Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 743

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

There’s a ton of people who claim they have a right to recreation with a killing machine. Dunno why, but they do.

I think there’s something about a document or something that guarantees rights like that. I dunno. It’s pretty obscure.

You know very well that lots of people talk about their God given right to have a gun, which is utter nonsense.

The Constitution is a different story, but you also know very well that there’s two arguments to what that actually means, and the Founding Fathers certainly weren’t referring to guns that can kill 100 people in a minute or two, which didn’t exist at the time.

Author
Time

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

I asked how banning scary-looking guns would help and you provided no meaningful response. If anybody should be asking themselves why they even bother, it’s me, not you.

Then don’t bother.

Or you could improve the quality of your posts, or take your own advice, like when you pressed chyron for an answer about his religious beliefs and got all pissy when you didn’t get one right away.

Either way, you present as irrational and hypocritical. If you don’t want to have the debate, fine, but don’t clutter the thread with empty responses because you’re being asked to provide more than snark.

Well ok then.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Tyrphanax said:

Jay said:

Jeebus said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

mass killings… why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available?

When were guns less prevalent in the US than today?

Interestingly, the murder rate has been going down for quite a while now. It raised a bit in recent years, but its nowhere near the rate it was in the 80s.

EDIT: That’s just the general murder rate, gun murders are, indeed, going up.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-u-s-murder-rate-is-up-but-still-far-below-its-1980-peak/

Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it looks like the percentage of murders committed with firearms went up, not the absolute number. But yeah, crime is relatively low, though you’d think it was the purge based on media coverage.

Jeebus said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.

Sounds great.

How many of the killings will stop if we ban the scary guns? That’s an honest question. I’d like to know how many of the people who would die this year would not die if the scary guns were banned, because those are the only ones that stand a chance of being banned outright.

In 2014, 248 people were killed with rifles. That accounts for 3% of all gun deaths, 4% of all gun deaths excluding non-classified firearms. If we took that 4% figure and applied it to the 1,959 gun deaths caused by non-classified firearms, that would be an additional 78 people killed. So, 326. Assuming that “scary guns” just refers to assault weapons and not all rifles, then the number would be less than 326. The question is “how much less?”

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

Disclaimer: There’s a decent chance I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Thanks. This is the core of what I’m arguing. Even banning ALL rifles, including the non-scary ones, would have a minimal impact on overall gun deaths, and that’s assuming that at least some of those rifle users wouldn’t commit the same crime with a handgun. We’d have to be far more restrictive in our application of gun control to have a significant impact on gun deaths.

Yeah, I believe I’ve made a few in depth posts like this before with many facts and figures and statistics that show that gun crime is fractional (but over-reported) and that we see many hundreds more deaths from automobiles and cars every year, but generally they are glossed over and not talked about.

Cars are used every day by just about everyone to provide transportation for a variety of useful reasons.

Beyond the tiny minuscule fraction of times someone actually defends themselves or someone else with a gun (and probably overrun by times there’s an accident, though I admit I’m just guessing), what use is a gun? And I’m not counting entertainment, any more than I count entertainment with a car.

Let’s be honest here: your mind is made up on the issue (and mine for that matter), so nothing I say matters. I can say that entertainment is valid for both. I can say that hunting is a pastime for many people. I can say that defense of self and property is important. I can say the right is guaranteed. I can say that guns (and military-grade guns for that matter) in the hands of the everyman has been an incredibly crucial part of American history. But it’s kinda wasted breath because we just talk in circles every time.

I honestly don’t really know why I engage other than it gets my blood up when people say things like “guns are disgusting and I hate them and because some people use them for bad reasons, they should all be taken away and melted down” because it feels to me like a knee-jerk emotionally-driven reactionary statement that overlooks all the nuance and complexity of the issue.

I think what annoys me the most, and I’m super guilty of this as well, is how we just entrench in our sides harder and harder in response to any debate or discussion regarding the issue and every debate or discussion just devolves into screaming “you want people to be able to kill children” versus “you want to infringe my rights” at each other and no minds are ever changed and nobody is enlightened.

