|
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. |
I think you are only supposed to be respectful if you wish people to act that way to you. And it seems like you are more interested in fighting right now than discussing. You are strangely obsessed with proving that this 475 number is wrong. Who really cares if it 475 or 100, both are far too much, it is strange that you are so stuck on proving this number wrong. If the number was truly 475 would that drastically or even slightly change your opinions?
It is super odd to me because your beliefs are not very different from those on "the other side" it is a imaginary war you are fighting.
These all seem pretty sensible to me, why are you not supporting politicians that support these measures?
"I believe in gun control laws such as...
1) Banning Bumpstocks 2) Firearm Registration 3) Red Flag Laws 4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval) 5) Expanded Background Checks 6) Required Firearm Education Classes 7) Wait Times "
|
On November 15 2018 06:23 JimmiC wrote: I think you are only supposed to be respectful if you wish people to act that way to you. And it seems like you are more interested in fighting right now than discussing. You are strangely obsessed with proving that this 475 number is wrong. Who really cares if it 475 or 100, both are far too much, it is strange that you are so stuck on proving this number wrong. If the number was truly 475 would that drastically or even slightly change your opinions?
It is super odd to me because your beliefs are not very different from those on "the other side" it is a imaginary war you are fighting.
These all seem pretty sensible to me, why are you not supporting politicians that support these measures?
"I believe in gun control laws such as...
1) Banning Bumpstocks 2) Firearm Registration 3) Red Flag Laws 4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval) 5) Expanded Background Checks 6) Required Firearm Education Classes 7) Wait Times "
1) Someone started out by using clearly fraudulent numbers. This has already been proven to be true. This whole entire thread has been about mass shootings in the context of an armed person(s) attacking people in a public area like a school, park, bar, etc; Said poster tried to pass it off as true. This is highly dishonest It isn't merely just about the numbers, it's the fact that the poster attempted to pass those highly inflated numbers in a way to prove their point. That's where I'm calling bullshit.
2) You yourself along with other posters then attempted to mock me, saying "I made shit up" and that "I watch too much TV and Movies" then proceeded to factually be proven wrong. Plainsix tried to claim that there are no police shootings within that database despite the database itself saying that there were, then I had to literally comb through it and find one just to prove it. You then tried to tell me that there was no way anyone could have possibly defended their home against multiple assailants, and I proved you wrong with three examples.
3) It's ok to have an honest debate about many things. What you're asking me to do though is to accept the fact that you, Plainsix, and others in this thread have stated factually incorrect things, supported an assertion that was intellectually dishonest, and then now you're telling me that I need to trust your side that you're not out to get rid of guns, when I caught a good chunk of you bold faced supporting a highly dishonest BBC article. This is after I was literally insulted too rofl. But I'm supposed to now be nice? Kick rocks bro.
On November 15 2018 02:48 Plansix wrote: I would argue that in the 1990s and pre-9/11 there was better gun control in the form of better enforcement of existing gun laws. One of the things that took place after the now legendary Brady Bill and the assault rifle ban of 1994 was the republican congress moving resources away from the federal agencies that would police illegal fire arms sales. Including the FBI and ATF. And a adjustment in regulations over how the ATF is allowed to trace fire arms and their sales, including a prohibiting them from using computers for a number of tasks. The best change to the current system would be to fund those agencies better and remove restrictive regulations that no longer make sense in the digital era.
When the assault weapons ban expired gun violence continued to go down. So there goes your theory that gun control was "better" in the 1990s and pre-9/11. In fact, gun homicide and gun related crimes in the 90s was far worse than it is today. And that's despite a massive uptick in the number of firearms per Americans.
The theory that gun control can alone influence homicide rates is silly.
|
We are still waiting for your source for your numbers, btw. You always do this. Claim something, wait until someone disagrees, then ask them for sources, and then attack their sources. All the while you never provide any sources whatsoever for anything that you claim. Because as long as you don't provide any sources, no one can attack them, and your statements are still in a Limbo where you can change them in any way you like.
Your original claim at the start of this chain of argument was:
"In 2015 there were 150 deaths to radical Islamic terrorism in Europe. In 2015 in the United States there were 46 fatalities that occurred from Mass Shootings."
Which you have yet to show any proof whatsoever of. Unless i completely missed it. Burden of proof here should be on you to actually prove your point, not on others to disprove it.
|
On November 15 2018 07:54 Simberto wrote: We are still waiting for your source for your numbers, btw. You always do this. Claim something, wait until someone disagrees, then ask them for sources, and then attack their sources. All the while you never provide any sources whatsoever for anything that you claim. Because as long as you don't provide any sources, no one can attack them, and your statements are still in a Limbo where you can change them in any way you like.
Your original claim at the start of this chain of argument was:
"In 2015 there were 150 deaths to radical Islamic terrorism in Europe. In 2015 in the United States there were 46 fatalities that occurred from Mass Shootings."
Which you have yet to show any proof whatsoever of. Unless i completely missed it. Burden of proof here should be on you to actually prove your point, not on others to disprove it.
I already literally posted where I got my numbers.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
But apparently your side is so intent on 'proving' me wrong that you've run into a comedy of errors.
And before you say that's a 'conservative' site, Mother Jones is about as liberal as it gets.
|
On November 15 2018 07:43 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 06:23 JimmiC wrote: I think you are only supposed to be respectful if you wish people to act that way to you. And it seems like you are more interested in fighting right now than discussing. You are strangely obsessed with proving that this 475 number is wrong. Who really cares if it 475 or 100, both are far too much, it is strange that you are so stuck on proving this number wrong. If the number was truly 475 would that drastically or even slightly change your opinions?
It is super odd to me because your beliefs are not very different from those on "the other side" it is a imaginary war you are fighting.
These all seem pretty sensible to me, why are you not supporting politicians that support these measures?
"I believe in gun control laws such as...
1) Banning Bumpstocks 2) Firearm Registration 3) Red Flag Laws 4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval) 5) Expanded Background Checks 6) Required Firearm Education Classes 7) Wait Times " 1) Someone started out by using clearly fraudulent numbers. This has already been proven to be true. This whole entire thread has been about mass shootings in the context of an armed person(s) attacking people in a public area like a school, park, bar, etc; Said poster tried to pass it off as true. This is highly dishonest It isn't merely just about the numbers, it's the fact that the poster attempted to pass those highly inflated numbers in a way to prove their point. That's where I'm calling bullshit. 2) You yourself along with other posters then attempted to mock me, saying "I made shit up" and that "I watch too much TV and Movies" then proceeded to factually be proven wrong. Plainsix tried to claim that there are no police shootings within that database despite the database itself saying that there were, then I had to literally comb through it and find one just to prove it. You then tried to tell me that there was no way anyone could have possibly defended their home against multiple assailants, and I proved you wrong with three examples. 3) It's ok to have an honest debate about many things. What you're asking me to do though is to accept the fact that you, Plainsix, and others in this thread have stated factually incorrect things, supported an assertion that was intellectually dishonest, and then now you're telling me that I need to trust your side that you're not out to get rid of guns, when I caught a good chunk of you bold faced supporting a highly dishonest BBC article. Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 02:48 Plansix wrote: I would argue that in the 1990s and pre-9/11 there was better gun control in the form of better enforcement of existing gun laws. One of the things that took place after the now legendary Brady Bill and the assault rifle ban of 1994 was the republican congress moving resources away from the federal agencies that would police illegal fire arms sales. Including the FBI and ATF. And a adjustment in regulations over how the ATF is allowed to trace fire arms and their sales, including a prohibiting them from using computers for a number of tasks. The best change to the current system would be to fund those agencies better and remove restrictive regulations that no longer make sense in the digital era. When the assault weapons ban expired gun violence continued to go down. So there goes your theory that gun control was "better" in the 1990s and pre-9/11. In fact, gun homicide and gun related crimes in the 90s was far worse than it is today. And that's despite a massive uptick in the number of firearms per Americans. The theory that gun control can alone influence homicide rates is silly. I wouldn't want gun control alone, I think impacting marketing of guns and violence the way they did with Cig's is needed. I've said it many times you have ignored it.
If you go back to the first time I asked the question about home invasions it was around the "over 3 fatalities" you were talking about and I put the over under at 1.5. You brought up one that surprised me but I have not seen others. As I have stated over and over, I don't think it a real statistically relevant event. That you found 3 articles, one that fit my initial question does not make me factually wrong.
Not to mention you are missing the whole point of what most (notice how I didn't say all) people are saying to you, no we don't things guns are the only problem, yes we understand American culture is different, and no we don't think if you made guns illegal tomorrow all gun violence would stop.
We are saying many changes need to happen if you want the problem to decrease. Your suggestions are all worthwhile and would be supported. It is worth looking at what other countries do because they all have wildly different cultures from each other and yet they have all had varying level of success.
And finally stop looking to pick fights about the insignificant parts of people arguments and the minor details. Hell you want gun control. You have posted the rules you agree with shockingly you are on the same side on the issue. You just have for some reason been convinced that people looking for gun control are the boogieman. Are you the boogieman?
|
On November 15 2018 07:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 07:43 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 06:23 JimmiC wrote: I think you are only supposed to be respectful if you wish people to act that way to you. And it seems like you are more interested in fighting right now than discussing. You are strangely obsessed with proving that this 475 number is wrong. Who really cares if it 475 or 100, both are far too much, it is strange that you are so stuck on proving this number wrong. If the number was truly 475 would that drastically or even slightly change your opinions?
It is super odd to me because your beliefs are not very different from those on "the other side" it is a imaginary war you are fighting.
These all seem pretty sensible to me, why are you not supporting politicians that support these measures?
"I believe in gun control laws such as...
1) Banning Bumpstocks 2) Firearm Registration 3) Red Flag Laws 4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval) 5) Expanded Background Checks 6) Required Firearm Education Classes 7) Wait Times " 1) Someone started out by using clearly fraudulent numbers. This has already been proven to be true. This whole entire thread has been about mass shootings in the context of an armed person(s) attacking people in a public area like a school, park, bar, etc; Said poster tried to pass it off as true. This is highly dishonest It isn't merely just about the numbers, it's the fact that the poster attempted to pass those highly inflated numbers in a way to prove their point. That's where I'm calling bullshit. 2) You yourself along with other posters then attempted to mock me, saying "I made shit up" and that "I watch too much TV and Movies" then proceeded to factually be proven wrong. Plainsix tried to claim that there are no police shootings within that database despite the database itself saying that there were, then I had to literally comb through it and find one just to prove it. You then tried to tell me that there was no way anyone could have possibly defended their home against multiple assailants, and I proved you wrong with three examples. 3) It's ok to have an honest debate about many things. What you're asking me to do though is to accept the fact that you, Plainsix, and others in this thread have stated factually incorrect things, supported an assertion that was intellectually dishonest, and then now you're telling me that I need to trust your side that you're not out to get rid of guns, when I caught a good chunk of you bold faced supporting a highly dishonest BBC article. On November 15 2018 02:48 Plansix wrote: I would argue that in the 1990s and pre-9/11 there was better gun control in the form of better enforcement of existing gun laws. One of the things that took place after the now legendary Brady Bill and the assault rifle ban of 1994 was the republican congress moving resources away from the federal agencies that would police illegal fire arms sales. Including the FBI and ATF. And a adjustment in regulations over how the ATF is allowed to trace fire arms and their sales, including a prohibiting them from using computers for a number of tasks. The best change to the current system would be to fund those agencies better and remove restrictive regulations that no longer make sense in the digital era. When the assault weapons ban expired gun violence continued to go down. So there goes your theory that gun control was "better" in the 1990s and pre-9/11. In fact, gun homicide and gun related crimes in the 90s was far worse than it is today. And that's despite a massive uptick in the number of firearms per Americans. The theory that gun control can alone influence homicide rates is silly. I wouldn't want gun control alone, I think impacting marketing of guns and violence the way they did with Cig's is needed. I've said it many times you have ignored it. If you go back to the first time I asked the question about home invasions it was around the "over 3 fatalities" you were talking about and I put the over under at 1.5. You brought up one that surprised me but I have not seen others. As I have stated over and over, I don't think it a real statistically relevant event. That you found 3 articles, one that fit my initial question does not make me factually wrong. Not to mention you are missing the whole point of what most (notice how I didn't say all) people are saying to you, no we don't things guns are the only problem, yes we understand American culture is different, and no we don't think if you made guns illegal tomorrow all gun violence would stop. We are saying many changes need to happen if you want the problem to decrease. Your suggestions are all worthwhile and would be supported. It is worth looking at what other countries do because they all have wildly different cultures from each other and yet they have all had varying level of success. And finally stop looking to pick fights about the insignificant parts of people arguments and the minor details. Hell you want gun control. You have posted the rules you agree with shockingly you are on the same side on the issue. You just have for some reason been convinced that people looking for gun control are the boogieman. Are you the boogieman?
