in cheap rhetorical points. On September 21 2018 23:52 JimmiC wrote: Exactly do all these small shootings even matter? I mean it has to be what at least 10 people dead before anyone pretends to care.... Almost obligatory follow up accusation that people are uncaring, or if they care in bigger instances, are only pretending to care. If shaming strategies like these worked, you would have your glorious public policy changes achieved a long time ago. Sometimes when peoples heels are dug in a little quip can loosen things up so they are willing to think about things again instead of just win an argument. Logic and reason was not getting anywhere so why not try another tact? I mean there is so many shootings everyday it would be a full time job to just post them. I think it is very scary that there are so many people that think this is "normal" and "ok". It is a very bad sign that it takes mass fatalities to even move the needle. Trust me, the gun rights people I know constantly wonder when the gun control people will turn to reason and logic and stop the shaming and emotional pleas. It's mutually assured in political life. The Parkland shooting was about more gun control and more gun control NOW, rather than looking at systemic mistakes of the Sheriffs department and the educational establishment. It's a tad too inconvenient for gun control proponents to acknowledge failures under current laws as they push for new ones. But, I don't want to sound too dour on that topic, since there was a bit of good news recently on the front. A student who co-founded the March For Our Lives movement calling for stricter gun laws in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting says he has left the group and regrets trying to "embarrass" Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) about gun-control.
"I left the organization and if I thought that my friends and the people I worked with couldn't do it without me I would not have done that," Cameron Kasky told Fox News Radio's Guy Benson in an interview Wednesday.
Kasky, who was among several students who began advocating for gun control in the wake of the February mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, said that he is "very regretful of a lot of the mistakes that I made along the way."
He expressed regret about how he handled an exchange with Rubio during a live town hall televised on CNN shortly after 17 students and faculty died when a former student opened fire at the school.
Kasky told Rubio at the town hall, "Sen. Rubio, it’s hard to look at you and not look down a barrel of an AR-15 and not look at Nikolas Cruz, but the point is you’re here and there are some people who are not."
He then questioned Rubio aggressively for taking money from the National Rifle Association.
"I look back on that and I say, you know what, there were people who had just been buried and when you're looking at somebody that you find might in some way have been complicit in this murderer obtaining the weapon it's hard not to say something like that," Kasky said Wednesday. "But, I went into that wanting less conversation and more to embarrass Rubio and that was my biggest flaw."
Kasky said he did not regret trying to put Rubio "on the spot" – expressing his frustration with politicians not offering direct responses to questions – but said he should not have invoked the alleged shooter's name.
He also said that he came to appreciate views that are different than his during his time with March For Our Lives.
"This summer when March For Our Lives went on the summer tour that we embarked on I met that person in Texas whose got that semi-automatic weapon because that's how they like to protect their family," Kasky told Fox News Radio. "I met the 50 some odd percent of woman who are pro-life, even though I thought it was preposterous that a woman could be pro-life and not pro-choice at the time."
"I learned that a lot of our issues politically come from a lack of understanding of other perspectives," he added. The HillBig time gun shamer and March for our Lives founder goes out and meets Americans on a summer tour and changes his mind. It's the generational churn that gives me great hope for change in the next decade. I think many have asked you, what is your solution. What measure do you think should be taken to reduce gun violence. I think I answered you on several points you simply refused to acknowledge or respond to only two weeks ago. My big question is do you seriously expect posters to repeat themselves twice a month or they don't pass your solutions bar? I will remain convinced that you know my solutions, don't like them, but are politically happy to pretend they don't exist or aren't real solutions. You did just finish calling the shaming of gun rights supporters "a little quip" and had no comment on my article and great hope on the future, so maybe this is all a little joke to you anyways. I try not to assume I know what the other person is talking about, so is it? This is going to surprise and shock you but it is not all about you. I stopped discussing with you because you cherry picked my posts to disagree with a few things and ignore the rest. You reengaged with me, so I asked a simple question which you avoided again. I'm perfectly content to go on in this thread with talking to you or not. But stop pretending like it is all about you. Then I can't help but conclude you're being quite dishonest here. I have a few simple ideas about what I'd like answers on, and sometimes when you want to wander into other topics, I'll follow along thinking sometime after you respond to other things, you'll get around to addressing what I was interested in with my first post. If every exchange ends in wanting broad based solutions detailed, and ignoring or outright dismissing every one up to this point, I must group you in the kind of gun control proponent too caught up in his own ideology to hold serious discussion. You'll also have to pick a side of the street. Either I'm not worth engaging with, or too big on cherry-picking, at which point stop responding, or I am worth engaging with, in which case actually give me an answer instead of dithering about what you'd rather I asked you about. Secondarily, if I think some of your buried points are exactly the kind of things that are making the gun debate so terribly stuck, I'll point to them as an example, such as I did with your remarks on coming after our guns, and did again when you brought up news stories followed immediately by petty shaming and belittling. Also, feel free to retract the On September 21 2018 23:52 JimmiC wrote: Exactly do all these small shootings even matter? I mean it has to be what at least 10 people dead before anyone pretends to care.... if you do not with to be held accountable for what you say in this forum. That option is forever open to you. I'm forced to go off of what you say, not what you privately think are "little quips," as you previously described them. I think it is shameful that people don't think people dying to gun violence is big news. Heck if it was knife violence I'd feel the same way. I'm sorry if my quip deeply offended you, it gets frustrating to see people brush off deaths as not a big issue. Though I find that very unlikely based on what you have said in the past, I do think you choose times to be offended and times not to be. I'll make you a deal, I'll ask you one question you answer it directly. Then you ask me one question and I'll answer it directly so on and so forth, so points we both care about don't get missed. What do you think the solution is to the gun violence in the states? Yes, it's also very frustrating to hear people say I don't think small shooting matter, or that more deaths mean people only pretend to care. I hear that you're saying your own personal frustrations at thinking people are brushing them off are responsible for acting out like this. I can only hope seeking to offend people, and them diminishing them afterwards as "little quips" is a political strategy you abandon ... especially since you act like you're interested in solutions.
I think assuming the other side isn't dismissing dead kids and only pretending to care is actually a good solution in itself. It helps reassure the person you're arguing with that you actually want to hear them out and discuss the issues, instead of just finding additional ammo to accuse them of "fake news" or whatever buzzwords you like.
