Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 744

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

You’re arguing semantics which I’m not really interested in because I don’t know what negative adjective to use to describe guns that you wouldn’t call emotional or subjective.

And at that point, you’re saying there isn’t an “objective” way to declare something as good or bad. But then what’s the point of arguing something is good or bad at all, if you’re just going to dismiss it.

Anyway, whether the “disgust” is an emotional reaction or not, my point was that it is in no way my knee jerk reaction to guns, as Tyr said. It’s not an “emotion” based on impulsive feelings (again, my natural instinct is to think that they’re cool). It’s an “emotional” descriptor based on my rational observations. Again, there’s a distinction, and what Tyr was describing was a mischaracterization.

Author
Time

Collipso said:

could someone please explain to me why is banning gun A because it’s different from gun B worse than banning either of them?

hello?

Author
Time

Collipso said:

Collipso said:

could someone please explain to me why is banning gun A because it’s different from gun B worse than banning either of them?

hello?

I’m not really sure what you’re asking.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY

Author
Time
 (Edited)

CatBus said:

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.

Very much agreed. I can 100% attest to going right into defensive lockdown when something like this happens because I can feel the tide of “ban all guns” coming, and I’m sure it’s the same (but opposite) on the other end.

As a result, nothing conducive happens.

DominicCobb said:

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.

Thanks for clarifying that, because I see what you’re saying now and you’re right. You kinda addressed this already with Jay, but I feel like “disgusting” is at its core a pretty charged word when describing almost anything. I guess that was my issue with what you said.

I also feel that guns are fucking cool as hell, but setting that emotional bias aside and looking at the issue logically, I still feel the truth is that, even disregarding the Bill of Rights, guns have a great many practical civilian applications that should not be infringed (by and large).

Keep Circulating the Tapes.

END OF LINE

(It hasn’t happened yet)

Author
Time

“Disgusting” may be a charged word but so is “SJW.” :p

Author
Time

The way I see it, if you aren’t using your guns to make the bourgeoisie ruling class tremble, then what’s the point of having them at all?

The Drink in Question

Author
Time

darthrush said:

I just wanted to say that I really like Ash’s post about his beliefs on gun control. Everything sounds very reasonable and doesn’t call for the unreachable goal of banning all guns in America.

There’s a reasonable middle ground to be had if politicians could focus on finding it rather than coming at the issue from the extremes.

Of course, that wouldn’t keep the public enraged and distracted, would it?

suspiciouscoffee said:

The way I see it, if you aren’t using your guns to make the bourgeoisie ruling class tremble, then what’s the point of having them at all?

I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not, but I agree regardless.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

“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.

Speaking for myself, to an extent my faith teaches me that there is an element of understanding about faith that can not be explained through rational means, and therefore attempting to do so is somewhat futile by our own power. So if I don’t elaborate about it, one reason might be that I’m not sure it would actually improve understanding instead of merely prolonging the argument.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

Jay said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

The way I see it, if you aren’t using your guns to make the bourgeoisie ruling class tremble, then what’s the point of having them at all?

I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not, but I agree regardless.

It’s not sarcasm.

The Drink in Question

Author
Time

I’ve always thought that there was something off about him. First red flag was his stupid remarks about transgender people, now this.

she/her

Author
Time

There’ve been a lot of red flags ever since he’s started receiving attention.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

suspiciouscoffee said:

The way I see it, if you aren’t using your guns to make the bourgeoisie ruling class tremble, then what’s the point of having them at all?

I remember people being your age 😉 Do you have your Che Guevara tshirt yet?

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

The way I see it, if you aren’t using your guns to make the bourgeoisie ruling class tremble, then what’s the point of having them at all?

I remember people being your age 😉 Do you have your Che Guevara tshirt yet?