Let's go back and see what you posted in your highly condescending manner, that can easily be seen as highly disrespectful.
On November 13 2018 10:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 10:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:05 JimmiC wrote: You never answered me on how how many multiple intruder shot by defense of a homeowner, multi fatalities there has been ever.
And you never the article on why Switzerland is actually different from the states, and why you using in as your example is misinformed. So I would go calling out others, you are as guilty, at least, as anyone for avoiding arguments. So you want me to comb through a data base that purposely hides that information and doesn't make it easy to sort through what is a home invasion/self-defense/etc.? Ok. Let me just sort through this highly biased database that many news outlets source their numbers, and so conveniently hide the fact that gang warfare, home invasions, police shootings, self-defense, etc. are all a part of their 'mass shooting' numbers. In regards to the Switzerland argument, you should go back like 15-20 pages and read through it yourself. I'm not gonna rehash that argument. I did read the whole article it was very enlightening, but I guess if you know everything you don't have to.... It is not because of the database it is because you use it as a example that not only might happen, but rather something that happens from time to time. I would be shocked if it has happened more then once ever. I think you watch way to much T.V and movies.
Let's go back to the original conversation
1) The data base includes far too wide of a parameter to even be considered accurate. It involves far too many other types of crimes, accidental shootings, lawful defenses, etc. to be used. I merely used certain examples such as police shootings versus multiple assailants or lawful defense of one's home against multiple assailants.
2) You responded in pro-typical gun control manner essentially trying to mock me by stating that there's no way that someone could ever defend their home from multiple suspects, and that I've been watching too much TV and movies (which is easily seen as an insult by anyone).
3) You then back track and state "well not all of those events fit the criteria of the database", despite the fact that they prove that people have defended their homes versus multiple suspects with firearms in a lawful manner.
4) Now you want to go and say "I'm nitpicking at details" and need to be more respectful. Why should I respect you, or anyone else who clearly got caught with their pants on the ground either using or supporting completely fraudulent data?
Mind you, there was NO reason to support that data. It took me literally 15 seconds to figure out how much buffoonery there was behind BBC's shitastic journalism within that article. Either someone was attempting to inflate mass shooting numbers to make the US look like some hell hole, or someone did not do their due diligence in reporting the news. This wasn't like it takes a rocket scientist to figure that out either, it should have been immediately obvious and many of you should have called out the serious errors of said database in attempting to call those events 'mass shootings.'
Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions.
|
On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. I think in several cases you are mistaking "flexible" for "not honest".
Speaking for myself, I find your country's overriding fetish for its constitution bizarre and counterproductive, and I'd be perfectly okay with a significant revision or nullification of the Second Amendment, along with laws of similar flavour to those in other countries - in fact that would be my preferred solution. That does not mean, however, that I'm not willing to accept a considerably more moderate outcome - it is not my preferred solution but it will do.
I'm getting the distinct impression that you would take the first objective and use it as an excuse to not compromise with me, even when I am advocating for the second, instead of recognising that all it means is that I'm willing to compromise on my ideal solution.
|
On November 15 2018 09:05 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. I think in several cases you are mistaking "flexible" for "not honest". Speaking for myself, I find your country's overriding fetish for its constitution bizarre and counterproductive, and I'd be perfectly okay with a significant revision or nullification of the Second Amendment - in fact that would be my preferred solution. That does not mean, however, that I'm not willing to accept a considerably more moderate outcome - it is not my preferred solution but it will do. I'm getting the distinct impression that you would take the first objective and use it as an excuse to not compromise with me, even when I am advocating for the second, instead of recognising that all it means is that I'm willing to compromise on my ideal solution.
'Overriding fetish'
You mean the document that prevents significant abuses of individual rights? Rather than allowing the loud parts of society as a whole to have a knee jerk reaction to something and shovel legislation down people's throats, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created to prevent nonsense like that from occurring.
'Flexible'?
By what definition? An article posts 'mass shooting' numbers; most everyday citizens around the world view mass shootings in the same fashion as the FBI definition of an active shooter. BBC article passes off numbers without ever mentioning that they also include numbers from gang violence, self-defense, police shootings, etc. none of which an every day common person would ever associate with the general understanding of what a mass shooting is.
That can only be one of two things. It's either dishonest journalism, or really fucking terrible journalism.
|
On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 07:58 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 07:43 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 06:23 JimmiC wrote: I think you are only supposed to be respectful if you wish people to act that way to you. And it seems like you are more interested in fighting right now than discussing. You are strangely obsessed with proving that this 475 number is wrong. Who really cares if it 475 or 100, both are far too much, it is strange that you are so stuck on proving this number wrong. If the number was truly 475 would that drastically or even slightly change your opinions?
It is super odd to me because your beliefs are not very different from those on "the other side" it is a imaginary war you are fighting.
These all seem pretty sensible to me, why are you not supporting politicians that support these measures?
"I believe in gun control laws such as...
1) Banning Bumpstocks 2) Firearm Registration 3) Red Flag Laws 4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval) 5) Expanded Background Checks 6) Required Firearm Education Classes 7) Wait Times " 1) Someone started out by using clearly fraudulent numbers. This has already been proven to be true. This whole entire thread has been about mass shootings in the context of an armed person(s) attacking people in a public area like a school, park, bar, etc; Said poster tried to pass it off as true. This is highly dishonest It isn't merely just about the numbers, it's the fact that the poster attempted to pass those highly inflated numbers in a way to prove their point. That's where I'm calling bullshit. 2) You yourself along with other posters then attempted to mock me, saying "I made shit up" and that "I watch too much TV and Movies" then proceeded to factually be proven wrong. Plainsix tried to claim that there are no police shootings within that database despite the database itself saying that there were, then I had to literally comb through it and find one just to prove it. You then tried to tell me that there was no way anyone could have possibly defended their home against multiple assailants, and I proved you wrong with three examples. 3) It's ok to have an honest debate about many things. What you're asking me to do though is to accept the fact that you, Plainsix, and others in this thread have stated factually incorrect things, supported an assertion that was intellectually dishonest, and then now you're telling me that I need to trust your side that you're not out to get rid of guns, when I caught a good chunk of you bold faced supporting a highly dishonest BBC article. On November 15 2018 02:48 Plansix wrote: I would argue that in the 1990s and pre-9/11 there was better gun control in the form of better enforcement of existing gun laws. One of the things that took place after the now legendary Brady Bill and the assault rifle ban of 1994 was the republican congress moving resources away from the federal agencies that would police illegal fire arms sales. Including the FBI and ATF. And a adjustment in regulations over how the ATF is allowed to trace fire arms and their sales, including a prohibiting them from using computers for a number of tasks. The best change to the current system would be to fund those agencies better and remove restrictive regulations that no longer make sense in the digital era. When the assault weapons ban expired gun violence continued to go down. So there goes your theory that gun control was "better" in the 1990s and pre-9/11. In fact, gun homicide and gun related crimes in the 90s was far worse than it is today. And that's despite a massive uptick in the number of firearms per Americans. The theory that gun control can alone influence homicide rates is silly. I wouldn't want gun control alone, I think impacting marketing of guns and violence the way they did with Cig's is needed. I've said it many times you have ignored it. If you go back to the first time I asked the question about home invasions it was around the "over 3 fatalities" you were talking about and I put the over under at 1.5. You brought up one that surprised me but I have not seen others. As I have stated over and over, I don't think it a real statistically relevant event. That you found 3 articles, one that fit my initial question does not make me factually wrong. Not to mention you are missing the whole point of what most (notice how I didn't say all) people are saying to you, no we don't things guns are the only problem, yes we understand American culture is different, and no we don't think if you made guns illegal tomorrow all gun violence would stop. We are saying many changes need to happen if you want the problem to decrease. Your suggestions are all worthwhile and would be supported. It is worth looking at what other countries do because they all have wildly different cultures from each other and yet they have all had varying level of success. And finally stop looking to pick fights about the insignificant parts of people arguments and the minor details. Hell you want gun control. You have posted the rules you agree with shockingly you are on the same side on the issue. You just have for some reason been convinced that people looking for gun control are the boogieman. Are you the boogieman? Let's go back and see what you posted in your highly condescending manner, that can easily be seen as highly disrespectful. Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 10:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 13 2018 10:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:05 JimmiC wrote: You never answered me on how how many multiple intruder shot by defense of a homeowner, multi fatalities there has been ever.
And you never the article on why Switzerland is actually different from the states, and why you using in as your example is misinformed. So I would go calling out others, you are as guilty, at least, as anyone for avoiding arguments. So you want me to comb through a data base that purposely hides that information and doesn't make it easy to sort through what is a home invasion/self-defense/etc.? Ok. Let me just sort through this highly biased database that many news outlets source their numbers, and so conveniently hide the fact that gang warfare, home invasions, police shootings, self-defense, etc. are all a part of their 'mass shooting' numbers. In regards to the Switzerland argument, you should go back like 15-20 pages and read through it yourself. I'm not gonna rehash that argument. I did read the whole article it was very enlightening, but I guess if you know everything you don't have to.... It is not because of the database it is because you use it as a example that not only might happen, but rather something that happens from time to time. I would be shocked if it has happened more then once ever. I think you watch way to much T.V and movies. Let's go back to the original conversation 1) The data base includes far too wide of a parameter to even be considered accurate. It involves far too many other types of crimes, accidental shootings, lawful defenses, etc. to be used. I merely used certain examples such as police shootings versus multiple assailants or lawful defense of one's home against multiple assailants. 2) You responded in pro-typical gun control manner essentially trying to mock me by stating that there's no way that someone could ever defend their home from multiple suspects, and that I've been watching too much TV and movies (which is easily seen as an insult by anyone). 3) You then back track and state "well not all of those events fit the criteria of the database", despite the fact that they prove that people have defended their homes versus multiple suspects with firearms in a lawful manner. 4) Now you want to go and say "I'm nitpicking at details" and need to be more respectful. Why should I respect you, or anyone else who clearly got caught with their pants on the ground either using or supporting completely fraudulent data? Mind you, there was NO reason to support that data. It took me literally 15 seconds to figure out how much buffoonery there was behind BBC's shitastic journalism within that article. Either someone was attempting to inflate mass shooting numbers to make the US look like some hell hole, or someone did not do their due diligence in reporting the news. This wasn't like it takes a rocket scientist to figure that out either, it should have been immediately obvious and many of you should have called out the serious errors of said database in attempting to call those events 'mass shootings.' Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. your last paragraph is basically proof that you dont really give a shit about making changes at all. i mean, this has been noted multiple times in this thread already. you cant pretend to be an advocate for gun control but then "not come to the compromise table" because apparently we secretly want to ban all guns. what an absolute load of shit. even if that scenario were true, our intention would be to reduce death by firearms. banning all firearms would be a possible method, not the intention. the reality is that you cosplay as a gun-control advocate and then like jimmic said, start arguing against semantics and minor details to derail the point or try and destroy the credibility of everyone against you in order to make our arguments seem worthless. whether or not the death stat plansix used, or any stat for firearm deaths, was 100% accurate isnt the issue here. the issue here is that whatever number you come up with is that many deaths too many. whatever solution is agreed upon will 100% result in gun owners having to make a sacrifice but unfortunately, from what i can see, you have either of the following viewpoints: 1. you dont actually want further gun control. you just say you do and then proceed to shoot every argument down. 2. you genuinely do want gun control, but you dont think the current number of deaths is statistically relevant enough for gun owners to make some sacrifices, and so you shoot every argument down.
either way there is a clear lack of urgency on your part because you have clearly decided in your mind the value of the lives lost to firearms and calculated that it isnt worth making an effort to make changes. if you were feeling the urgency and desperation of the situation, you wouldnt be sitting here arguing semantics; youd accept that some changes will have to be made (probably forcefully and despite the disapproval of hardcore gun owners) for the sake of your country. youre the one arguing in bad faith
|
On November 15 2018 10:12 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 07:58 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 07:43 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 06:23 JimmiC wrote: I think you are only supposed to be respectful if you wish people to act that way to you. And it seems like you are more interested in fighting right now than discussing. You are strangely obsessed with proving that this 475 number is wrong. Who really cares if it 475 or 100, both are far too much, it is strange that you are so stuck on proving this number wrong. If the number was truly 475 would that drastically or even slightly change your opinions?