For your question: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27035577 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27056609 (Join with the NRA in responsible gun ownership instead of demonizing the NRA) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27075807 (Threats of gun violence against armed criminal attackers is not part of the problem of gun violence) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27133830 (Answer to you, compromise on bump stocks, as it relates to the problem of gun violence shown in the Las Vegas attack)
For mine: You previously said "most people in the states are not looking to take away rural long, bolt.action, barrel rifles and shot guns. Its hand guns and automatics that people want gone." After I argued that some people say they're only coming after AR-15 semi-auto rifles, some people say they're coming after all guns, and generally doubt the other groups exist, you didn't post again on that subject. Do you still think it's hand guns and automatics (I hope you mean semi-autos) that people want gone?
You previously said that "simplicity in a complicated discussion is to being to build a framework" and were annoyed that my answer was "a very complicated sort of answer" when we talked about compromises. Have you changed at all in thinking that gun regulation is a complex topic geared towards breaking it into sub topics, and that compromise between all various sides in gun regulation is also a complicated topic?"
You previously said "Logic and reason was not getting anywhere so why not try another tact," and I called attention to both sides of the debate summoning logic and reason to be more on their side than the other. Changing moods, you then blamed it on your frustrations at supposed callousness at "people dying to gun violence" and "brushing off deaths." Are you using accusations of callousness as just another tact, or is it an emotional result of what you think is "shameful" and "it gets frustrating?" I'm very curious if you actually think it's a road towards progress, or a natural expression of emotions not impacting progress, or regressive. I don't always understand what angle gun control proponents are taking.
|
On September 22 2018 04:05 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 03:43 solidbebe wrote: You're going to need people to organize marches, to protest, to actively stand up and start building a nation without a proliferation of tools which exist for the sole purpose of killing humans.
I generally agree with the rest of your post but, once again, I need to point out that mischaracterizing guns like that only brings us further from any solutions to the USA's current problems. Do you want to argue about what the purpose of guns are or do you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths? You won't be able to successfully do both. Funnily enough, the fact that you would even consider that a mischaracterization is something which, in my mind, is probably one of the exact problems of American gun culture. I won't pretend to know your history, but I can imagine why for someone growing up in America you might feel that way, since guns are such a large part of American culture and history in many ways. But as someone who grew up in western Europe, in a country where most people won't even see a gun in their lifetime which isn't a policeman's holstered pistol, can you imagine why I feel that way?
Hunting rifles aside, what is the purpose of a gun besides killing humans? Sure they might be fun to shoot on a range, hell I would probably enjoy it myself. But the same could be said for missile launchers, tanks, or what have you. You might not consider those things to be in the same category, but I think they are. A handgun has orders of magnitude less firepower than a tank, but its purpose is the same: killing humans.
On September 22 2018 04:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 03:43 solidbebe wrote:On September 22 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 00:42 Danglars wrote:If you’re not going to say any new questions this news story raises, don’t pretend it’s very interesting that a gun rights proponent hasn’t spoken up. It just marks you as the kind of person interested in cheap rhetorical points. On September 21 2018 23:52 JimmiC wrote: Exactly do all these small shootings even matter? I mean it has to be what at least 10 people dead before anyone pretends to care.... Almost obligatory follow up accusation that people are uncaring, or if they care in bigger instances, are only pretending to care. If shaming strategies like these worked, you would have your glorious public policy changes achieved a long time ago. Sometimes when peoples heels are dug in a little quip can loosen things up so they are willing to think about things again instead of just win an argument. Logic and reason was not getting anywhere so why not try another tact? I mean there is so many shootings everyday it would be a full time job to just post them. I think it is very scary that there are so many people that think this is "normal" and "ok". It is a very bad sign that it takes mass fatalities to even move the needle. But, I don't want to sound too dour on that topic, since there was a bit of good news recently on the front. A student who co-founded the March For Our Lives movement calling for stricter gun laws in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting says he has left the group and regrets trying to "embarrass" Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) about gun-control.
"I left the organization and if I thought that my friends and the people I worked with couldn't do it without me I would not have done that," Cameron Kasky told Fox News Radio's Guy Benson in an interview Wednesday.
Kasky, who was among several students who began advocating for gun control in the wake of the February mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, said that he is "very regretful of a lot of the mistakes that I made along the way."
He expressed regret about how he handled an exchange with Rubio during a live town hall televised on CNN shortly after 17 students and faculty died when a former student opened fire at the school.
Kasky told Rubio at the town hall, "Sen. Rubio, it’s hard to look at you and not look down a barrel of an AR-15 and not look at Nikolas Cruz, but the point is you’re here and there are some people who are not."
He then questioned Rubio aggressively for taking money from the National Rifle Association.
"I look back on that and I say, you know what, there were people who had just been buried and when you're looking at somebody that you find might in some way have been complicit in this murderer obtaining the weapon it's hard not to say something like that," Kasky said Wednesday. "But, I went into that wanting less conversation and more to embarrass Rubio and that was my biggest flaw."
Kasky said he did not regret trying to put Rubio "on the spot" – expressing his frustration with politicians not offering direct responses to questions – but said he should not have invoked the alleged shooter's name.
He also said that he came to appreciate views that are different than his during his time with March For Our Lives.
"This summer when March For Our Lives went on the summer tour that we embarked on I met that person in Texas whose got that semi-automatic weapon because that's how they like to protect their family," Kasky told Fox News Radio. "I met the 50 some odd percent of woman who are pro-life, even though I thought it was preposterous that a woman could be pro-life and not pro-choice at the time."
"I learned that a lot of our issues politically come from a lack of understanding of other perspectives," he added. The HillBig time gun shamer and March for our Lives founder goes out and meets Americans on a summer tour and changes his mind. It's the generational churn that gives me great hope for change in the next decade. I find your takeaway from this story hilarious and sad. The so many'th school shooting ending in the deaths of 17 students and faculty staff but you're happy one of the people who actually rose up and said this shit needs to end has now 'come to his senses'? I don't mind that you consider the story hilarious and sad. I'm looking for solutions in the dialogue between the two sides and finding the lines of compromise possible in today's society. He started out comparing Rubio to the barrel of an AR-15 and the school shooter Nicolas Cruz. After touring the country and thinking, he's moderated and found the humanity in people that think very differently than him. I think this is an extremely positive development, and hope others follow in his footsteps. Yelling at each other and making people out to be not just wrong for society, but actually evil killers, is a big problem in the debate. Also, I never said 'come to his senses,' so please don't put words in my mouth. I'll try not to do the same to you, but bring it up if you think I am. Show nested quote +You're going to need people to organize marches, to protest, to actively stand up and start building a nation without a proliferation of tools which exist for the sole purpose of killing humans. Micronesia already addressed this part. Show nested quote +Is a blanket ban on every single type of weapon required? Probably not, there are plenty of countries where you can have hunting rifles or shoot for sport. But the ingrained gun culture, and the absolutely obscene amount of guns in america need to go, before you might be able to have a country where students don't need shooting drills, and where employees don't need to be on the lookout for a disgruntled ex-employee with an assault rifle.
