logo Sign In

Post #1171837

Author
DominicCobb
Parent topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Link to post in topic
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1171837/action/topic#1171837
Date created
16-Feb-2018, 7:07 PM

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Dek Rollins said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Dek Rollins said:

Collipso said:

The “they’ll get the guns anyway even if illegally” argument is nonsense. By that logic, why bother having laws in the first place?

In many states, as well as federally, smoking pot is illegal. People still do it constantly because they have some sort of access to it illegally. The same applies to pretty much any other product. If there is demand for it, at least a few of those demanding it will get their hands on it somehow.

Any other illegal drug, alcoholic beverages during prohibition, alcoholic beverages to minors today, porn to minors, child porn, etc. is accessible in some way to those who seek it hard enough. The same applies to weapons, especially considering the whole 3D printing situation.

So we should stop regulating child porn, alcohol, etc. because people are going to get it anyway, right? That’s what I’m hearing and it’s fucking stupid.

I never said that. It should all be regulated, but regulation will not ultimately stop every possible instance. It will just keep it down to a minimum of occurrence.

Of course. That’s exactly what all of us who want stricter gun regulations wants and expects. So I don’t understand why anyone argues against it with the “They’ll still get guns illegally” defense and it infuriates me that that defense actually seems to be working, seeing as how there’s been essentially no meaningful legislation or really any steps taken toward the necessary regulation to reduce gun violence/mass shootings for years.

Also, a point - the pro-gun (or should I say anti-regulation) lobby seems to think that those of us who want tougher gun laws expect such laws to completely eliminate these incidents. We don’t, that’s pretty much impossible and we know that. But 50 people dead from a mass shooting or two in a year is a hell of a lot better than hundreds or thousands from dozens of mass shootings in a year.

The thing is, we are all being over protective of our stance, because of the extremes on both sides. Plenty of people actually want to ban personal ownership of guns. This angers people who want to keep their guns and they start thinking everyone thinks this way. Apply that to the other side of the arguement and you’ve got a bunch of people who can’t compromise.

I agree with you though.

Truth is, even though a lot of people would prefer if there were no guns at all, almost none of them are actually advocating for that right now. Most people just want some level of reform. So, essentially, the two sides of the debate are “please let’s do something/anything,” and the other side is “let’s do literally nothing at all.” Only one of those seem like an extreme to me.

But you’re just ignoring the different arguments now. Frink and Yackwicks both said they wouldn’t mind a total ban in this thread, and there are definitely those who actually advocate for it out there. And then there are just people who think the current laws ate the best they can be without stepping on rights. Regardless of whether you agree with them, that stance is not very extreme. Extreme are the people who don’t want any hoops to jump through.

I’m not ignoring that people say that, especially considering I’ve said something to that effect here before myself. What you’re saying though is that people can’t reach a compromise because their proposals are too disparate. That’s not really true - it would be if everyone who wanted to get rid of guns said “I will only accept a bill that makes all guns illegal,” but that’s simply not the case.

Almost anyone pro-gun control at this point would accept any additional regulation they could get, they’re not just being obstinate when it comes to any sort of compromise. It’s the people on the other side that are, saying that whenever a new gun control bill is proposed that they can’t pass it because it’s a slippery slope that will lead to taking away all the guns. Which is ridiculous. Even if many people hope that it is the first step to doing just that, that doesn’t mean that that step in and of itself is doing that. So stopping every piece of gun control legislation on principle just because it’s gun control legislation and who knows what the next bill might be is absolutely absurd and, yes, extreme.

Your argument veers away from discussing policy and turns into a debate about whether a position counts as “extreme” or not. You’re advocating for a slippery slope where any time someone resists adopting a gun control law you may call them “extreme.” So even if bump stocks are outlawed and universal background checks implemented, as soon as another mass shooting happens, you call the people who voted for those things extreme if they resist further regulation. That is a weird definition of “extreme.”

As I suggested, I think there are other things that can be done to try to prevent gun violence. I don’t think someone is extreme if they push for such changes and concludes that various proposed gun regulations are either too extreme or ineffective.

That’s not to say a case can’t or shouldn’t be made for a proposal, I just don’t buy your definition or strategy of labeling certain positions “extreme.”

Um, no. First of all whether or not I consider someone’s position “extreme” is the least important part of my posts. It only matters insofar as it relates to one’s actions on the matter. Even if you have an “extreme” position like “we should ban all guns,” in practice that extreme position isn’t an issue if you’re willing to compromise and pass less extreme common sense gun laws.

Just because someone doesn’t pass a law doesn’t make them extreme, but if they refuse to pass any laws and trot out the same tired nonsense every time (“slippery slope government will steal all our guns next”) then that’s extreme, I think. But again, I use the word “extreme” only in the sense that they’re being obstinate and not willing to compromise.