It is super odd to me because your beliefs are not very different from those on "the other side" it is a imaginary war you are fighting.
These all seem pretty sensible to me, why are you not supporting politicians that support these measures?
"I believe in gun control laws such as...
1) Banning Bumpstocks 2) Firearm Registration 3) Red Flag Laws 4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval) 5) Expanded Background Checks 6) Required Firearm Education Classes 7) Wait Times " 1) Someone started out by using clearly fraudulent numbers. This has already been proven to be true. This whole entire thread has been about mass shootings in the context of an armed person(s) attacking people in a public area like a school, park, bar, etc; Said poster tried to pass it off as true. This is highly dishonest It isn't merely just about the numbers, it's the fact that the poster attempted to pass those highly inflated numbers in a way to prove their point. That's where I'm calling bullshit. 2) You yourself along with other posters then attempted to mock me, saying "I made shit up" and that "I watch too much TV and Movies" then proceeded to factually be proven wrong. Plainsix tried to claim that there are no police shootings within that database despite the database itself saying that there were, then I had to literally comb through it and find one just to prove it. You then tried to tell me that there was no way anyone could have possibly defended their home against multiple assailants, and I proved you wrong with three examples. 3) It's ok to have an honest debate about many things. What you're asking me to do though is to accept the fact that you, Plainsix, and others in this thread have stated factually incorrect things, supported an assertion that was intellectually dishonest, and then now you're telling me that I need to trust your side that you're not out to get rid of guns, when I caught a good chunk of you bold faced supporting a highly dishonest BBC article. On November 15 2018 02:48 Plansix wrote: I would argue that in the 1990s and pre-9/11 there was better gun control in the form of better enforcement of existing gun laws. One of the things that took place after the now legendary Brady Bill and the assault rifle ban of 1994 was the republican congress moving resources away from the federal agencies that would police illegal fire arms sales. Including the FBI and ATF. And a adjustment in regulations over how the ATF is allowed to trace fire arms and their sales, including a prohibiting them from using computers for a number of tasks. The best change to the current system would be to fund those agencies better and remove restrictive regulations that no longer make sense in the digital era. When the assault weapons ban expired gun violence continued to go down. So there goes your theory that gun control was "better" in the 1990s and pre-9/11. In fact, gun homicide and gun related crimes in the 90s was far worse than it is today. And that's despite a massive uptick in the number of firearms per Americans. The theory that gun control can alone influence homicide rates is silly. I wouldn't want gun control alone, I think impacting marketing of guns and violence the way they did with Cig's is needed. I've said it many times you have ignored it. If you go back to the first time I asked the question about home invasions it was around the "over 3 fatalities" you were talking about and I put the over under at 1.5. You brought up one that surprised me but I have not seen others. As I have stated over and over, I don't think it a real statistically relevant event. That you found 3 articles, one that fit my initial question does not make me factually wrong. Not to mention you are missing the whole point of what most (notice how I didn't say all) people are saying to you, no we don't things guns are the only problem, yes we understand American culture is different, and no we don't think if you made guns illegal tomorrow all gun violence would stop. We are saying many changes need to happen if you want the problem to decrease. Your suggestions are all worthwhile and would be supported. It is worth looking at what other countries do because they all have wildly different cultures from each other and yet they have all had varying level of success. And finally stop looking to pick fights about the insignificant parts of people arguments and the minor details. Hell you want gun control. You have posted the rules you agree with shockingly you are on the same side on the issue. You just have for some reason been convinced that people looking for gun control are the boogieman. Are you the boogieman? Let's go back and see what you posted in your highly condescending manner, that can easily be seen as highly disrespectful. On November 13 2018 10:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 13 2018 10:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:05 JimmiC wrote: You never answered me on how how many multiple intruder shot by defense of a homeowner, multi fatalities there has been ever.
And you never the article on why Switzerland is actually different from the states, and why you using in as your example is misinformed. So I would go calling out others, you are as guilty, at least, as anyone for avoiding arguments. So you want me to comb through a data base that purposely hides that information and doesn't make it easy to sort through what is a home invasion/self-defense/etc.? Ok. Let me just sort through this highly biased database that many news outlets source their numbers, and so conveniently hide the fact that gang warfare, home invasions, police shootings, self-defense, etc. are all a part of their 'mass shooting' numbers. In regards to the Switzerland argument, you should go back like 15-20 pages and read through it yourself. I'm not gonna rehash that argument. I did read the whole article it was very enlightening, but I guess if you know everything you don't have to.... It is not because of the database it is because you use it as a example that not only might happen, but rather something that happens from time to time. I would be shocked if it has happened more then once ever. I think you watch way to much T.V and movies. Let's go back to the original conversation 1) The data base includes far too wide of a parameter to even be considered accurate. It involves far too many other types of crimes, accidental shootings, lawful defenses, etc. to be used. I merely used certain examples such as police shootings versus multiple assailants or lawful defense of one's home against multiple assailants. 2) You responded in pro-typical gun control manner essentially trying to mock me by stating that there's no way that someone could ever defend their home from multiple suspects, and that I've been watching too much TV and movies (which is easily seen as an insult by anyone). 3) You then back track and state "well not all of those events fit the criteria of the database", despite the fact that they prove that people have defended their homes versus multiple suspects with firearms in a lawful manner. 4) Now you want to go and say "I'm nitpicking at details" and need to be more respectful. Why should I respect you, or anyone else who clearly got caught with their pants on the ground either using or supporting completely fraudulent data? Mind you, there was NO reason to support that data. It took me literally 15 seconds to figure out how much buffoonery there was behind BBC's shitastic journalism within that article. Either someone was attempting to inflate mass shooting numbers to make the US look like some hell hole, or someone did not do their due diligence in reporting the news. This wasn't like it takes a rocket scientist to figure that out either, it should have been immediately obvious and many of you should have called out the serious errors of said database in attempting to call those events 'mass shootings.' Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. your last paragraph is basically proof that you dont really give a shit about making changes at all. i mean, this has been noted multiple times in this thread already. you cant pretend to be an advocate for gun control but then "not come to the compromise table" because apparently we secretly want to ban all guns. what an absolute load of shit. even if that scenario were true, our intention would be to reduce death by firearms. banning all firearms would be a possible method, not the intention. the reality is that you cosplay as a gun-control advocate and then like jimmic said, start arguing against semantics and minor details to derail the point or try and destroy the credibility of everyone against you in order to make our arguments seem worthless. whether or not the death stat plansix used, or any stat for firearm deaths, was 100% accurate isnt the issue here. the issue here is that whatever number you come up with is that many deaths too many. whatever solution is agreed upon will 100% result in gun owners having to make a sacrifice but unfortunately, from what i can see, you have either of the following viewpoints: 1. you dont actually want further gun control. you just say you do and then proceed to shoot every argument down. 2. you genuinely do want gun control, but you dont think the current number of deaths is statistically relevant enough for gun owners to make some sacrifices, and so you shoot every argument down. either way there is a clear lack of urgency on your part because you have clearly decided in your mind the value of the lives lost to firearms and calculated that it isnt worth making an effort to make changes. if you were feeling the urgency and desperation of the situation, you wouldnt be sitting here arguing semantics; youd accept that some changes will have to be made (probably forcefully and despite the disapproval of hardcore gun owners) for the sake of your country. youre the one arguing in bad faith
Questioning people's credibility when they are being dishonest or refuse to admit said article is at bare minimum poor and shoddy journalism is not semantics. If you cannot be fair and objective, why should I even have a conversation with you in the first place?
Notice how all of you want to dismiss the argument completely, and attack my posting history rather than my argument. The argument is that said article is completely shoddy work; it's biased, and it is clear that the author of the article wants to push a gun control agenda. Several posters here came to the defense of the sources of the article despite the fact that I actually in fact proved them wrong from a factual standpoint (There are no police shootings in that database, there are no self-defense cases vs multiple assailants, shifting definitions of mass shootings to fit argument etc.)
Rather than actually debating the merits of my argument or conceding that they might just be wrong, now I'm being branded as someone who argues semantics, rather than someone who might just actually have a point after all. Good job. Just further demonstrate why so many conservatives and even gun owning democrats don't vote for gun control.
|
On November 14 2018 23:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2018 13:41 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 13 2018 12:06 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2018 11:40 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 13 2018 11:15 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2018 10:39 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 11 2018 19:27 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2018 16:08 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 12:32 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2018 10:44 Blazinghand wrote:
All of those are things that California has to some extent or another. And it does reduce gun crime in the state. I think we could do things better, true. I disagree with the idea that because one mass shooting happened, our current gun law does nothing, and therefore we shouldn't have it at all. On November 11 2018 11:54 superstartran wrote: [quote]
That really wasn't my point; my point was to point out that despite California having all these laws that have been clamored for years by gun control activists, it still did not prevent the mass shooting. Because like you said, mass shootings only make up about 1% of the firearm homicide rates. That's not to say gun control laws shouldn't be passed; it's only demonstrating that many gun control activists don't care about gun control as a whole, but only when shit doesn't go 'according to plan.' Cops get shot or urban gangsters die? NBD. Some middle class white people die? Fuck, we gotta do something. See why I'm skeptical as to motive and reasoning?
California has made some progress in that it has much better social programs than states like say Mississippi or Louisiana, along with strong gun control laws. It's also a much larger state as you mentioned so it can afford many of these programs.