I'm not expecting it to happen soon, but with enough push, maybe in a few decades the percentage of people who think they need guns or should have a right to them will decrease, and we can see some actual change happen.
I think the culture that devalues life and teaches young kids there's no such thing as morality or personal responsibility is far more responsible than "the ingrained gun culture" and the rest. I'd much rather address why kids and disgruntled employees don't have community and foundation to their lives, rather than telling them to pick up a knife instead of a gun, because we're all about the weapon of choice and not the choice.
I concede your standpoint on the guy is not unreasonable. But if you consider the proliferation of guns to be the single largest factor in causing the amount of shootings America has (which, as crazy as it sounds to me, is apparently a point of contention), then a logical follow-up is that the people facilitating that gun culture are partly responsible for these shootings as well. I agree that equating Rubio to the shooter is not beneficial to anyone, but he apparently is a part of the people propagating America's gun culture, who I believe are partly responsible for these shootings too.
Let me clarify that by saying that any single shooting is obviously the responsibility of the gunman. But when you're talking about the shootings on a demographic scale, the responsibility does not lie solely with the ones doing the shooting, it also lies with the enabling parties.
You mention how you think a culture that devalues life is more responsible than the gun culture for shootings. I can imagine that you then also believe that it is possible to have a culture which values life but which also values handguns and assault rifles. In my mind, these two things are incompatible with each other. You cannot have a culture that values life but also propagates the widespread ownership and use of devices made for human killing (which I realize, you and Micronesia think is a mischaracterization).
|
United States24339 Posts
On September 22 2018 05:01 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 04:05 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 03:43 solidbebe wrote: You're going to need people to organize marches, to protest, to actively stand up and start building a nation without a proliferation of tools which exist for the sole purpose of killing humans.
I generally agree with the rest of your post but, once again, I need to point out that mischaracterizing guns like that only brings us further from any solutions to the USA's current problems. Do you want to argue about what the purpose of guns are or do you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths? You won't be able to successfully do both. Funnily enough, the fact that you would even consider that a mischaracterization is something which, in my mind, is probably one of the exact problems of American gun culture. I won't pretend to know your history, but I can imagine why for someone growing up in America you might feel that way, since guns are such a large part of American culture and history in many ways. But as someone who grew up in western Europe, in a country where most people won't even see a gun in their lifetime which isn't a policeman's holstered pistol, can you imagine why I feel that way? Hunting rifles aside, what is the purpose of a gun besides killing humans? Sure they might be fun to shoot on a range, hell I would probably enjoy it myself. But the same could be said for missile launchers, tanks, or what have you. You might not consider those things to be in the same category, but I think they are. A handgun has orders of magnitude less firepower than a tank, but its purpose is the same: killing humans. I asked you if you want to argue about what the purpose of a gun is, or if you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths. Judging from the above, you chose the former, and gave up on the latter. Why? It's amazing how easily this issue entraps well-intentioned posters. In the hour or so since my last post, two posters wanted to focus on the purpose of guns, even though the purpose is not ultimately what matters, even if it provides some context. If the purpose of an item is to make bunnies fluffy but it has a side effect of vaporizing continents, then I don't give a crap what the purpose is, it's not important.
I'm not going to repeat the pages-long argument about what the purpose of various types of guns are. Look back at the history of this thread if you really want but I'd be hypocritical if I chastised you for wanting to discuss this topic further and then went ahead and did it myself. If you choose to just assume I'm wrong and disregard me then fine, but I still recommend you keep the discussion away from the purpose of guns.
|
On September 22 2018 05:01 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 04:16 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2018 03:43 solidbebe wrote:On September 22 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 00:42 Danglars wrote:If you’re not going to say any new questions this news story raises, don’t pretend it’s very interesting that a gun rights proponent hasn’t spoken up. It just marks you as the kind of person interested in cheap rhetorical points. On September 21 2018 23:52 JimmiC wrote: Exactly do all these small shootings even matter? I mean it has to be what at least 10 people dead before anyone pretends to care.... Almost obligatory follow up accusation that people are uncaring, or if they care in bigger instances, are only pretending to care. If shaming strategies like these worked, you would have your glorious public policy changes achieved a long time ago. Sometimes when peoples heels are dug in a little quip can loosen things up so they are willing to think about things again instead of just win an argument. Logic and reason was not getting anywhere so why not try another tact? I mean there is so many shootings everyday it would be a full time job to just post them. I think it is very scary that there are so many people that think this is "normal" and "ok". It is a very bad sign that it takes mass fatalities to even move the needle. But, I don't want to sound too dour on that topic, since there was a bit of good news recently on the front. A student who co-founded the March For Our Lives movement calling for stricter gun laws in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting says he has left the group and regrets trying to "embarrass" Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) about gun-control.
"I left the organization and if I thought that my friends and the people I worked with couldn't do it without me I would not have done that," Cameron Kasky told Fox News Radio's Guy Benson in an interview Wednesday.
Kasky, who was among several students who began advocating for gun control in the wake of the February mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, said that he is "very regretful of a lot of the mistakes that I made along the way."
He expressed regret about how he handled an exchange with Rubio during a live town hall televised on CNN shortly after 17 students and faculty died when a former student opened fire at the school.
Kasky told Rubio at the town hall, "Sen. Rubio, it’s hard to look at you and not look down a barrel of an AR-15 and not look at Nikolas Cruz, but the point is you’re here and there are some people who are not."
He then questioned Rubio aggressively for taking money from the National Rifle Association.
"I look back on that and I say, you know what, there were people who had just been buried and when you're looking at somebody that you find might in some way have been complicit in this murderer obtaining the weapon it's hard not to say something like that," Kasky said Wednesday. "But, I went into that wanting less conversation and more to embarrass Rubio and that was my biggest flaw."