I actually do believe in a healthy kind of politically-motivated violence.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

Right-wing cult leader Jordan Peterson demands forced mating and blames women for mass killings.

https://www.salon.com/2018/05/19/right-wing-thought-leader-jordan-peterson-endorses-enforced-monogamy-to-appease

That article isn’t about Peterson; it’s about Nellie Bowles’ New York Times article about Peterson. This article is an example to me of the media feeding on itself for more news. Seriously, reading this makes me want to hear what Jordan Peterson actually said, in the full context of him saying it. Not Taylor Link’s report on Nellie Bowles’ report on her opinion about some of what he said.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Right-wing cult leader Jordan Peterson demands forced mating and blames women for mass killings.

https://www.salon.com/2018/05/19/right-wing-thought-leader-jordan-peterson-endorses-enforced-monogamy-to-appease

That article isn’t about Peterson; it’s about Nellie Bowles’ New York Times article about Peterson. This article is an example to me of the media feeding on itself for more news. Seriously, reading this makes me want to hear what Jordan Peterson actually said, in the full context of him saying it. Not Taylor Link’s report on Nellie Bowles’ report on her opinion about some of what he said.

It’s not even really an opinion. He says this shit all the time. He thinks that women wearing makeup makes them hypocrites for not wanting to be sexually harassed. He believes that all non-Christians are incapable of being truly moral and only act moral because they deep-down believe in Jesus. This guy, Jordan Peterson, is full of shit on every subject that he talks about. He’s just another charlatan trying to scare people into believing him so they’ll give him money. He’s more like a televangelist than anything else.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

It’s also interesting to me that this fraud is constantly complaining about how men need to be masculine and strong and all that other shit, but he looks like he’d be blown away by a sudden gale. There are also videos of him crying like a baby over people not believing in his warped and unconvincing religious theology. This man is only impressive to incredibly unimpressive people. The hypocrisy blows me away too. Right-wingers typically shit on academia because it is left-leaning, but the second a right-wing academic comes their way they bow down and literally worship him. Yes, the devotion to Peterson borders on worshipful in some cases. It’s pretty disgusting.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

There’s something - well, actually a lot - to be said for reading/listening to the person’s views oneself, and not relying on third hand accounts. I think most of what is written by Peterson is superficial blather and doesn’t engage with his actual ideas in a critical way. Esquire had a balanced piece about him.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

Jordan Peterson doesn’t really have ideas. He’s intentionally vague, slippery, and convoluted in order for his followers to basically interpret his drivel in ways that are personal to them. It also helps so that when people call him out for being full of shit, he can pretend that they’re “misunderstanding” his points when in reality there are no real points at all.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

Jordan Peterson doesn’t really have ideas. He’s intentionally vague, slippery, and convoluted in order for his followers to basically interpret his drivel in ways that are personal to them. It also helps so that when people call him out for being full of shit, he can pretend that they’re “misunderstanding” his points when in reality there are no real points at all.

First, citation needed?

Second, you say this as though the media in general doesn’t do this. Drumming up drama that likely didn’t previously exist so that they can make themselves sound justified when they complain about it.

So even if Peterson does this, which I’m not convinced he does, he certainly would not be the first, last, or only person to do this on either side of the fence. There’s an entire culture and market where people and corporations make money off of manufactured drama.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I hate how he constantly says something to the tune of “neo-liberal marxists”. That’s his catch phrase, almost. It doesn’t mean anything! Apparently anyone who cares about women’s rights or trans rights is a “neo-liberal Marxist.”

He conducts himself well in the recorded arguments I’ve seen, but his actual opinions are stupid.

she/her

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jordan Peterson doesn’t really have ideas. He’s intentionally vague, slippery, and convoluted in order for his followers to basically interpret his drivel in ways that are personal to them. It also helps so that when people call him out for being full of shit, he can pretend that they’re “misunderstanding” his points when in reality there are no real points at all.

First, citation needed?

Second, you say this as though the media in general doesn’t do this. Drumming up drama that likely didn’t previously exist so that they can make themselves sound justified when they complain about it.

So even if Peterson does this, which I’m not convinced he does, he certainly would not be the first, last, or only person to do this on either side of the fence. There’s an entire culture and market where people and corporations make money off of manufactured drama.

I can’t give a citation because my impression is based on literally everything I’ve ever heard him say or seen him write. I have yet to be impressed by a single sentence that this charlatan has uttered. Expose yourself to some of his work and you’ll see what I mean. His speeches are just ramblings filled with big words.

The Person in Question