For other states to really be able to get such programs, better enforcement of gun control laws, etc. you'd need the Federal government to step in. That's only going to happen when people stop doing things like shaming law abiding gun owners, stop suggesting ridiculous shit like 'we should look at the 2nd amendment' etc. Just to both of your two points: One mass shooting does not either point out our current gun laws do nothing, nor does it argue for more gun laws. The "do something!" trend is absolutely the wrong approach. These laws should work on their merits. It should impact crime without unduly punishing lawful gun owners, and be shown to actually have some effect on criminals rather than just burdening the law abiding. I don't speak for either of you, but for myself, it's these "activists for a day" types that want to allege complicity in murder and inadequacy and total ignorance of all past legislation that really hinder progressive compromise in this area (and repeal of bad legislation masquerading as gun control legislation). My point was always the fact that most people are really 'activists for a day' or 'gun abolitionists' masquerading as gun control advocates. It's not about whether I disagree whether those laws work or not, it's the fact that the most recent shooting demonstrated how the liberal media and many 'activists' didn't have a whole lot of material to work from in order to push their anti-gun agenda. But if the same shooter performed the shooting with say an AR-15, it would be like all hell broke loose. And just as a side note, for people who keep talking shit about the 2nd Amendment and how it is a loose interpretation of it, I'm fairly certain that earlier drafts of the 2nd Amendment did actually explicitly state the right to private firearms. So the idea that the Founding Father's did not intend for the 2nd Amendment to guarantee private citizens ownership of firearms is abit asinine, especially when you're looking at the historical context of the Constitution, and earlier drafts of the 2nd Amendment, along with the history of firearms, firearm laws, and how the courts have generally ruled in favor of firearm ownership in the United States. I wholeheartedly agree. Honest to God, the slice of debate present here is just the kind I observe in town halls and debates and news articles. Just do something! Doesn't make a lick of difference if it would've affected today's tragedy ... hell, it doesn't even matter if it stops even one guy intent on doing crime from getting a gun. What matters is we did something for gun control, there's a new law on the books we can feel good about, and to hell with what it does to lawful gun owners just trying to defend themselves, their family, and their stuff. It's all just that ratcheting wrench. It only goes one way: your lawful purchase, carry, and use in self defense of a firearm goes down. No repeals back the other way if it didn't work or just made the whole thing more expensive. One more quarter turn towards your second amendment rights going poof. Second amendment rights that we're going to not-so-subtly pretend never existed in the amendment. Yesterday's cabal of gun haters got their laws, like the DC gun laws preventing guns at home from being operable. It took the Court of Appeals/Supreme Court to step in and hold everybody up on rending it impossible to use them in the absolutely lawful purpose of self-defense. Today's gang is heading in the same direction. Why do you need that gun at home, don't you know it just increases the chance of death by gun? Don't you know American gun culture is bad? Don't you know about the traumatic effect inflicted on the ENTIRE country? Don't you know the NRA really are the devil, and aligned politicians actually don't care about dead kids? If those kind of arguments worked, the 2nd amendment would have been fully repealed by now. I'm not going to agree with you on some of your favored gun control measures, particularly on magazines and required classes. I do somewhat agree on pointing out the moral granstanding/moral issues behind it all. If no preservation of gun freedom is worth even one more death, then you set a high moral bar for the rest to debate around. After reading your posts many times, I would say one this is extremely consistent in your world view... The top priority is that everyone has the right to own a gun. And you don't appear to give a shit about who gets killed by those guns or even that people are trained to use them appropriately. Where on your list of priorities does, "people not getting murdered by guns" lie? I've never once heard you offer anything in the way of empathy for any of the hundred victims of US mass shootings, but you appear enthusiastic about defending the rights of anyone (even untrained or unstable people) to carry and use firearms. Is that accurate?I'm only going off what I've seen in your posts. Maybe I missed the ones about the victims, but the majority (or all) of what I've read is simply you addressing gun ownership. I'm not trying to shit talk you, I just really want to know if that's something you think about at all? If I missed it, my apologies, too many posts to comb through. I've had enough time to read your recent posts. To put it quite simply, you've shown such a willingness to demonize and not understand empathy from people who disagree with you, that I picture it will take several years before you can move out of the frame of "you don't appear to give a shit" ... "is that accurate." I will continue to read your posts. I won't entirely disagree with what you say about me in this post. Recently I've been emotional about this topic and justifiably angry with how many people die from firearms in the US. My intention isn't to demonize people, though I'm sure I've not done the best job of making that clear. This whole business of cleaning up the gun deaths in the US is a messy discussion. You can disagree with me, but I still don't see you saying anything about the people dying in these shootings. All the posts I read from you are concerned with gun rights. Reading this leads me to believe it's not a concern for you. Usually I would expect people address the things they are most concerned with first, which has me question what priority the victims have for you? How do all the deaths impact you? You will find zero fertile ground with me if you remain in the perspective of thinking I have no empathy for dead people in shootings, since I don't regale you with tales of how I'm kept up at night and how deeply troubled I am at each new incident this year. I compare you to some religious people I know that take an absence of "thoughts and prayers" explicitly said to mean you only care to politicize the deaths and smear your hated groups and capitalize on your policy agenda. I understand that you're emotional about this topic, so I'll excuse the implication that I don't give a shit about the victims because I'm interested in this debate here not to swing too far against civil liberties in the wake of these events. I'm asking you what the impact is because I genuinely want to know. What I find is that it's helpful actually know that, because it doesn't get stated enough imo. These threads are 90% conversations about definitions of what something is or individual rights, but not enough is said about our emotions. Even if people want to believe they aren't emotional, emotions are present because I can see how frustrated people get with each other. When everyone is just talking about those rights and definitions it's actually really hard for me to know if they care about what feels like it matters most, peoples' lives. If people don't say they care, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to know. It's a false assumption to assume everyone cares. The crazy thing is that if we all just stated that we cared most about the victims then we would all be more alike than we are different... isn't that nuts? It's definitely what I give a shit about the most, that more people don't die. I'm sure we could all get there together... if that really is the common ground we share. You want honest sharing of our emotions because you sincerely want to know? My advice is to leave off the accusations of "not giving a shit about victims," because rudely accusing people of the blackest sentiments is the shortest way to never hear the true feelings of the heart. Let time heal your reputation. + Show Spoiler +On June 20 2018 12:27 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 00:22 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2018 16:21 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 18 2018 10:18 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2018 23:46 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 12 2018 16:27 Kyadytim wrote:
Five people dead qualifies as a mass shooting, right?
In all of the furor over school shootings, it sometimes gets missed that this sort of domestic situation is also a major issue.
In short, the police were called for domestic violence, and when they arrived the man involved shot one of the officers and took four children, two of whom were his, hostage. By the end of the day, he and all four of the children were dead at his hands.
The officer is alive but in critical condition. Do they have to be dead people? https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/17/us/new-jersey-art-festival-shooting/index.htmlGo team NRA! Deaths are just an excuse to rally the rhetoric. I'd say deaths are people that can no longer do ANYTHING, because someone forcefully took everything they had and ever will have... forever. That's what real "taking rights away" is. And the reason the needle doesn't move is because congress (is bought out by the gun lobby) doesn't enact laws limiting assholes from carrying guns. Why don't you go back to the last post I quoted you and answer any of the questions you dodged... there were plenty of statistics there spelling out how the vast majority of this county is in favor of gun control and despite that, a republican controlled government won't do anything about it. Not to mention you, I've never seen you even hint at a solution. Can you tell me why when I literally just told you that 30 people were shot over nothing, the first thing that came to your mind wasn't "Holy shit, I hope their ok?! How do we prevent this from ever happening again?"... Instead it was, "I hope they don't take my guns away :'(" ? The only reason you don't give a shit about 30 people getting shot is because it doesn't in anyway affect your small world, past the fact that your terrified of living in the world without a gun. It's New Jersey and a huge festival, there were definitely people there with guns (including police)... nobody stopped shit from happening by having a gun. They never do... and they never will. Honestly, more than anything, I really do think you're a russian toll. All your posts I've read are heartless vomiting up of fox news BS about gun rights in America. Talking about "demonizing citizens" and "taking away rights" because I'm tired of innocent people getting killed for nothing... Who talks like that? Blaming Team NRA after deaths only serves to show you’re after political axes to grind. I wouldn’t accuse others of “vomiting up” BS when you vomit out these lines blaming NRA after a tragedy. If you sell guns and make lobbying for the sale of guns their entire business... Then it's their fucking responsibility to do so in a way that doesn't end up with sooooo many people shot and killed. Because that's the way our country works. You can't own a chemical factory and not give a shit about the waste you create while you poison the population around the factory, because your worried it cuts into your bottom line. That's actually against the law, it's called negligence. The same thing is true for guns. Your good buddies (NRA), don't really care if you get shot or your family gets shot or your neighbor... etc... as long as you buy guns and ammo from the people who give them money to lobby for them. If they cared they would lobby for ANY legislation to make gun ownership safer for all the public, but they don't. They just take money from large gun companies and lobby for no laws. Like any large corporation they have an unquenchable thirst for greed, money and power. Bump stocks are perfect example. Useless for anything but killing people, but after Vegas they said no to banning them. Money... I'll say it again slowly. M O N E Y. I know you think they love you, but it's really about the money. Let me translate that into something that makes more sense for you though, "LIBERALS WANT TO TAKE ALL MY GUNS!!!! SUPRESSING CITIZENSSSSS, HOW DARE YOU! 2ND AMENDMENT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING... ALEX JONES... SANDY HOOK WAS FAKED." Your welcome... Took me hours reading through google translate under "snowflake" BUT I GOT THERE EVENTUALLY :D Here's to you reading this post while your mind slowly goes blank... and you pick back up at the end of it, right here... and then read back to me fox news headlines in your response post. User was temp banned for this post.
You're citing a conversation in which you accuse me a using the deaths of people to "rally rhetoric"... and then in the next breath chastising me for making ill insinuations about victims.
For the record, you still haven't said anything about how you feel for the victims, but you've done a great job of creating a victim out of yourself. If you don't ever want to say anything about them and the impact theirs deaths have on you, it's your choice.
|
On November 15 2018 01:15 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2018 13:27 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 13 2018 21:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 19:54 Simberto wrote: Yeah, but notice how the terrorists usually didn't have guns? Because it is HARD to get a gun in the UK. You can't really make it hard to get knives, because those have an actual purpose besides killing things.
And sure, people without guns can be dangerous to. Just far less dangerous than the same person with a gun. If i encounter a criminal, i would be far more comfortable if none of us have a gun, as opposed to if both of us have one. Both with a gun makes the encounter mostly a coinflip with one of us ending up dead, while none with a gun means i can just give the criminal my tv, and don't have a 50% chance of ending up dead. 1) The UK in general has less violent crime overall, and started out with less violent crime than the United States even prior to this. 2) The UK is an island country, it makes it much easier to regulate firearms if you want a very strict environment. Believing that the United States could just implement similar laws and just call it a day is asinine. Not to mention, you haven't even talked about how one would handle the current 900 million+ firearms currently in circulation. What are you gonna do, tell those lawful gun owners that now their firearms are illegal and that we're having a Federal buy back program? Good luck. 3) You're comparing a much geographically smaller country to the United States, that has a far more homogeneous culture than the United States. If you're separating the Latino population from the white population (which you should; Latinos are culturally and socioeconomically different from your standard white population), the U.S. white population is like 62%ish or something like that. Meanwhile the UK is 87% white, as in, 87% white/non latino with very similar cultural beliefs and backgrounds. These things matter alot. With Australia being the only example I can think of, pretty much every other country with a high mixture of different cultures and ethnic make-ups always have issues with crime. 4) Parts of the United States has much more in common with 3rd world countries than 1st world countries. Comparing places like Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Louisiana, and Mississippi against the UK is not really a fair or equal comparison. It's one of the major reasons why instituting a gun ban wouldn't work. Washington D.C. had a handgun ban prior to 2008, and yet homicide rates dropped at a natural rate despite the handgun ban being lifted. It's crazy talk! Number of firearms doesn't mean an increase in homicides?! And before flying off the handle with some more moral grandstanding, I've already stated that there should be more strict regulations. You can throw all that other stuff out there... but objectively, nothing Simberto said is wrong. He is 100% right. People can kill without a gun. In most cases one a person has decided that they ar going to kill someone they are going to kill regardless of choice of weapon. You guys crack me up so hard. I've already conceded that there needs to be stricter regulations. However, if you are going to try and solve mass shootings you need more than laws.
You are missing the point in what he said, which is fine with me, but then you rebut it.
People can kill without guns, but the damage and number of deaths would be drastically less. The damage done in Las Vegas could never have been accomplished by one man without the assistance of Automatic weapons.
Give that same man a car instead and the majority of those people would be alive.
And if you really do care about changing the laws, then you and I are on the same page... I'm with you. We both just need to do something about it, like voting out republicans and lobbying our congress with votes. And for the record, I do think you believe in stronger gun laws, you've mentioned it before.
|
On November 15 2018 10:22 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 10:12 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 07:58 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 07:43 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 06:23 JimmiC wrote: I think you are only supposed to be respectful if you wish people to act that way to you. And it seems like you are more interested in fighting right now than discussing. You are strangely obsessed with proving that this 475 number is wrong. Who really cares if it 475 or 100, both are far too much, it is strange that you are so stuck on proving this number wrong. If the number was truly 475 would that drastically or even slightly change your opinions?
It is super odd to me because your beliefs are not very different from those on "the other side" it is a imaginary war you are fighting.
These all seem pretty sensible to me, why are you not supporting politicians that support these measures?
"I believe in gun control laws such as...