Kasky said he did not regret trying to put Rubio "on the spot" – expressing his frustration with politicians not offering direct responses to questions – but said he should not have invoked the alleged shooter's name.
He also said that he came to appreciate views that are different than his during his time with March For Our Lives.
"This summer when March For Our Lives went on the summer tour that we embarked on I met that person in Texas whose got that semi-automatic weapon because that's how they like to protect their family," Kasky told Fox News Radio. "I met the 50 some odd percent of woman who are pro-life, even though I thought it was preposterous that a woman could be pro-life and not pro-choice at the time."
"I learned that a lot of our issues politically come from a lack of understanding of other perspectives," he added. The HillBig time gun shamer and March for our Lives founder goes out and meets Americans on a summer tour and changes his mind. It's the generational churn that gives me great hope for change in the next decade. I find your takeaway from this story hilarious and sad. The so many'th school shooting ending in the deaths of 17 students and faculty staff but you're happy one of the people who actually rose up and said this shit needs to end has now 'come to his senses'? I don't mind that you consider the story hilarious and sad. I'm looking for solutions in the dialogue between the two sides and finding the lines of compromise possible in today's society. He started out comparing Rubio to the barrel of an AR-15 and the school shooter Nicolas Cruz. After touring the country and thinking, he's moderated and found the humanity in people that think very differently than him. I think this is an extremely positive development, and hope others follow in his footsteps. Yelling at each other and making people out to be not just wrong for society, but actually evil killers, is a big problem in the debate. Also, I never said 'come to his senses,' so please don't put words in my mouth. I'll try not to do the same to you, but bring it up if you think I am. You're going to need people to organize marches, to protest, to actively stand up and start building a nation without a proliferation of tools which exist for the sole purpose of killing humans. Micronesia already addressed this part. Is a blanket ban on every single type of weapon required? Probably not, there are plenty of countries where you can have hunting rifles or shoot for sport. But the ingrained gun culture, and the absolutely obscene amount of guns in america need to go, before you might be able to have a country where students don't need shooting drills, and where employees don't need to be on the lookout for a disgruntled ex-employee with an assault rifle.
I'm not expecting it to happen soon, but with enough push, maybe in a few decades the percentage of people who think they need guns or should have a right to them will decrease, and we can see some actual change happen.
I think the culture that devalues life and teaches young kids there's no such thing as morality or personal responsibility is far more responsible than "the ingrained gun culture" and the rest. I'd much rather address why kids and disgruntled employees don't have community and foundation to their lives, rather than telling them to pick up a knife instead of a gun, because we're all about the weapon of choice and not the choice. I concede your standpoint on the guy is not unreasonable. But if you consider the proliferation of guns to be the single largest factor in causing the amount of shootings America has (which, as crazy as it sounds to me, is apparently a point of contention), then a logical follow-up is that the people facilitating that gun culture are partly responsible for these shootings as well. I agree that equating Rubio to the shooter is not beneficial to anyone, but he apparently is a part of the people propagating America's gun culture, who I believe are partly responsible for these shootings too. Let me clarify that by saying that any single shooting is obviously the responsibility of the gunman. But when you're talking about the shootings on a demographic scale, the responsibility does not lie solely with the ones doing the shooting, it also lies with the enabling parties. You mention how you a culture that devalues life is more responsible than the gun culture for shootings. I can imagine that you then also believe that it is possible to have a culture which values life but which also values handguns and assault rifles. In my mind, these two things are incompatible with each other. You cannot have a culture that values life but also propagates the widespread ownership and use of devices made for human killing (which I realize, you and Micronesia think is a mischaracterization). I can see why you're drawing the line, but I can't agree with your logic. The single largest factor in causing the amount of shootings should change their frequency. However, the period in which Americans starting arming themselves in much greater numbers than times past was accompanied by a decline in violent crime. They actually went down when the proliferation of guns went up. The amount of mass shootings stayed pretty static with a couple bump years. I'd expect, if it we can reasonably assume greater gun proliferation is an increase in gun culture, that they would somewhat tie together, yet they don't. So I'm forced to conclude that it is not the single largest factor. Most gun owners are nonviolent and act lawfully. A surge in guns did not lead to a surge in violent crime; crime committed by guns declined.
Now, let me address the "enabling parties." I need to see more proof in connection between gun crime and people protecting gun ownership to assign some sort of blame to them. The gun is just the tool in the hands of the criminal. Maybe food manufacturing companies are to blame for the obesity epidemic, or maybe food distribution advertising is. Maybe neither is and maybe it's this very small subset of fast food companies that cater to flavor desires regardless of nutrition. But if we're taking a very long view of tiny-thread enabling, I have to say that Iowa farmer with his hundred acres is at least partly responsible for Americans getting fatter. And I think the very narrow connection makes the implication fallacious. I set my standards higher for doling out blame.
Or take a couple more. In June 2017, a former Sanders presidential campaign worker went to where many Republicans were playing baseball and shot 50-100 bullets onto the field, which by sheer miracle only came close to killing people. Now, it was a politically motivated shooting, and he had immersed himself in Democratic politics that at the time called Republicans guilty of putting millions at risk of death because of their health policies. Now, we could say Sanders is partly to blame, for being part of the political culture that drove this man to attempt murder of dozens. We could say the entire Democratic party is partly to blame because they used hyperbole (or fact, depending on your perspective) of "millions dead." We could say journalists were to blame for saying Republicans had blood on their hands and were basically guilty of murder in their articles and op-eds. I see no reason to make some point similar to yours that "the responsibility does not lie solely with the ones doing the shooting, it also lies with the enabling parties." Maybe you could agree that talking about those three parties as being partly responsible for political violence against Republicans isn't a useful discussion of dividing up and assigning blame.
I need to see more of a connection, clear and laid out. Did the politician recently campaign for repeal of prior gun restrictions, which would've prevented him from getting the guns? That would have impact. After all, a governor in the United States vocally supported his state's weekend furlough program for criminals, and got a lot of blame when one raped and assaulted a couple after not returning to jail. If Rubio had been instrumental defeating a bill aimed at access to guns for at-risk young adults, he'd be deserving of blame. But his overall stance on gun control is too tenuous of a responsibility, and treating cases like that leads to all sorts of blame-shopping that I don't think can be logically supported at all.