Keep Circulating the Tapes.

END OF LINE

(It hasn’t happened yet)

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

There’s a ton of people who claim they have a right to recreation with a killing machine. Dunno why, but they do.

I think there’s something about a document or something that guarantees rights like that. I dunno. It’s pretty obscure.

You know very well that lots of people talk about their God given right to have a gun, which is utter nonsense.

The Constitution is a different story, but you also know very well that there’s two arguments to what that actually means, and the Founding Fathers certainly weren’t referring to guns that can kill 100 people in a minute or two, which didn’t exist at the time.

I don’t subscribe to the “god-given” notion (the language is “endowed by our creator,” be that nature or evolution or god or whatever), but I do agree that the right to defense of self and property if threatened is important. Rights are an intangible notion we’ve made tangible in words in order to guarantee that they are not infringed by the government or other parties. The right to speak freely is very important, the right to be able to worship whatever deity you want is very important, the right to defend yourself and your country is very important. It’s all very important.

I know there are many ways people have interpreted the second amendment, but to me the language is clear and and any other interpretation has been foisted upon it in order to justify certain agendas. Of course, I’m also aware that the exact same argument is applied to my interpretation, so it ultimately all cancels out. That’s why moderation is important.

You say certainly, but the only certainty is its vague language, and that’s the beauty of the amendment in my opinion: It’s future proofed. It doesn’t give specifics. It doesn’t say “a man shall be allowed one (1) .50 caliber ball musket with a maximum of fifty (50) loads and one (1) cannon with a maximum of ten (10) but no less than five (5) round shot,” it just says arms, be they what they are at the time of reading.

Of course, you will patently and fiercely disagree with this, and that’s fine. The middle ground is where we need to be here, between you and me. Or really, I’m pretty middle ground I guess so between you and the NRA.

Keep Circulating the Tapes.

END OF LINE

(It hasn’t happened yet)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Tyr, you are reasonable.

Guns are not.

I don’t care if I’m being unreasonable. I am not the one who supports the right to guns, a position I find completely unreasonable in any manner.

So be it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

But aren’t all positions that are different from yours unreasonable?

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Tyr, you are reasonable.

Guns are not.

I don’t care if I’m being unreasonable. I am not the one who supports the right to guns, a position I find completely unreasonable in any manner.

So be it.

No love lost, man. I do understand your position, to be clear.

Keep Circulating the Tapes.

END OF LINE

(It hasn’t happened yet)

Author
Time

I’m waiting for the self-shooting guns, myself. Once those are out, then the massacres can happen on their own, and everybody will legitimately be able to claim it’s not their responsibility, because no one will have actually done anything.

Come to think of it, it won’t be that much different than it is now.

Author
Time

Knife violence and gun violence is the biggest false equivalence in political discourse these days, with the sole exception of Trump and Hillary being equivalents.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Knife violence and gun violence is the biggest false equivalence in political discourse these days, with the sole exception of Trump and Hillary being equivalents.

Yep.

Sorry my post adds nothing to the conversation though.

Author
Time

hairy_hen said:

I’m waiting for the self-shooting guns, myself. Once those are out, then the massacres can happen on their own, and everybody will legitimately be able to claim it’s not their responsibility, because no one will have actually done anything.

Come to think of it, it won’t be that much different than it is now.

Someday guns won’t be necessary because people will be able to transform into guns.

Author
Time

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

Tyrphanax said:

Jay said:

Jeebus said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

mass killings… why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available?

When were guns less prevalent in the US than today?

Interestingly, the murder rate has been going down for quite a while now. It raised a bit in recent years, but its nowhere near the rate it was in the 80s.

EDIT: That’s just the general murder rate, gun murders are, indeed, going up.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-u-s-murder-rate-is-up-but-still-far-below-its-1980-peak/

Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it looks like the percentage of murders committed with firearms went up, not the absolute number. But yeah, crime is relatively low, though you’d think it was the purge based on media coverage.

Jeebus said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.

Sounds great.