1) Banning Bumpstocks 2) Firearm Registration 3) Red Flag Laws 4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval) 5) Expanded Background Checks 6) Required Firearm Education Classes 7) Wait Times " 1) Someone started out by using clearly fraudulent numbers. This has already been proven to be true. This whole entire thread has been about mass shootings in the context of an armed person(s) attacking people in a public area like a school, park, bar, etc; Said poster tried to pass it off as true. This is highly dishonest It isn't merely just about the numbers, it's the fact that the poster attempted to pass those highly inflated numbers in a way to prove their point. That's where I'm calling bullshit. 2) You yourself along with other posters then attempted to mock me, saying "I made shit up" and that "I watch too much TV and Movies" then proceeded to factually be proven wrong. Plainsix tried to claim that there are no police shootings within that database despite the database itself saying that there were, then I had to literally comb through it and find one just to prove it. You then tried to tell me that there was no way anyone could have possibly defended their home against multiple assailants, and I proved you wrong with three examples. 3) It's ok to have an honest debate about many things. What you're asking me to do though is to accept the fact that you, Plainsix, and others in this thread have stated factually incorrect things, supported an assertion that was intellectually dishonest, and then now you're telling me that I need to trust your side that you're not out to get rid of guns, when I caught a good chunk of you bold faced supporting a highly dishonest BBC article. On November 15 2018 02:48 Plansix wrote: I would argue that in the 1990s and pre-9/11 there was better gun control in the form of better enforcement of existing gun laws. One of the things that took place after the now legendary Brady Bill and the assault rifle ban of 1994 was the republican congress moving resources away from the federal agencies that would police illegal fire arms sales. Including the FBI and ATF. And a adjustment in regulations over how the ATF is allowed to trace fire arms and their sales, including a prohibiting them from using computers for a number of tasks. The best change to the current system would be to fund those agencies better and remove restrictive regulations that no longer make sense in the digital era. When the assault weapons ban expired gun violence continued to go down. So there goes your theory that gun control was "better" in the 1990s and pre-9/11. In fact, gun homicide and gun related crimes in the 90s was far worse than it is today. And that's despite a massive uptick in the number of firearms per Americans. The theory that gun control can alone influence homicide rates is silly. I wouldn't want gun control alone, I think impacting marketing of guns and violence the way they did with Cig's is needed. I've said it many times you have ignored it. If you go back to the first time I asked the question about home invasions it was around the "over 3 fatalities" you were talking about and I put the over under at 1.5. You brought up one that surprised me but I have not seen others. As I have stated over and over, I don't think it a real statistically relevant event. That you found 3 articles, one that fit my initial question does not make me factually wrong. Not to mention you are missing the whole point of what most (notice how I didn't say all) people are saying to you, no we don't things guns are the only problem, yes we understand American culture is different, and no we don't think if you made guns illegal tomorrow all gun violence would stop. We are saying many changes need to happen if you want the problem to decrease. Your suggestions are all worthwhile and would be supported. It is worth looking at what other countries do because they all have wildly different cultures from each other and yet they have all had varying level of success. And finally stop looking to pick fights about the insignificant parts of people arguments and the minor details. Hell you want gun control. You have posted the rules you agree with shockingly you are on the same side on the issue. You just have for some reason been convinced that people looking for gun control are the boogieman. Are you the boogieman? Let's go back and see what you posted in your highly condescending manner, that can easily be seen as highly disrespectful. On November 13 2018 10:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 13 2018 10:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:05 JimmiC wrote: You never answered me on how how many multiple intruder shot by defense of a homeowner, multi fatalities there has been ever.
And you never the article on why Switzerland is actually different from the states, and why you using in as your example is misinformed. So I would go calling out others, you are as guilty, at least, as anyone for avoiding arguments. So you want me to comb through a data base that purposely hides that information and doesn't make it easy to sort through what is a home invasion/self-defense/etc.? Ok. Let me just sort through this highly biased database that many news outlets source their numbers, and so conveniently hide the fact that gang warfare, home invasions, police shootings, self-defense, etc. are all a part of their 'mass shooting' numbers. In regards to the Switzerland argument, you should go back like 15-20 pages and read through it yourself. I'm not gonna rehash that argument. I did read the whole article it was very enlightening, but I guess if you know everything you don't have to.... It is not because of the database it is because you use it as a example that not only might happen, but rather something that happens from time to time. I would be shocked if it has happened more then once ever. I think you watch way to much T.V and movies. Let's go back to the original conversation 1) The data base includes far too wide of a parameter to even be considered accurate. It involves far too many other types of crimes, accidental shootings, lawful defenses, etc. to be used. I merely used certain examples such as police shootings versus multiple assailants or lawful defense of one's home against multiple assailants. 2) You responded in pro-typical gun control manner essentially trying to mock me by stating that there's no way that someone could ever defend their home from multiple suspects, and that I've been watching too much TV and movies (which is easily seen as an insult by anyone). 3) You then back track and state "well not all of those events fit the criteria of the database", despite the fact that they prove that people have defended their homes versus multiple suspects with firearms in a lawful manner. 4) Now you want to go and say "I'm nitpicking at details" and need to be more respectful. Why should I respect you, or anyone else who clearly got caught with their pants on the ground either using or supporting completely fraudulent data? Mind you, there was NO reason to support that data. It took me literally 15 seconds to figure out how much buffoonery there was behind BBC's shitastic journalism within that article. Either someone was attempting to inflate mass shooting numbers to make the US look like some hell hole, or someone did not do their due diligence in reporting the news. This wasn't like it takes a rocket scientist to figure that out either, it should have been immediately obvious and many of you should have called out the serious errors of said database in attempting to call those events 'mass shootings.' Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. your last paragraph is basically proof that you dont really give a shit about making changes at all. i mean, this has been noted multiple times in this thread already. you cant pretend to be an advocate for gun control but then "not come to the compromise table" because apparently we secretly want to ban all guns. what an absolute load of shit. even if that scenario were true, our intention would be to reduce death by firearms. banning all firearms would be a possible method, not the intention. the reality is that you cosplay as a gun-control advocate and then like jimmic said, start arguing against semantics and minor details to derail the point or try and destroy the credibility of everyone against you in order to make our arguments seem worthless. whether or not the death stat plansix used, or any stat for firearm deaths, was 100% accurate isnt the issue here. the issue here is that whatever number you come up with is that many deaths too many. whatever solution is agreed upon will 100% result in gun owners having to make a sacrifice but unfortunately, from what i can see, you have either of the following viewpoints: 1. you dont actually want further gun control. you just say you do and then proceed to shoot every argument down. 2. you genuinely do want gun control, but you dont think the current number of deaths is statistically relevant enough for gun owners to make some sacrifices, and so you shoot every argument down. either way there is a clear lack of urgency on your part because you have clearly decided in your mind the value of the lives lost to firearms and calculated that it isnt worth making an effort to make changes. if you were feeling the urgency and desperation of the situation, you wouldnt be sitting here arguing semantics; youd accept that some changes will have to be made (probably forcefully and despite the disapproval of hardcore gun owners) for the sake of your country. youre the one arguing in bad faith Questioning people's credibility when they are being dishonest or refuse to admit said article is at bare minimum poor and shoddy journalism is not semantics. If you cannot be fair and objective, why should I even have a conversation with you in the first place?Notice how all of you want to dismiss the argument completely, and attack my posting history rather than my argument. The argument is that said article is completely shoddy work; it's biased, and it is clear that the author of the article wants to push a gun control agenda. Several posters here came to the defense of the sources of the article despite the fact that I actually in fact proved them wrong from a factual standpoint (There are no police shootings in that database, there are no self-defense cases vs multiple assailants, shifting definitions of mass shootings to fit argument etc.) Rather than actually debating the merits of my argument or conceding that they might just be wrong, now I'm being branded as someone who argues semantics, rather than someone who might just actually have a point after all. Good job. Just further demonstrate why so many conservatives and even gun owning democrats don't vote for gun control. dont act like its the first time youve heard us calling you out for arguing semantics. it isnt. and i dont disagree that inaccurate information is not a good basis for an argument. what you dont seem to understand is the importance of the inaccuracy in context of the current topic. you made it your mission to destroy the credibility of an article not worth arguing about. like i said, the exact figure is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. it only becomes relevant if you want to calculate whether or not you have to actually give a shit whether people are dying at all. this brings me to my last point, youre either purposefully shooting down arguments with derailments and nitpicking, or you dont think the actual number is big enough for you to give a fuck about making actual changes. why dont you pick an imaginary number and tell us what that number has to be for you to accept that changes have to be made in desperate fashion?
|
On November 15 2018 09:05 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. I think in several cases you are mistaking "flexible" for "not honest". Speaking for myself, I find your country's overriding fetish for its constitution bizarre and counterproductive, and I'd be perfectly okay with a significant revision or nullification of the Second Amendment, along with laws of similar flavour to those in other countries - in fact that would be my preferred solution. That does not mean, however, that I'm not willing to accept a considerably more moderate outcome - it is not my preferred solution but it will do. I'm getting the distinct impression that you would take the first objective and use it as an excuse to not compromise with me, even when I am advocating for the second, instead of recognising that all it means is that I'm willing to compromise on my ideal solution. Superstartran has beaten me to it, but to declare the constitution an “overriding fetish” and then hope to convince some fool that your goal of compromise is real and not imagined ... it’s just fantastical. Yes, the only reason we can still debate the limits of this freedom is the constitution’s enduring legacy and narrow Supreme Court victories. Otherwise, tyranny would’ve had its legacy on the right of effective self defense a very long time ago.
Few things indeed will engender more distrust by my side of yours than declaring it a fetish.
|
Danglars I think you spend more time posting about why you should not or will not trust someone then anything else.
|
On November 15 2018 07:43 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 06:23 JimmiC wrote: I think you are only supposed to be respectful if you wish people to act that way to you. And it seems like you are more interested in fighting right now than discussing. You are strangely obsessed with proving that this 475 number is wrong. Who really cares if it 475 or 100, both are far too much, it is strange that you are so stuck on proving this number wrong. If the number was truly 475 would that drastically or even slightly change your opinions?
It is super odd to me because your beliefs are not very different from those on "the other side" it is a imaginary war you are fighting.
These all seem pretty sensible to me, why are you not supporting politicians that support these measures?
"I believe in gun control laws such as...
1) Banning Bumpstocks 2) Firearm Registration 3) Red Flag Laws 4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval) 5) Expanded Background Checks 6) Required Firearm Education Classes 7) Wait Times " 1) Someone started out by using clearly fraudulent numbers. This has already been proven to be true. This whole entire thread has been about mass shootings in the context of an armed person(s) attacking people in a public area like a school, park, bar, etc; Said poster tried to pass it off as true. This is highly dishonest It isn't merely just about the numbers, it's the fact that the poster attempted to pass those highly inflated numbers in a way to prove their point. That's where I'm calling bullshit. 2) You yourself along with other posters then attempted to mock me, saying "I made shit up" and that "I watch too much TV and Movies" then proceeded to factually be proven wrong. Plainsix tried to claim that there are no police shootings within that database despite the database itself saying that there were, then I had to literally comb through it and find one just to prove it. You then tried to tell me that there was no way anyone could have possibly defended their home against multiple assailants, and I proved you wrong with three examples. 3) It's ok to have an honest debate about many things. What you're asking me to do though is to accept the fact that you, Plainsix, and others in this thread have stated factually incorrect things, supported an assertion that was intellectually dishonest, and then now you're telling me that I need to trust your side that you're not out to get rid of guns, when I caught a good chunk of you bold faced supporting a highly dishonest BBC article. This is after I was literally insulted too rofl. But I'm supposed to now be nice? Kick rocks bro. Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 02:48 Plansix wrote: I would argue that in the 1990s and pre-9/11 there was better gun control in the form of better enforcement of existing gun laws. One of the things that took place after the now legendary Brady Bill and the assault rifle ban of 1994 was the republican congress moving resources away from the federal agencies that would police illegal fire arms sales. Including the FBI and ATF. And a adjustment in regulations over how the ATF is allowed to trace fire arms and their sales, including a prohibiting them from using computers for a number of tasks. The best change to the current system would be to fund those agencies better and remove restrictive regulations that no longer make sense in the digital era. When the assault weapons ban expired gun violence continued to go down. So there goes your theory that gun control was "better" in the 1990s and pre-9/11. In fact, gun homicide and gun related crimes in the 90s was far worse than it is today. And that's despite a massive uptick in the number of firearms per Americans. The theory that gun control can alone influence homicide rates is silly.
I don't know why you are so angry, I'm guessing it is because your logic is flawed, because as mad as you are now, I made a post complimenting you earlier for how discussing your point. But now you think because a number in some article plansix quoted may have inflated numbers you some how got check mate?
Your whole argument about why not to take the steps you think are needed is because of slippery slope. This is literally a logical fallacy. Doing these things does not open some magical door to other things. All it does is do those things. Now if there is a bunch of success with those things people might want to do more, or they might think it is good enough. Or it could be a complete failure and be a win for 0 regulation. But to be fearful of doing what you think is necessary or would help might mean you think it would be effective but not fully and encourage more.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slope
|
On November 15 2018 09:36 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 09:05 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. I think in several cases you are mistaking "flexible" for "not honest". Speaking for myself, I find your country's overriding fetish for its constitution bizarre and counterproductive, and I'd be perfectly okay with a significant revision or nullification of the Second Amendment - in fact that would be my preferred solution. That does not mean, however, that I'm not willing to accept a considerably more moderate outcome - it is not my preferred solution but it will do. I'm getting the distinct impression that you would take the first objective and use it as an excuse to not compromise with me, even when I am advocating for the second, instead of recognising that all it means is that I'm willing to compromise on my ideal solution. 'Overriding fetish' You mean the document that prevents significant abuses of individual rights? Rather than allowing the loud parts of society as a whole to have a knee jerk reaction to something and shovel legislation down people's throats, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created to prevent nonsense like that from occurring.