To get to your point on incompatibility, I don't view support for effective self-defense of person and property to be at all opposed to valuing life. There's a lot of pro-life gun owners out there that assign enough value to both to mean to protect it. It's really a utopian vision to nonviolently resist crime and trust your designated authorities without attention to protecting yourself with available means. But like I was going for earlier, a culture that promotes the meaningless life, grab-bag morals, and the unimportance of the individual in terms of his responsibility compared to the importance of collective societal responsibility (an oxymoron if you ask me) invites these kinds of tragedies. Bump stocks, waiting periods, and enforcement of existing background checks (and giving criminals threats an actual record in Cruz's case) is where I'll go for guns in particular. The rest I'd rather give young people wanting to exact violence a reason not to, instead of handing them the knife or brute-force methods and taking away the guns from defenders.
use of devices made for human killing (which I realize, you and Micronesia think is a mischaracterization) I recommend his approach to you for consideration compared to mine on that topic, since he's more moderate on the issues and has larger points than me that he wants to draw from that discussion. You can use searches like this URL here to bring up his past interactions on that exact topic.
|
On September 22 2018 04:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 04:12 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 04:05 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2018 03:15 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 02:29 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2018 01:47 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 00:42 Danglars wrote:If you’re not going to say any new questions this news story raises, don’t pretend it’s very interesting that a gun rights proponent hasn’t spoken up. It just marks you as the kind of person interested in cheap rhetorical points. On September 21 2018 23:52 JimmiC wrote: Exactly do all these small shootings even matter? I mean it has to be what at least 10 people dead before anyone pretends to care.... Almost obligatory follow up accusation that people are uncaring, or if they care in bigger instances, are only pretending to care. If shaming strategies like these worked, you would have your glorious public policy changes achieved a long time ago. Sometimes when peoples heels are dug in a little quip can loosen things up so they are willing to think about things again instead of just win an argument. Logic and reason was not getting anywhere so why not try another tact? I mean there is so many shootings everyday it would be a full time job to just post them. I think it is very scary that there are so many people that think this is "normal" and "ok". It is a very bad sign that it takes mass fatalities to even move the needle. Trust me, the gun rights people I know constantly wonder when the gun control people will turn to reason and logic and stop the shaming and emotional pleas. It's mutually assured in political life. The Parkland shooting was about more gun control and more gun control NOW, rather than looking at systemic mistakes of the Sheriffs department and the educational establishment. It's a tad too inconvenient for gun control proponents to acknowledge failures under current laws as they push for new ones. But, I don't want to sound too dour on that topic, since there was a bit of good news recently on the front. A student who co-founded the March For Our Lives movement calling for stricter gun laws in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting says he has left the group and regrets trying to "embarrass" Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) about gun-control.
"I left the organization and if I thought that my friends and the people I worked with couldn't do it without me I would not have done that," Cameron Kasky told Fox News Radio's Guy Benson in an interview Wednesday.
Kasky, who was among several students who began advocating for gun control in the wake of the February mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, said that he is "very regretful of a lot of the mistakes that I made along the way."
He expressed regret about how he handled an exchange with Rubio during a live town hall televised on CNN shortly after 17 students and faculty died when a former student opened fire at the school.
Kasky told Rubio at the town hall, "Sen. Rubio, it’s hard to look at you and not look down a barrel of an AR-15 and not look at Nikolas Cruz, but the point is you’re here and there are some people who are not."
He then questioned Rubio aggressively for taking money from the National Rifle Association.
"I look back on that and I say, you know what, there were people who had just been buried and when you're looking at somebody that you find might in some way have been complicit in this murderer obtaining the weapon it's hard not to say something like that," Kasky said Wednesday. "But, I went into that wanting less conversation and more to embarrass Rubio and that was my biggest flaw."
Kasky said he did not regret trying to put Rubio "on the spot" – expressing his frustration with politicians not offering direct responses to questions – but said he should not have invoked the alleged shooter's name.
He also said that he came to appreciate views that are different than his during his time with March For Our Lives.
"This summer when March For Our Lives went on the summer tour that we embarked on I met that person in Texas whose got that semi-automatic weapon because that's how they like to protect their family," Kasky told Fox News Radio. "I met the 50 some odd percent of woman who are pro-life, even though I thought it was preposterous that a woman could be pro-life and not pro-choice at the time."
"I learned that a lot of our issues politically come from a lack of understanding of other perspectives," he added. The HillBig time gun shamer and March for our Lives founder goes out and meets Americans on a summer tour and changes his mind. It's the generational churn that gives me great hope for change in the next decade. I think many have asked you, what is your solution. What measure do you think should be taken to reduce gun violence. I think I answered you on several points you simply refused to acknowledge or respond to only two weeks ago. My big question is do you seriously expect posters to repeat themselves twice a month or they don't pass your solutions bar? I will remain convinced that you know my solutions, don't like them, but are politically happy to pretend they don't exist or aren't real solutions. You did just finish calling the shaming of gun rights supporters "a little quip" and had no comment on my article and great hope on the future, so maybe this is all a little joke to you anyways. I try not to assume I know what the other person is talking about, so is it? This is going to surprise and shock you but it is not all about you. I stopped discussing with you because you cherry picked my posts to disagree with a few things and ignore the rest. You reengaged with me, so I asked a simple question which you avoided again. I'm perfectly content to go on in this thread with talking to you or not. But stop pretending like it is all about you. Then I can't help but conclude you're being quite dishonest here. I have a few simple ideas about what I'd like answers on, and sometimes when you want to wander into other topics, I'll follow along thinking sometime after you respond to other things, you'll get around to addressing what I was interested in with my first post. If every exchange ends in wanting broad based solutions detailed, and ignoring or outright dismissing every one up to this point, I must group you in the kind of gun control proponent too caught up in his own ideology to hold serious discussion. You'll also have to pick a side of the street. Either I'm not worth engaging with, or too big on cherry-picking, at which point stop responding, or I am worth engaging with, in