How many of the killings will stop if we ban the scary guns? That’s an honest question. I’d like to know how many of the people who would die this year would not die if the scary guns were banned, because those are the only ones that stand a chance of being banned outright.

In 2014, 248 people were killed with rifles. That accounts for 3% of all gun deaths, 4% of all gun deaths excluding non-classified firearms. If we took that 4% figure and applied it to the 1,959 gun deaths caused by non-classified firearms, that would be an additional 78 people killed. So, 326. Assuming that “scary guns” just refers to assault weapons and not all rifles, then the number would be less than 326. The question is “how much less?”

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

Disclaimer: There’s a decent chance I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Thanks. This is the core of what I’m arguing. Even banning ALL rifles, including the non-scary ones, would have a minimal impact on overall gun deaths, and that’s assuming that at least some of those rifle users wouldn’t commit the same crime with a handgun. We’d have to be far more restrictive in our application of gun control to have a significant impact on gun deaths.

Yeah, I believe I’ve made a few in depth posts like this before with many facts and figures and statistics that show that gun crime is fractional (but over-reported) and that we see many hundreds more deaths from automobiles and cars every year, but generally they are glossed over and not talked about.

Cars are used every day by just about everyone to provide transportation for a variety of useful reasons.

Beyond the tiny minuscule fraction of times someone actually defends themselves or someone else with a gun (and probably overrun by times there’s an accident, though I admit I’m just guessing), what use is a gun? And I’m not counting entertainment, any more than I count entertainment with a car.

I honestly don’t really know why I engage other than it gets my blood up when people say things like “guns are disgusting and I hate them and because some people use them for bad reasons, they should all be taken away and melted down” because it feels to me like a knee-jerk emotionally-driven reactionary statement that overlooks all the nuance and complexity of the issue.

I’m sorry, but this is a massive mischaracterization of my argument. Guns are inherently disgusting. That isn’t my subjective opinion, that’s my objective observation. They’re killing machines. That’s literally what they are, no nuance necessary.

If I was speaking purely emotionally, I would say that guns are fucking cool as hell. I went to a gun range once and it was super fun. But I don’t think I should be making political arguments based on emotionally-driven reactions, so I put my enjoyment aside, and look at it logically. And the truth is that the entertainment is not worth it. At all.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I think that mischaracterization comes from timing. Those in favor of gun regulation (or gun bans, etc) are always in favor of them. Those against them are always against them. But there’s this mass of people in the middle who could potentially be convinced. So every time there’s a massacre, people on both sides try to convince the people in the middle that their policies are best.

The pro-gun side sees this surge of effort from the anti-gun side after every massacre and thinks that the massacre caused the policy view, and it’s a gut response, but of course it’s not. The same thing could easily be said for the pro-gun side, who (usually much more successfully) relaxes gun laws every time there’s a massacre. You could say that’s a gut response too, but it’s not. It’s just pushing policies they’ve always believed, using timing for political leverage, that’s all.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Knife violence and gun violence is the biggest false equivalence in political discourse these days, with the sole exception of Trump and Hillary being equivalents.

Yep.

Sorry my post adds nothing to the conversation though.

“Yep.” = I agree with you and support your position. No further explanation required.

“Nope.” = I don’t agree, but won’t elaborate, because I might have to engage in logical discourse that requires more thought and effort than I’m willing to provide, and I might not come away feeling like I’ve “won”. However, I still want the attention that posting provides.

I wouldn’t come at you this hard if you hadn’t gone after chyron for similar behavior.

DominicCobb said:

Guns are inherently disgusting.

If I was speaking purely emotionally…

You are. It sounds like you have conflicting emotions when it comes to guns (disgusting vs. cool) and have decided to indulge one over the other.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY

Author
Time

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Guns are inherently disgusting.

If I was speaking purely emotionally…

You are. It sounds like you have conflicting emotions when it comes to guns (disgusting vs. cool) and have decided to indulge one over the other.

That’s not how I interpreted it at all. I think he was saying that his response wasn’t purely emotional while the people who say that guns are exciting and cool are speaking out of pure emotion.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Guns are inherently disgusting.