On November 15 2018 10:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 09:05 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. I think in several cases you are mistaking "flexible" for "not honest". Speaking for myself, I find your country's overriding fetish for its constitution bizarre and counterproductive, and I'd be perfectly okay with a significant revision or nullification of the Second Amendment, along with laws of similar flavour to those in other countries - in fact that would be my preferred solution. That does not mean, however, that I'm not willing to accept a considerably more moderate outcome - it is not my preferred solution but it will do. I'm getting the distinct impression that you would take the first objective and use it as an excuse to not compromise with me, even when I am advocating for the second, instead of recognising that all it means is that I'm willing to compromise on my ideal solution. Superstartran has beaten me to it, but to declare the constitution an “overriding fetish” and then hope to convince some fool that your goal of compromise is real and not imagined ... it’s just fantastical. Yes, the only reason we can still debate the limits of this freedom is the constitution’s enduring legacy and narrow Supreme Court victories. Otherwise, tyranny would’ve had its legacy on the right of effective self defense a very long time ago. Few things indeed will engender more distrust by my side of yours than declaring it a fetish. You have both missed the point.
In my country (and in many others), we care about individual rights, liberty, safety and so forth. We do not have a fetish for the piece of paper they're written down on (or for not modifying their formulation to maintain reasonable intentions as situations change, or for arguing about how to interpret the intent of people who made their decisions centuries past), and we seem to do just fine in terms of maintaining a democratic society with enlightened values and liberties despite that.
|
On November 15 2018 10:33 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 10:22 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 10:12 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 07:58 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 07:43 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 06:23 JimmiC wrote: I think you are only supposed to be respectful if you wish people to act that way to you. And it seems like you are more interested in fighting right now than discussing. You are strangely obsessed with proving that this 475 number is wrong. Who really cares if it 475 or 100, both are far too much, it is strange that you are so stuck on proving this number wrong. If the number was truly 475 would that drastically or even slightly change your opinions?
It is super odd to me because your beliefs are not very different from those on "the other side" it is a imaginary war you are fighting.
These all seem pretty sensible to me, why are you not supporting politicians that support these measures?
"I believe in gun control laws such as...
1) Banning Bumpstocks 2) Firearm Registration 3) Red Flag Laws 4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval) 5) Expanded Background Checks 6) Required Firearm Education Classes 7) Wait Times " 1) Someone started out by using clearly fraudulent numbers. This has already been proven to be true. This whole entire thread has been about mass shootings in the context of an armed person(s) attacking people in a public area like a school, park, bar, etc; Said poster tried to pass it off as true. This is highly dishonest It isn't merely just about the numbers, it's the fact that the poster attempted to pass those highly inflated numbers in a way to prove their point. That's where I'm calling bullshit. 2) You yourself along with other posters then attempted to mock me, saying "I made shit up" and that "I watch too much TV and Movies" then proceeded to factually be proven wrong. Plainsix tried to claim that there are no police shootings within that database despite the database itself saying that there were, then I had to literally comb through it and find one just to prove it. You then tried to tell me that there was no way anyone could have possibly defended their home against multiple assailants, and I proved you wrong with three examples. 3) It's ok to have an honest debate about many things. What you're asking me to do though is to accept the fact that you, Plainsix, and others in this thread have stated factually incorrect things, supported an assertion that was intellectually dishonest, and then now you're telling me that I need to trust your side that you're not out to get rid of guns, when I caught a good chunk of you bold faced supporting a highly dishonest BBC article. On November 15 2018 02:48 Plansix wrote: I would argue that in the 1990s and pre-9/11 there was better gun control in the form of better enforcement of existing gun laws. One of the things that took place after the now legendary Brady Bill and the assault rifle ban of 1994 was the republican congress moving resources away from the federal agencies that would police illegal fire arms sales. Including the FBI and ATF. And a adjustment in regulations over how the ATF is allowed to trace fire arms and their sales, including a prohibiting them from using computers for a number of tasks. The best change to the current system would be to fund those agencies better and remove restrictive regulations that no longer make sense in the digital era. When the assault weapons ban expired gun violence continued to go down. So there goes your theory that gun control was "better" in the 1990s and pre-9/11. In fact, gun homicide and gun related crimes in the 90s was far worse than it is today. And that's despite a massive uptick in the number of firearms per Americans. The theory that gun control can alone influence homicide rates is silly. I wouldn't want gun control alone, I think impacting marketing of guns and violence the way they did with Cig's is needed. I've said it many times you have ignored it. If you go back to the first time I asked the question about home invasions it was around the "over 3 fatalities" you were talking about and I put the over under at 1.5. You brought up one that surprised me but I have not seen others. As I have stated over and over, I don't think it a real statistically relevant event. That you found 3 articles, one that fit my initial question does not make me factually wrong. Not to mention you are missing the whole point of what most (notice how I didn't say all) people are saying to you, no we don't things guns are the only problem, yes we understand American culture is different, and no we don't think if you made guns illegal tomorrow all gun violence would stop. We are saying many changes need to happen if you want the problem to decrease. Your suggestions are all worthwhile and would be supported. It is worth looking at what other countries do because they all have wildly different cultures from each other and yet they have all had varying level of success. And finally stop looking to pick fights about the insignificant parts of people arguments and the minor details. Hell you want gun control. You have posted the rules you agree with shockingly you are on the same side on the issue. You just have for some reason been convinced that people looking for gun control are the boogieman. Are you the boogieman? Let's go back and see what you posted in your highly condescending manner, that can easily be seen as highly disrespectful. On November 13 2018 10:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 13 2018 10:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:05 JimmiC wrote: You never answered me on how how many multiple intruder shot by defense of a homeowner, multi fatalities there has been ever.
And you never the article on why Switzerland is actually different from the states, and why you using in as your example is misinformed. So I would go calling out others, you are as guilty, at least, as anyone for avoiding arguments. So you want me to comb through a data base that purposely hides that information and doesn't make it easy to sort through what is a home invasion/self-defense/etc.? Ok. Let me just sort through this highly biased database that many news outlets source their numbers, and so conveniently hide the fact that gang warfare, home invasions, police shootings, self-defense, etc. are all a part of their 'mass shooting' numbers. In regards to the Switzerland argument, you should go back like 15-20 pages and read through it yourself. I'm not gonna rehash that argument. I did read the whole article it was very enlightening, but I guess if you know everything you don't have to.... It is not because of the database it is because you use it as a example that not only might happen, but rather something that happens from time to time. I would be shocked if it has happened more then once ever. I think you watch way to much T.V and movies. Let's go back to the original conversation 1) The data base includes far too wide of a parameter to even be considered accurate. It involves far too many other types of crimes, accidental shootings, lawful defenses, etc. to be used. I merely used certain examples such as police shootings versus multiple assailants or lawful defense of one's home against multiple assailants. 2) You responded in pro-typical gun control manner essentially trying to mock me by stating that there's no way that someone could ever defend their home from multiple suspects, and that I've been watching too much TV and movies (which is easily seen as an insult by anyone). 3) You then back track and state "well not all of those events fit the criteria of the database", despite the fact that they prove that people have defended their homes versus multiple suspects with firearms in a lawful manner. 4) Now you want to go and say "I'm nitpicking at details" and need to be more respectful. Why should I respect you, or anyone else who clearly got caught with their pants on the ground either using or supporting completely fraudulent data? Mind you, there was NO reason to support that data. It took me literally 15 seconds to figure out how much buffoonery there was behind BBC's shitastic journalism within that article. Either someone was attempting to inflate mass shooting numbers to make the US look like some hell hole, or someone did not do their due diligence in reporting the news. This wasn't like it takes a rocket scientist to figure that out either, it should have been immediately obvious and many of you should have called out the serious errors of said database in attempting to call those events 'mass shootings.' Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. your last paragraph is basically proof that you dont really give a shit about making changes at all. i mean, this has been noted multiple times in this thread already. you cant pretend to be an advocate for gun control but then "not come to the compromise table" because apparently we secretly want to ban all guns. what an absolute load of shit. even if that scenario were true, our intention would be to reduce death by firearms. banning all firearms would be a possible method, not the intention. the reality is that you cosplay as a gun-control advocate and then like jimmic said, start arguing against semantics and minor details to derail the point or try and destroy the credibility of everyone against you in order to make our arguments seem worthless. whether or not the death stat plansix used, or any stat for firearm deaths, was 100% accurate isnt the issue here. the issue here is that whatever number you come up with is that many deaths too many. whatever solution is agreed upon will 100% result in gun owners having to make a sacrifice but unfortunately, from what i can see, you have either of the following viewpoints: 1. you dont actually want further gun control. you just say you do and then proceed to shoot every argument down. 2. you genuinely do want gun control, but you dont think the current number of deaths is statistically relevant enough for gun owners to make some sacrifices, and so you shoot every argument down. either way there is a clear lack of urgency on your part because you have clearly decided in your mind the value of the lives lost to firearms and calculated that it isnt worth making an effort to make changes. if you were feeling the urgency and desperation of the situation, you wouldnt be sitting here arguing semantics; youd accept that some changes will have to be made (probably forcefully and despite the disapproval of hardcore gun owners) for the sake of your country. youre the one arguing in bad faith Questioning people's credibility when they are being dishonest or refuse to admit said article is at bare minimum poor and shoddy journalism is not semantics. If you cannot be fair and objective, why should I even have a conversation with you in the first place?Notice how all of you want to dismiss the argument completely, and attack my posting history rather than my argument. The argument is that said article is completely shoddy work; it's biased, and it is clear that the author of the article wants to push a gun control agenda. Several posters here came to the defense of the sources of the article despite the fact that I actually in fact proved them wrong from a factual standpoint (There are no police shootings in that database, there are no self-defense cases vs multiple assailants, shifting definitions of mass shootings to fit argument etc.) Rather than actually debating the merits of my argument or conceding that they might just be wrong, now I'm being branded as someone who argues semantics, rather than someone who might just actually have a point after all. Good job. Just further demonstrate why so many conservatives and even gun owning democrats don't vote for gun control. dont act like its the first time youve heard us calling you out for arguing semantics. it isnt. and i dont disagree that inaccurate information is not a good basis for an argument. what you dont seem to understand is the importance of the inaccuracy in context of the current topic. you made it your mission to destroy the credibility of an article not worth arguing about. like i said, the exact figure is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. it only becomes relevant if you want to calculate whether or not you have to actually give a shit whether people are dying at all. this brings me to my last point, youre either purposefully shooting down arguments with derailments and nitpicking, or you dont think the actual number is big enough for you to give a fuck about making actual changes. why dont you pick an imaginary number and tell us what that number has to be for you to accept that changes have to be made in desperate fashion?
How is purposely and knowingly using inaccurate information not a sign of severe dishonesty, thus a major detractor in an honest debate? It's not just about the article; the article itself is representative of a large portion of the liberal left. There is no purpose to using the numbers they used in that article other than to push an agenda, especially with how they managed to leave out key information within their article. This is clear from the get go.
Ergo, anyone using or supporting such an article or information from said article is supporting a piece of writing that is agenda driven, and not based on fair and objective facts. Said people can no longer really can be trusted, especially when all it took was an internet poster like me literally 30 seconds to comb through and see all the multiple holes in those statistics. And I don't even major in math.
On November 15 2018 11:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 07:43 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 06:23 JimmiC wrote: I think you are only supposed to be respectful if you wish people to act that way to you. And it seems like you are more interested in fighting right now than discussing. You are strangely obsessed with proving that this 475 number is wrong. Who really cares if it 475 or 100, both are far too much, it is strange that you are so stuck on proving this number wrong. If the number was truly 475 would that drastically or even slightly change your opinions?
It is super odd to me because your beliefs are not very different from those on "the other side" it is a imaginary war you are fighting.
These all seem pretty sensible to me, why are you not supporting politicians that support these measures?
"I believe in gun control laws such as...