which case actually give me an answer instead of dithering about what you'd rather I asked you about. Secondarily, if I think some of your buried points are exactly the kind of things that are making the gun debate so terribly stuck, I'll point to them as an example, such as I did with your remarks on coming after our guns, and did again when you brought up news stories followed immediately by petty shaming and belittling. Also, feel free to retract the On September 21 2018 23:52 JimmiC wrote: Exactly do all these small shootings even matter? I mean it has to be what at least 10 people dead before anyone pretends to care.... if you do not with to be held accountable for what you say in this forum. That option is forever open to you. I'm forced to go off of what you say, not what you privately think are "little quips," as you previously described them. I think it is shameful that people don't think people dying to gun violence is big news. Heck if it was knife violence I'd feel the same way. I'm sorry if my quip deeply offended you, it gets frustrating to see people brush off deaths as not a big issue. Though I find that very unlikely based on what you have said in the past, I do think you choose times to be offended and times not to be. I'll make you a deal, I'll ask you one question you answer it directly. Then you ask me one question and I'll answer it directly so on and so forth, so points we both care about don't get missed. What do you think the solution is to the gun violence in the states? Yes, it's also very frustrating to hear people say I don't think small shooting matter, or that more deaths mean people only pretend to care. I hear that you're saying your own personal frustrations at thinking people are brushing them off are responsible for acting out like this. I can only hope seeking to offend people, and them diminishing them afterwards as "little quips" is a political strategy you abandon ... especially since you act like you're interested in solutions. I think assuming the other side isn't dismissing dead kids and only pretending to care is actually a good solution in itself. It helps reassure the person you're arguing with that you actually want to hear them out and discuss the issues, instead of just finding additional ammo to accuse them of "fake news" or whatever buzzwords you like. For your question: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27035577http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27056609 (Join with the NRA in responsible gun ownership instead of demonizing the NRA) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27075807 (Threats of gun violence against armed criminal attackers is not part of the problem of gun violence) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27133830 (Answer to you, compromise on bump stocks, as it relates to the problem of gun violence shown in the Las Vegas attack) For mine: You previously said "most people in the states are not looking to take away rural long, bolt.action, barrel rifles and shot guns. Its hand guns and automatics that people want gone." After I argued that some people say they're only coming after AR-15 semi-auto rifles, some people say they're coming after all guns, and generally doubt the other groups exist, you didn't post again on that subject. Do you still think it's hand guns and automatics (I hope you mean semi-autos) that people want gone? You previously said that "simplicity in a complicated discussion is to being to build a framework" and were annoyed that my answer was "a very complicated sort of answer" when we talked about compromises. Have you changed at all in thinking that gun regulation is a complex topic geared towards breaking it into sub topics, and that compromise between all various sides in gun regulation is also a complicated topic?" You previously said "Logic and reason was not getting anywhere so why not try another tact," and I called attention to both sides of the debate summoning logic and reason to be more on their side than the other. Changing moods, you then blamed it on your frustrations at supposed callousness at "people dying to gun violence" and "brushing off deaths." Are you using accusations of callousness as just another tact, or is it an emotional result of what you think is "shameful" and "it gets frustrating?" I'm very curious if you actually think it's a road towards progress, or a natural expression of emotions not impacting progress, or regressive. I don't always understand what angle gun control proponents are taking.
Read all your posts. Let me see if I can summarize because then if you agree with my summary we know we are the same page, if you don't you can clear up my misunderstandings.
You want temporary restraining orders with law enforcement and judges. Which I assume means if family or friends notice something they would petition to get the guns removed. My follow up would be how fast do you think this could happen? And do you think people will "snitch" report or whatever on their family and friends?
Waiting periods for young purchasers. How young? How long? Why these particulars
Few entrances and few exits for schools. This is how schools already operate now, with basically only the front door open and all others locked to the outside. I understand the premise, but it is pretty eas to avoid, especially if the shooter is a student. Simply putting gum or a piece of tape over the locks works great.
You want to look into arming teachers. This one just scares me.
You are good with bans on bump stocks. But later you appear to move to just restricting them?
Rules about securing guns in the home. What will the punishment be if not followed? How do enforce in a preventative manner?
Your next post is about how the NRA is actually good just protecting second amendment rights. Do you still feel this way after finding out they accepted lots of money from Russians? If you are, what do you think the Russians are getting out of it that is legitimate? And then why is the NRA so against 3d printed guns, shouldn't they just work to improve them so that everyone can print their own firearm?
On the whole defending yourself against a bigger stronger, more numerous, armed people, and areas with slow police response. My question is, is this a statically relevant concern? And if so how do you think the rest of the world deals with it? And if it was such a deterrent to such acts why are they more common in the states?
NO bans, except maybe bump stocks.
Yes I think that people want handguns and semi automatics/automatics gone (the issue is many of the top selling semi autos are a 2 minute mod from fully auto and being only limited by how fast you pull the trigger while putting out bursts of rounds is pretty damn close to auto) but yes both. I could live with clips with maximums of 5 or so bullets.
I don't think it is not a complex issue. My issue is with the way you both insult/talk down to me, avoid clear answers and than feign that you are insulted and done talking if anything not "proper" is directed at you. Basically stop being a dick if you can't handle people being dicks back to you.
Yes sometimes my posts will be quips. I'm not on here to only argue with you about your opinions. There are many other people on here that I enjoy talking with. If you don't enjoy said quip, that is fine, ignore it, comment on it whatever. But I'm not going to be in full debate mode all the time because that is not how I choose, or wish to use the forum. Sometimes I simply want to vent frustration and that is OK.
As for the tact I am taking. It is mainly, the rest of the world doesn't have this problem. The USA does have this problem. What is the main difference? Maybe, just maybe if we took that difference away the problem would go away.
|
On September 22 2018 05:21 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 05:01 solidbebe wrote:On September 22 2018 04:05 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 03:43 solidbebe wrote: You're going to need people to organize marches, to protest, to actively stand up and start building a nation without a proliferation of tools which exist for the sole purpose of killing humans.