If I was speaking purely emotionally…

You are. It sounds like you have conflicting emotions when it comes to guns (disgusting vs. cool) and have decided to indulge one over the other.

That’s not how I interpreted it at all. I think he was saying that his response wasn’t purely emotional while the people who say that guns are exciting and cool are speaking out of pure emotion.

“Disgusting” is not in any way an “objective observation”.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY

Author
Time

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that devices designed to kill as efficiently and quickly as possible are “disgusting.”

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that devices designed to kill as efficiently and quickly as possible are “disgusting.”

I don’t think so either, but I guess I should listen to Dr. Jay, he obviously knows more about my emotions than I do.

Then again I suppose “disgust” is one of the emotions in the film Inside Out so I can kind of understand the confusion.

Also weird to say I’m indulging one emotion over the other… trying to limit the usage of murder weapons doesn’t seem like an indulgence to me (I’d argue it’s the more logical response, whereas leading with the “cool” factor in mind seems the more indulgent option) but what do I know.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that devices designed to kill as efficiently and quickly as possible are “disgusting.”

I don’t think so either, but I guess I should listen to Dr. Jay, he obviously knows more about my emotions than I do.

I never said your feelings were unreasonable; I only called them out as feelings, because that’s what they are. At least you’re admitting “disgusting” is an emotional response and not an objective reality as you claimed initially.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that devices designed to kill as efficiently and quickly as possible are “disgusting.”

I don’t think so either, but I guess I should listen to Dr. Jay, he obviously knows more about my emotions than I do.

I never said your feelings were unreasonable; I only called them out as feelings, because that’s what they are. At least you’re admitting “disgusting” is an emotional response and not an objective reality as you claimed initially.

It’s perhaps an emotional descriptor, but it is attached to a purely objective observation (that being guns are designed as killing machines). Guns don’t disgust me. But when I think of them rationally, I’d describe them as disgusting. There’s a distinction there. I don’t think it’s hard to understand why someone might call something objectively repulsive.

Again though, it seems pointless to argue that feelings don’t matter when they are what fuel basically every side of every debate. In my mind it’s odd to descredit an argument because it’s potentially based on emotions when I could just as easily do the same with the arguments on the other side.

Author
Time

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Knife violence and gun violence is the biggest false equivalence in political discourse these days, with the sole exception of Trump and Hillary being equivalents.

Yep.

Sorry my post adds nothing to the conversation though.

“Yep.” = I agree with you and support your position. No further explanation required.

“Nope.” = I don’t agree, but won’t elaborate, because I might have to engage in logical discourse that requires more thought and effort than I’m willing to provide, and I might not come away feeling like I’ve “won”. However, I still want the attention that posting provides.

I wouldn’t come at you this hard if you hadn’t gone after chyron for similar behavior.

That’s fine.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that devices designed to kill as efficiently and quickly as possible are “disgusting.”

I don’t think so either, but I guess I should listen to Dr. Jay, he obviously knows more about my emotions than I do.

I never said your feelings were unreasonable; I only called them out as feelings, because that’s what they are. At least you’re admitting “disgusting” is an emotional response and not an objective reality as you claimed initially.

It’s perhaps an emotional descriptor, but it is attached to a purely objective observation (that being guns are designed as killing machines). Guns don’t disgust me. But when I think of them rationally, I’d describe them as disgusting. There’s a distinction there. I don’t think it’s hard to understand why someone might call something objectively repulsive.

I understand the sentiment. It’s just not one based on reason. There’s no such thing as “objectively repulsive”. Guns being repulsive is based on your point of view and is inherently subjective.

Again though, it seems pointless to argue that feelings don’t matter when they are what fuel basically every side of every debate. In my mind it’s odd to descredit an argument because it’s potentially based on emotions when I could just as easily do the same with the arguments on the other side.

And I’d encourage you to do so as much as possible. “But muh guns!” is no more valid than “Guns are disgusting.”

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY

Author
Time

Jay said:

There’s no such thing as “objectively repulsive”.

You haven’t seen an Adam Sandler movie in a while, I take it.