1) Banning Bumpstocks 2) Firearm Registration 3) Red Flag Laws 4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval) 5) Expanded Background Checks 6) Required Firearm Education Classes 7) Wait Times " 1) Someone started out by using clearly fraudulent numbers. This has already been proven to be true. This whole entire thread has been about mass shootings in the context of an armed person(s) attacking people in a public area like a school, park, bar, etc; Said poster tried to pass it off as true. This is highly dishonest It isn't merely just about the numbers, it's the fact that the poster attempted to pass those highly inflated numbers in a way to prove their point. That's where I'm calling bullshit. 2) You yourself along with other posters then attempted to mock me, saying "I made shit up" and that "I watch too much TV and Movies" then proceeded to factually be proven wrong. Plainsix tried to claim that there are no police shootings within that database despite the database itself saying that there were, then I had to literally comb through it and find one just to prove it. You then tried to tell me that there was no way anyone could have possibly defended their home against multiple assailants, and I proved you wrong with three examples. 3) It's ok to have an honest debate about many things. What you're asking me to do though is to accept the fact that you, Plainsix, and others in this thread have stated factually incorrect things, supported an assertion that was intellectually dishonest, and then now you're telling me that I need to trust your side that you're not out to get rid of guns, when I caught a good chunk of you bold faced supporting a highly dishonest BBC article. This is after I was literally insulted too rofl. But I'm supposed to now be nice? Kick rocks bro. On November 15 2018 02:48 Plansix wrote: I would argue that in the 1990s and pre-9/11 there was better gun control in the form of better enforcement of existing gun laws. One of the things that took place after the now legendary Brady Bill and the assault rifle ban of 1994 was the republican congress moving resources away from the federal agencies that would police illegal fire arms sales. Including the FBI and ATF. And a adjustment in regulations over how the ATF is allowed to trace fire arms and their sales, including a prohibiting them from using computers for a number of tasks. The best change to the current system would be to fund those agencies better and remove restrictive regulations that no longer make sense in the digital era. When the assault weapons ban expired gun violence continued to go down. So there goes your theory that gun control was "better" in the 1990s and pre-9/11. In fact, gun homicide and gun related crimes in the 90s was far worse than it is today. And that's despite a massive uptick in the number of firearms per Americans. The theory that gun control can alone influence homicide rates is silly. I don't know why you are so angry, I'm guessing it is because your logic is flawed, because as mad as you are now, I made a post complimenting you earlier for how discussing your point. But now you think because a number in some article plansix quoted may have inflated numbers you some how got check mate? Your whole argument about why not to take the steps you think are needed is because of slippery slope. This is literally a logical fallacy. Doing these things does not open some magical door to other things. All it does is do those things. Now if there is a bunch of success with those things people might want to do more, or they might think it is good enough. Or it could be a complete failure and be a win for 0 regulation. But to be fearful of doing what you think is necessary or would help might mean you think it would be effective but not fully and encourage more. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slope
It's not a slippery slope because I've proven that at bare minimum four of you have either used, or supported a piece of writing that is under most academic journalistic standards dishonest. It is significant that you are arguing or utilizing false/dishonest information, otherwise this debate over your intentions would have never occurred.
Intentions DO matter in debates like this. You're asking me to vote for gun control. That's fine. But do it in an honest way. People are more likely to support your cause if you don't flat out lie. I am justifiably suspicious of motive of you asking me to vote for gun control if you are utilizing clearly inflated numbers.
On November 15 2018 11:13 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 09:36 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 09:05 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. I think in several cases you are mistaking "flexible" for "not honest". Speaking for myself, I find your country's overriding fetish for its constitution bizarre and counterproductive, and I'd be perfectly okay with a significant revision or nullification of the Second Amendment - in fact that would be my preferred solution. That does not mean, however, that I'm not willing to accept a considerably more moderate outcome - it is not my preferred solution but it will do. I'm getting the distinct impression that you would take the first objective and use it as an excuse to not compromise with me, even when I am advocating for the second, instead of recognising that all it means is that I'm willing to compromise on my ideal solution. 'Overriding fetish' You mean the document that prevents significant abuses of individual rights? Rather than allowing the loud parts of society as a whole to have a knee jerk reaction to something and shovel legislation down people's throats, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created to prevent nonsense like that from occurring. Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 10:55 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 09:05 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. I think in several cases you are mistaking "flexible" for "not honest". Speaking for myself, I find your country's overriding fetish for its constitution bizarre and counterproductive, and I'd be perfectly okay with a significant revision or nullification of the Second Amendment, along with laws of similar flavour to those in other countries - in fact that would be my preferred solution. That does not mean, however, that I'm not willing to accept a considerably more moderate outcome - it is not my preferred solution but it will do. I'm getting the distinct impression that you would take the first objective and use it as an excuse to not compromise with me, even when I am advocating for the second, instead of recognising that all it means is that I'm willing to compromise on my ideal solution. Superstartran has beaten me to it, but to declare the constitution an “overriding fetish” and then hope to convince some fool that your goal of compromise is real and not imagined ... it’s just fantastical. Yes, the only reason we can still debate the limits of this freedom is the constitution’s enduring legacy and narrow Supreme Court victories. Otherwise, tyranny would’ve had its legacy on the right of effective self defense a very long time ago. Few things indeed will engender more distrust by my side of yours than declaring it a fetish. You have both missed the point. In my country (and in many others), we care about individual rights, liberty, safety and so forth. We do not have a fetish for the piece of paper they're written down on (or for not modifying their formulation to maintain reasonable intentions as situations change, or for arguing about how to interpret the intent of people who made their decisions centuries past), and we seem to do just fine in terms of maintaining a democratic society with enlightened values and liberties despite that.
Ah yes, this idea that other countries are superior once again because we somehow have a 'fetish.'
Part of the reason why we value the Constitution is because it protects individual freedoms not just from elites in government and society, but also protects individual rights from the mobs. Technically in countries like the UK, Freedom of Speech actually isn't guaranteed. Good example would be the CNN Jim Acosta situation here in the United States with President Trump. There's a very good chance President Trump and the White House is going to lose this battle, and quite badly I might add. Somewhere like the UK? Government can quite easily suppress the press very easily; why? Because Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press isn't actually a thing there (and by a thing, it isn't explicitly a guaranteed right in their Constitution, which is actually a weird unofficial constitution consisting of multiple documents).
In terms of a broader context, Danglers and me very likely see eye to eye on the idea that we shouldn't be kow towing to the morality of the majority, because sometimes the majority doesn't actually know better. The Founding Fathers didn't setup a perfect system, but it certainly prevents nonsensical knee jerk reactions.
|
On November 15 2018 11:22 superstartran wrote:... Ah yes, this idea that other countries are superior once again because we somehow have a 'fetish.'
Part of the reason why we value the Constitution is because it protects individual freedoms not just from elites in government and society, but also protects individual rights from the mobs. Technically in countries like the UK, Freedom of Speech actually isn't guaranteed. Good example would be the CNN Jim Acosta situation here in the United States with President Trump. There's a very good chance President Trump and the White House is going to lose this battle, and quite badly I might add. Somewhere like the UK? Government can quite easily suppress the press very easily; why? Because Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press isn't actually a thing there (and by a thing, it isn't explicitly a guaranteed right in their Constitution). Are you claiming that there is a broad systemic issue with the practical application of freedom of speech in the UK?
If not this entire argument is, once again, missing the point. "Explicitly guaranteed rights in the Constitution" are not the only way to in practice end up with a country with appropriate liberties and freedoms.
In terms of a broader context, Danglers and me very likely see eye to eye on the idea that we shouldn't be kow towing to the morality of the majority, because sometimes the majority doesn't actually know better. It's true that you should't automatically bow to the morality of the majority - but that is not, in as of itself, a justification for not doing so.
The Founding Fathers didn't setup a perfect system, but it certainly prevents nonsensical knee jerk reactions. It also prevents changes made with more solid grounding.
|
On November 15 2018 11:22 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 10:33 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 15 2018 10:22 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 10:12 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 07:58 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 07:43 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 06:23 JimmiC wrote: I think you are only supposed to be respectful if you wish people to act that way to you. And it seems like you are more interested in fighting right now than discussing. You are strangely obsessed with proving that this 475 number is wrong. Who really cares if it 475 or 100, both are far too much, it is strange that you are so stuck on proving this number wrong. If the number was truly 475 would that drastically or even slightly change your opinions?
It is super odd to me because your beliefs are not very different from those on "the other side" it is a imaginary war you are fighting.
These all seem pretty sensible to me, why are you not supporting politicians that support these measures?
"I believe in gun control laws such as...
1) Banning Bumpstocks 2) Firearm Registration 3) Red Flag Laws 4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval) 5) Expanded Background Checks 6) Required Firearm Education Classes 7) Wait Times " 1) Someone started out by using clearly fraudulent numbers. This has already been proven to be true. This whole entire thread has been about mass shootings in the context of an armed person(s) attacking people in a public area like a school, park, bar, etc; Said poster tried to pass it off as true. This is highly dishonest It isn't merely just about the numbers, it's the fact that the poster attempted to pass those highly inflated numbers in a way to prove their point. That's where I'm calling bullshit. 2) You yourself along with other posters then attempted to mock me, saying "I made shit up" and that "I watch too much TV and Movies" then proceeded to factually be proven wrong. Plainsix tried to claim that there are no police shootings within that database despite the database itself saying that there were, then I had to literally comb through it and find one just to prove it. You then tried to tell me that there was no way anyone could have possibly defended their home against multiple assailants, and I proved you wrong with three examples. 3) It's ok to have an honest debate about many things. What you're asking me to do though is to accept the fact that you, Plainsix, and others in this thread have stated factually incorrect things, supported an assertion that was intellectually dishonest, and then now you're telling me that I need to trust your side that you're not out to get rid of guns, when I caught a good chunk of you bold faced supporting a highly dishonest BBC article. On November 15 2018 02:48 Plansix wrote: I would argue that in the 1990s and pre-9/11 there was better gun control in the form of better enforcement of existing gun laws. One of the things that took place after the now legendary Brady Bill and the assault rifle ban of 1994 was the republican congress moving resources away from the federal agencies that would police illegal fire arms sales. Including the FBI and ATF. And a adjustment in regulations over how the ATF is allowed to trace fire arms and their sales, including a prohibiting them from using computers for a number of tasks. The best change to the current system would be to fund those agencies better and remove restrictive regulations that no longer make sense in the digital era. When the assault weapons ban expired gun violence continued to go down. So there goes your theory that gun control was "better" in the 1990s and pre-9/11. In fact, gun homicide and gun related crimes in the 90s was far worse than it is today. And that's despite a massive uptick in the number of firearms per Americans. The theory that gun control can alone influence homicide rates is silly. I wouldn't want gun control alone, I think impacting marketing of guns and violence the way they did with Cig's is needed. I've said it many times you have ignored it. If you go back to the first time I asked the question about home invasions it was around the "over 3 fatalities" you were talking about and I put the over under at 1.5. You brought up one that surprised me but I have not seen others. As I have stated over and over, I don't think it a real statistically relevant event. That you found 3 articles, one that fit my initial question does not make me factually wrong. Not to mention you are missing the whole point of what most (notice how I didn't say all) people are saying to you, no we don't things guns are the only problem, yes we understand American culture is different, and no we don't think if you made guns illegal tomorrow all gun violence would stop. We are saying many changes need to happen if you want the problem to decrease. Your suggestions are all worthwhile and would be supported. It is worth looking at what other countries do because they all have wildly different cultures from each other and yet they have all had varying level of success. And finally stop looking to pick fights about the insignificant parts of people arguments and the minor details. Hell you want gun control. You have posted the rules you agree with shockingly you are on the same side on the issue. You just have for some reason been convinced that people looking for gun control are the boogieman. Are you the boogieman? Let's go back and see what you posted in your highly condescending manner, that can easily be seen as highly disrespectful. On November 13 2018 10:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 13 2018 10:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:05 JimmiC wrote: You never answered me on how how many multiple intruder shot by defense of a homeowner, multi fatalities there has been ever.