I generally agree with the rest of your post but, once again, I need to point out that mischaracterizing guns like that only brings us further from any solutions to the USA's current problems. Do you want to argue about what the purpose of guns are or do you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths? You won't be able to successfully do both. Funnily enough, the fact that you would even consider that a mischaracterization is something which, in my mind, is probably one of the exact problems of American gun culture. I won't pretend to know your history, but I can imagine why for someone growing up in America you might feel that way, since guns are such a large part of American culture and history in many ways. But as someone who grew up in western Europe, in a country where most people won't even see a gun in their lifetime which isn't a policeman's holstered pistol, can you imagine why I feel that way? Hunting rifles aside, what is the purpose of a gun besides killing humans? Sure they might be fun to shoot on a range, hell I would probably enjoy it myself. But the same could be said for missile launchers, tanks, or what have you. You might not consider those things to be in the same category, but I think they are. A handgun has orders of magnitude less firepower than a tank, but its purpose is the same: killing humans. I asked you if you want to argue about what the purpose of a gun is, or if you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths. Judging from the above, you chose the former, and gave up on the latter. Why? It's amazing how easily this issue entraps well-intentioned posters. In the hour or so since my last post, two posters wanted to focus on the purpose of guns, even though the purpose is not ultimately what matters, even if it provides some context. If the purpose of an item is to make bunnies fluffy but it has a side effect of vaporizing continents, then I don't give a crap what the purpose is, it's not important. I'm not going to repeat the pages-long argument about what the purpose of various types of guns are. Look back at the history of this thread if you really want but I'd be hypocritical if I chastised you for wanting to discuss this topic further and then went ahead and did it myself. If you choose to just assume I'm wrong and disregard me then fine, but I still recommend you keep the discussion away from the purpose of guns.
I understand your point, but I disagree with it. The purpose does matter, much like in a case of murder intent matters. I don't think there is anyway of separating the two because the purpose is the problem. When you talk about removing cars or something from society there is a bunch of, how will we get around and how will move stuff questions. When you talk about removing guns, the questions are well then how will kill stuff as easily? When people are even at the range they are practicing to be better at killing people. Now in the argument for guns, it is bad people, but most of the time this is justified with, if I don't do it they will get me. That happens at a statistically insignificant number in most of the world because you don't need MAD if the other side doesn't have a nuke. Even in the states there is a statistically insignificant amount of citizen saving themselves or others shootings and the biggest reason it is even a someone legitimate concern is because it is so easy for so many people to have guns.
|
United States24339 Posts
On September 22 2018 06:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 05:21 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 05:01 solidbebe wrote:On September 22 2018 04:05 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 03:43 solidbebe wrote: You're going to need people to organize marches, to protest, to actively stand up and start building a nation without a proliferation of tools which exist for the sole purpose of killing humans.
I generally agree with the rest of your post but, once again, I need to point out that mischaracterizing guns like that only brings us further from any solutions to the USA's current problems. Do you want to argue about what the purpose of guns are or do you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths? You won't be able to successfully do both. Funnily enough, the fact that you would even consider that a mischaracterization is something which, in my mind, is probably one of the exact problems of American gun culture. I won't pretend to know your history, but I can imagine why for someone growing up in America you might feel that way, since guns are such a large part of American culture and history in many ways. But as someone who grew up in western Europe, in a country where most people won't even see a gun in their lifetime which isn't a policeman's holstered pistol, can you imagine why I feel that way? Hunting rifles aside, what is the purpose of a gun besides killing humans? Sure they might be fun to shoot on a range, hell I would probably enjoy it myself. But the same could be said for missile launchers, tanks, or what have you. You might not consider those things to be in the same category, but I think they are. A handgun has orders of magnitude less firepower than a tank, but its purpose is the same: killing humans. I asked you if you want to argue about what the purpose of a gun is, or if you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths. Judging from the above, you chose the former, and gave up on the latter. Why? It's amazing how easily this issue entraps well-intentioned posters. In the hour or so since my last post, two posters wanted to focus on the purpose of guns, even though the purpose is not ultimately what matters, even if it provides some context. If the purpose of an item is to make bunnies fluffy but it has a side effect of vaporizing continents, then I don't give a crap what the purpose is, it's not important. I'm not going to repeat the pages-long argument about what the purpose of various types of guns are. Look back at the history of this thread if you really want but I'd be hypocritical if I chastised you for wanting to discuss this topic further and then went ahead and did it myself. If you choose to just assume I'm wrong and disregard me then fine, but I still recommend you keep the discussion away from the purpose of guns. I understand your point, but I disagree with it. The purpose does matter, much like in a case of murder intent matters. I don't think there is anyway of separating the two because the purpose is the problem. When you talk about removing cars or something from society there is a bunch of, how will we get around and how will move stuff questions. When you talk about removing guns, the questions are well then how will kill stuff as easily? When people are even at the range they are practicing to be better at killing people. Now in the argument for guns, it is bad people, but most of the time this is justified with, if I don't do it they will get me. That happens at a statistically insignificant number in most of the world because you don't need MAD if the other side doesn't have a nuke. Even in the states there is a statistically insignificant amount of citizen saving themselves or others shootings and the biggest reason it is even a someone legitimate concern is because it is so easy for so many people to have guns. The red text above does seem to be the major source of our disagreement. What matters isn't what the purpose of guns are. What matters is:
- The actual role of guns in society
- The fact that XXX is happening a lot
Some examples of XXX are multiple major school shootings per relatively short period of time, cases of dozens of innocent people being shot by one well-armed person, etc.
The same analysis can be done to anything else. You brought up cars. What matters is not the purpose of cars. What matters is:
- The actual role of cars in society
- The fact that XXX is happening a lot
Some examples of XXX are terrorists or white nationalists intentionally ramming their cars into groups of innocent pedestrians, people driving super dangerously until they crash into cars with innocent people, etc.
The interplay between 1 and 2 when trying to decide what to do about laws and regulations is probably going to be different in each of those cases. I've said before I generally agree with guns being treated more like cars and less like buying someone completely unregulated, so long as proper protections are put in place to prevent bait and switch situations which abuse agreed-upon regulations. In neither of the examples above (cars or guns) do I need to give much thought to what the purpose of them are in order to make reasonable recommendations.... I just need to understand the role of them in society and the current events. We can argue about what their purpose is but that's just a major opportunity to disagree without accomplishing anything, has has been proven countless times in this thread. I'd prefer to discuss ways to prevent #2 (or make them less common) from the lists above.
|
On September 22 2018 06:55 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 06:44 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 05:21 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 05:01 solidbebe wrote:On September 22 2018 04:05 micronesia wrote:On September 22 2018 03:43 solidbebe wrote: You're going to need people to organize marches, to protest, to actively stand up and start building a nation without a proliferation of tools which exist for the sole purpose of killing humans.