And you never the article on why Switzerland is actually different from the states, and why you using in as your example is misinformed. So I would go calling out others, you are as guilty, at least, as anyone for avoiding arguments. So you want me to comb through a data base that purposely hides that information and doesn't make it easy to sort through what is a home invasion/self-defense/etc.? Ok. Let me just sort through this highly biased database that many news outlets source their numbers, and so conveniently hide the fact that gang warfare, home invasions, police shootings, self-defense, etc. are all a part of their 'mass shooting' numbers. In regards to the Switzerland argument, you should go back like 15-20 pages and read through it yourself. I'm not gonna rehash that argument. I did read the whole article it was very enlightening, but I guess if you know everything you don't have to.... It is not because of the database it is because you use it as a example that not only might happen, but rather something that happens from time to time. I would be shocked if it has happened more then once ever. I think you watch way to much T.V and movies. Let's go back to the original conversation 1) The data base includes far too wide of a parameter to even be considered accurate. It involves far too many other types of crimes, accidental shootings, lawful defenses, etc. to be used. I merely used certain examples such as police shootings versus multiple assailants or lawful defense of one's home against multiple assailants. 2) You responded in pro-typical gun control manner essentially trying to mock me by stating that there's no way that someone could ever defend their home from multiple suspects, and that I've been watching too much TV and movies (which is easily seen as an insult by anyone). 3) You then back track and state "well not all of those events fit the criteria of the database", despite the fact that they prove that people have defended their homes versus multiple suspects with firearms in a lawful manner. 4) Now you want to go and say "I'm nitpicking at details" and need to be more respectful. Why should I respect you, or anyone else who clearly got caught with their pants on the ground either using or supporting completely fraudulent data? Mind you, there was NO reason to support that data. It took me literally 15 seconds to figure out how much buffoonery there was behind BBC's shitastic journalism within that article. Either someone was attempting to inflate mass shooting numbers to make the US look like some hell hole, or someone did not do their due diligence in reporting the news. This wasn't like it takes a rocket scientist to figure that out either, it should have been immediately obvious and many of you should have called out the serious errors of said database in attempting to call those events 'mass shootings.' Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. your last paragraph is basically proof that you dont really give a shit about making changes at all. i mean, this has been noted multiple times in this thread already. you cant pretend to be an advocate for gun control but then "not come to the compromise table" because apparently we secretly want to ban all guns. what an absolute load of shit. even if that scenario were true, our intention would be to reduce death by firearms. banning all firearms would be a possible method, not the intention. the reality is that you cosplay as a gun-control advocate and then like jimmic said, start arguing against semantics and minor details to derail the point or try and destroy the credibility of everyone against you in order to make our arguments seem worthless. whether or not the death stat plansix used, or any stat for firearm deaths, was 100% accurate isnt the issue here. the issue here is that whatever number you come up with is that many deaths too many. whatever solution is agreed upon will 100% result in gun owners having to make a sacrifice but unfortunately, from what i can see, you have either of the following viewpoints: 1. you dont actually want further gun control. you just say you do and then proceed to shoot every argument down. 2. you genuinely do want gun control, but you dont think the current number of deaths is statistically relevant enough for gun owners to make some sacrifices, and so you shoot every argument down. either way there is a clear lack of urgency on your part because you have clearly decided in your mind the value of the lives lost to firearms and calculated that it isnt worth making an effort to make changes. if you were feeling the urgency and desperation of the situation, you wouldnt be sitting here arguing semantics; youd accept that some changes will have to be made (probably forcefully and despite the disapproval of hardcore gun owners) for the sake of your country. youre the one arguing in bad faith Questioning people's credibility when they are being dishonest or refuse to admit said article is at bare minimum poor and shoddy journalism is not semantics. If you cannot be fair and objective, why should I even have a conversation with you in the first place?Notice how all of you want to dismiss the argument completely, and attack my posting history rather than my argument. The argument is that said article is completely shoddy work; it's biased, and it is clear that the author of the article wants to push a gun control agenda. Several posters here came to the defense of the sources of the article despite the fact that I actually in fact proved them wrong from a factual standpoint (There are no police shootings in that database, there are no self-defense cases vs multiple assailants, shifting definitions of mass shootings to fit argument etc.) Rather than actually debating the merits of my argument or conceding that they might just be wrong, now I'm being branded as someone who argues semantics, rather than someone who might just actually have a point after all. Good job. Just further demonstrate why so many conservatives and even gun owning democrats don't vote for gun control. dont act like its the first time youve heard us calling you out for arguing semantics. it isnt. and i dont disagree that inaccurate information is not a good basis for an argument. what you dont seem to understand is the importance of the inaccuracy in context of the current topic. you made it your mission to destroy the credibility of an article not worth arguing about. like i said, the exact figure is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. it only becomes relevant if you want to calculate whether or not you have to actually give a shit whether people are dying at all. this brings me to my last point, youre either purposefully shooting down arguments with derailments and nitpicking, or you dont think the actual number is big enough for you to give a fuck about making actual changes. why dont you pick an imaginary number and tell us what that number has to be for you to accept that changes have to be made in desperate fashion? How is purposely and knowingly using inaccurate information not a sign of severe dishonesty, thus a major detractor in an honest debate? It's not just about the article; the article itself is representative of a large portion of the liberal left. There is no purpose to using the numbers they used in that article other than to push an agenda, especially with how they managed to leave out key information within their article. This is clear from the get go. Ergo, anyone using or supporting such an article or information from said article is supporting a piece of writing that is agenda driven, and not based on fair and objective facts. Said people can no longer really can be trusted, especially when all it took was an internet poster like me literally 30 seconds to comb through and see all the multiple holes in those statistics. And I don't even major in math. Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 11:08 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 07:43 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 06:23 JimmiC wrote: I think you are only supposed to be respectful if you wish people to act that way to you. And it seems like you are more interested in fighting right now than discussing. You are strangely obsessed with proving that this 475 number is wrong. Who really cares if it 475 or 100, both are far too much, it is strange that you are so stuck on proving this number wrong. If the number was truly 475 would that drastically or even slightly change your opinions?
It is super odd to me because your beliefs are not very different from those on "the other side" it is a imaginary war you are fighting.
These all seem pretty sensible to me, why are you not supporting politicians that support these measures?
"I believe in gun control laws such as...
1) Banning Bumpstocks 2) Firearm Registration 3) Red Flag Laws 4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval) 5) Expanded Background Checks 6) Required Firearm Education Classes 7) Wait Times " 1) Someone started out by using clearly fraudulent numbers. This has already been proven to be true. This whole entire thread has been about mass shootings in the context of an armed person(s) attacking people in a public area like a school, park, bar, etc; Said poster tried to pass it off as true. This is highly dishonest It isn't merely just about the numbers, it's the fact that the poster attempted to pass those highly inflated numbers in a way to prove their point. That's where I'm calling bullshit. 2) You yourself along with other posters then attempted to mock me, saying "I made shit up" and that "I watch too much TV and Movies" then proceeded to factually be proven wrong. Plainsix tried to claim that there are no police shootings within that database despite the database itself saying that there were, then I had to literally comb through it and find one just to prove it. You then tried to tell me that there was no way anyone could have possibly defended their home against multiple assailants, and I proved you wrong with three examples. 3) It's ok to have an honest debate about many things. What you're asking me to do though is to accept the fact that you, Plainsix, and others in this thread have stated factually incorrect things, supported an assertion that was intellectually dishonest, and then now you're telling me that I need to trust your side that you're not out to get rid of guns, when I caught a good chunk of you bold faced supporting a highly dishonest BBC article. This is after I was literally insulted too rofl. But I'm supposed to now be nice? Kick rocks bro. On November 15 2018 02:48 Plansix wrote: I would argue that in the 1990s and pre-9/11 there was better gun control in the form of better enforcement of existing gun laws. One of the things that took place after the now legendary Brady Bill and the assault rifle ban of 1994 was the republican congress moving resources away from the federal agencies that would police illegal fire arms sales. Including the FBI and ATF. And a adjustment in regulations over how the ATF is allowed to trace fire arms and their sales, including a prohibiting them from using computers for a number of tasks. The best change to the current system would be to fund those agencies better and remove restrictive regulations that no longer make sense in the digital era. When the assault weapons ban expired gun violence continued to go down. So there goes your theory that gun control was "better" in the 1990s and pre-9/11. In fact, gun homicide and gun related crimes in the 90s was far worse than it is today. And that's despite a massive uptick in the number of firearms per Americans. The theory that gun control can alone influence homicide rates is silly. I don't know why you are so angry, I'm guessing it is because your logic is flawed, because as mad as you are now, I made a post complimenting you earlier for how discussing your point. But now you think because a number in some article plansix quoted may have inflated numbers you some how got check mate? Your whole argument about why not to take the steps you think are needed is because of slippery slope. This is literally a logical fallacy. Doing these things does not open some magical door to other things. All it does is do those things. Now if there is a bunch of success with those things people might want to do more, or they might think it is good enough. Or it could be a complete failure and be a win for 0 regulation. But to be fearful of doing what you think is necessary or would help might mean you think it would be effective but not fully and encourage more. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slope It's not a slippery slope because I've proven that at bare minimum four of you have either used, or supported a piece of writing that is under most academic journalistic standards dishonest. It is significant that you are arguing or utilizing false/dishonest information, otherwise this debate over your intentions would have never occurred. Intentions DO matter in debates like this. You're asking me to vote for gun control. That's fine. But do it in an honest way. People are more likely to support your cause if you don't flat out lie. Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 11:13 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 09:36 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 09:05 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. I think in several cases you are mistaking "flexible" for "not honest". Speaking for myself, I find your country's overriding fetish for its constitution bizarre and counterproductive, and I'd be perfectly okay with a significant revision or nullification of the Second Amendment - in fact that would be my preferred solution. That does not mean, however, that I'm not willing to accept a considerably more moderate outcome - it is not my preferred solution but it will do. I'm getting the distinct impression that you would take the first objective and use it as an excuse to not compromise with me, even when I am advocating for the second, instead of recognising that all it means is that I'm willing to compromise on my ideal solution. 'Overriding fetish' You mean the document that prevents significant abuses of individual rights? Rather than allowing the loud parts of society as a whole to have a knee jerk reaction to something and shovel legislation down people's throats, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created to prevent nonsense like that from occurring. On November 15 2018 10:55 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 09:05 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. I think in several cases you are mistaking "flexible" for "not honest". Speaking for myself, I find your country's overriding fetish for its constitution bizarre and counterproductive, and I'd be perfectly okay with a significant revision or nullification of the Second Amendment, along with laws of similar flavour to those in other countries - in fact that would be my preferred solution. That does not mean, however, that I'm not willing to accept a considerably more moderate outcome - it is not my preferred solution but it will do. I'm getting the distinct impression that you would take the first objective and use it as an excuse to not compromise with me, even when I am advocating for the second, instead of recognising that all it means is that I'm willing to compromise on my ideal solution. Superstartran has beaten me to it, but to declare the constitution an “overriding fetish” and then hope to convince some fool that your goal of compromise is real and not imagined ... it’s just fantastical. Yes, the only reason we can still debate the limits of this freedom is the constitution’s enduring legacy and narrow Supreme Court victories. Otherwise, tyranny would’ve had its legacy on the right of effective self defense a very long time ago. Few things indeed will engender more distrust by my side of yours than declaring it a fetish. You have both missed the point. In my country (and in many others), we care about individual rights, liberty, safety and so forth. We do not have a fetish for the piece of paper they're written down on (or for not modifying their formulation to maintain reasonable intentions as situations change, or for arguing about how to interpret the intent of people who made their decisions centuries past), and we seem to do just fine in terms of maintaining a democratic society with enlightened values and liberties despite that. Ah yes, this idea that other countries are superior once again because we somehow have a 'fetish.' Part of the reason why we value the Constitution is because it protects individual freedoms not just from elites in government and society, but also protects individual rights from the mobs. Technically in countries like the UK, Freedom of Speech actually isn't guaranteed. Good example would be the CNN Jim Acosta situation here in the United States with President Trump. There's a very good chance President Trump and the White House is going to lose this battle, and quite badly I might add. Somewhere like the UK? Government can quite easily suppress the press very easily; why? Because Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press isn't actually a thing there (and by a thing, it isn't explicitly a guaranteed right in their Constitution, which is actually a weird unofficial constitution consisting of multiple documents). In terms of a broader context, Danglers and me very likely see eye to eye on the idea that we shouldn't be kow towing to the morality of the majority, because sometimes the majority doesn't actually know better. The Founding Fathers didn't setup a perfect system, but it certainly prevents nonsensical knee jerk reactions. your response to my posts is just further evidence that you tunnel vision on retarded points and shit up the thread by arguing something stupid. ive already stated that the accuracy of the article isnt really important if you consider the point the posters are trying to make. you are completely ignoring that point and are arguing against things that do nothing but distract people and take arguments off on a tangent. all youre doing is confirming what ive called you out on
|
|
|
|