I generally agree with the rest of your post but, once again, I need to point out that mischaracterizing guns like that only brings us further from any solutions to the USA's current problems. Do you want to argue about what the purpose of guns are or do you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths? You won't be able to successfully do both. Funnily enough, the fact that you would even consider that a mischaracterization is something which, in my mind, is probably one of the exact problems of American gun culture. I won't pretend to know your history, but I can imagine why for someone growing up in America you might feel that way, since guns are such a large part of American culture and history in many ways. But as someone who grew up in western Europe, in a country where most people won't even see a gun in their lifetime which isn't a policeman's holstered pistol, can you imagine why I feel that way? Hunting rifles aside, what is the purpose of a gun besides killing humans? Sure they might be fun to shoot on a range, hell I would probably enjoy it myself. But the same could be said for missile launchers, tanks, or what have you. You might not consider those things to be in the same category, but I think they are. A handgun has orders of magnitude less firepower than a tank, but its purpose is the same: killing humans. I asked you if you want to argue about what the purpose of a gun is, or if you want to discuss what to do about problems involving shooting deaths. Judging from the above, you chose the former, and gave up on the latter. Why? It's amazing how easily this issue entraps well-intentioned posters. In the hour or so since my last post, two posters wanted to focus on the purpose of guns, even though the purpose is not ultimately what matters, even if it provides some context. If the purpose of an item is to make bunnies fluffy but it has a side effect of vaporizing continents, then I don't give a crap what the purpose is, it's not important. I'm not going to repeat the pages-long argument about what the purpose of various types of guns are. Look back at the history of this thread if you really want but I'd be hypocritical if I chastised you for wanting to discuss this topic further and then went ahead and did it myself. If you choose to just assume I'm wrong and disregard me then fine, but I still recommend you keep the discussion away from the purpose of guns. I understand your point, but I disagree with it. The purpose does matter, much like in a case of murder intent matters. I don't think there is anyway of separating the two because the purpose is the problem. When you talk about removing cars or something from society there is a bunch of, how will we get around and how will move stuff questions. When you talk about removing guns, the questions are well then how will kill stuff as easily? When people are even at the range they are practicing to be better at killing people. Now in the argument for guns, it is bad people, but most of the time this is justified with, if I don't do it they will get me. That happens at a statistically insignificant number in most of the world because you don't need MAD if the other side doesn't have a nuke. Even in the states there is a statistically insignificant amount of citizen saving themselves or others shootings and the biggest reason it is even a someone legitimate concern is because it is so easy for so many people to have guns. The red text above does seem to be the major source of our disagreement. What matters isn't what the purpose of guns are. What matters is: - The actual role of guns in society
- The fact that XXX is happening a lot
Some examples of XXX are multiple major school shootings per relatively short period of time, cases of dozens of innocent people being shot by one well-armed person, etc. The same analysis can be done to anything else. You brought up cars. What matters is not the purpose of cars. What matters is: - The actual role of cars in society
- The fact that XXX is happening a lot
Some examples of XXX are terrorists or white nationalists intentionally ramming their cars into groups of innocent pedestrians, people driving super dangerously until they crash into cars with innocent people, etc. The interplay between 1 and 2 when trying to decide what to do about laws and regulations is probably going to be different in each of those cases. I've said before I generally agree with guns being treated more like cars and less like buying someone completely unregulated, so long as proper protections are put in place to prevent bait and switch situations which abuse agreed-upon regulations. In neither of the examples above (cars or guns) do I need to give much thought to what the purpose of them are in order to make reasonable recommendations.... I just need to understand the role of them in society and the current events. We can argue about what their purpose is but that's just a major opportunity to disagree without accomplishing anything, has has been proven countless times in this thread. I'd prefer to discuss ways to prevent #2 (or make them less common) from the lists above.
Thank you that makes it more clear.
I think that it will hard to stay away from the purpose, while discussing the actual role in society. Because I think in guns case the two are the same. I have not read a compelling argument to a beneficial roll in society. The two main ones I have heard are protection and in case the people need to rebel against a corrupt government/invasion.
I think that without the mass amount of guns, the need for protection goes way down. So it gets somewhat chicken an egg.
The other one is very questionable because many people already believe the government is corrupt and there has been no big uprising with guns nor do I think it would work. And if there is an invasion that beats the USA military I feel like the chances of citizens stopping them will be slim to none.
|
On September 22 2018 03:30 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 03:16 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 03:04 ShoCkeyy wrote:Posting this here because I think it's also relevant in both threads. The video in the link is quite loud, and a lot of gun fire, it literally sounds like a war zone for the time being. This was about 15mins from me. A man with an AK-47 went head to head with police. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article218773495.htmlA man who was at the center of an armed kidnapping FBI case was shot and killed late Thursday by police after he fired at several officers with an assault rifle, police said.
Rapid gunfire erupted near Northwest 72nd Avenue and Seventh Street — just blocks away from Miami International Airport. Police officials said City of Miami police and Miami-Dade police were working with the FBI in an ongoing kidnapping case when the shooting happened.
“The FBI was investigating a fugitive case. The suspect of this investigation fled the scene. And he was armed,” FBI spokesman Brian Waterman told reporters early Friday. “He [the suspect] was involved in a hate crime investigation.” In California 3 gang members took on 2 police officers and their ride along. All the gang members were killed and the 3 police were injured. It is crazy all this goes on and is so under the radar, because so much of it goes on! Mostly beacuse cases that like are minorities and the media doesn't consider gang violence as a news worthy item unless it involves non minority gang members or non gang members. Most of the stats about "mass shootings happen every day in america" happen from events like that. But its the people who follow the law are the ones we should go after on gun control.
Well cops very rarely get shot and even more rarely killed. That and no one cares about dead gang members, which is also why most major cities don't even bother investigating or clearing a LOT of their murder cases.
Cops are far more likely to kill themselves or be killed on accident than they are to be murdered, so reporting on it any more than they do would only further distort people's misconceptions about the dangers of being a cop or the frequency with which they hurt/kill people unnecessarily.
Also let's be real, our country would be better served if the media focused on practically any other issue than the one that's dominated every news outlet for the last 2 years.
Imagine for a moment if the same dedicated coverage was spent on the nuance and intricacies of guns instead of Trump/Russia.
The media sucks but not reporting enough on cops getting shot by minorities is definitely not one of their problems.
|
Nothing about my post mentioned cops but the media's desensitization about shooting deaths of minorities and gang members. Other then that yeah.
Most cities don't clear most killings anyway. I could get my gun and go to a city a state or two away and have a better chance at not.at getting away with murder let alone anything below that. Justice system is a bad joke before race is involved.
|
|
|
|