Yay, GUNS!

[rangerx]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I actually do not think it was. However it is totally off topic so I will leave it at that. 

Fair enough. I will dispense with assertion as it applied to the election. It's was a rhetorical point.

My point about double standards and dismissive antics stand though, especially when it comes to dealing with serious issue, like guns. 

That still lays at the heart of the matter, to invoke obstructionism.

[Raider5678]

43 minutes ago, swansont said:

Europe isn't a country, and when people say they don't want to copy Europe because the policies are socialist, then I take them at their word.

I realize Europe isn't a country. I misspoke as Zapatos said.  Come to think of it, how would you say that? Two different entities? Two different unions? The states are definitely a single nation though. I'm not sure.  Either way, general idea, they're two different places, several different cultures, and definitely two entirely different political landscapes.

 

That's odd. How many people do you know say they don't want to copy Europe because the policies are socialist? I've never heard it. I've typically heard that they don't believe they work, but never dismissed as "Well they work, but they're socialist."

Edited February 19, 2018 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

43 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Fair enough. I will dispense with assertion as it applied to the election. It's was a rhetorical point.

My point about double standards and dismissive antics stand though, especially when it comes to dealing with serious issue, like guns. 

That still lays at the heart of the matter, to invoke obstructionism.

I think part of the problem is people pretending like any proposal could ever be reasonable enough not to invoke outrage. A popular saying in the NRA is "from my cold dead hand". It isn't the slogan of those who'd compromise. Calls for middle ground positions and agreement with those absolutists who don't give a f#ck lead to pitiful compromises like Jim Crow laws. It is the right thing in my opinion to hear everyone at the table out and explore everyone's position. That said it is wrong in my opinion to insist or assume everyone leaves the table with something they want. 

18 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

That's odd. How many people do you know say they don't want to copy Europe because the policies are socialist? I've never heard it. I've typically heard that they don't believe they work, but never dismissed as "Well they work, but they're socialist."

Than there is obviously much being said you don't hear. 

Edited February 19, 2018 by Ten oz
Formatting

[Raider5678]

22 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Than there is obviously much being said you don't hear. 

1

No, I think it's a case of them being portrayed as a stereotype. I don't doubt that there are people who say it, but I definitely don't believe it's as common as you both seem to believe.

I live in a very conservative area, from the people who were convinced Obama was born in Africa, and that he was the devil incarnate. However, I still don't ever hear "I disagree because it's socialist" I hear "I disagree because it doesn't work."

Whether it actually works or not is not what I'm discussing. I'm saying the conclusion that just because they don't agree with something that it's because of why you think they don't agree with it, is wrong. They can disagree for reasons different then what you think they do.

The same way iNow took my statements as "Nope." and dismissed it. Rather than looking at the reasoning I provided, it's dismissed immediately as though there is no reasoning.  So I am skeptical that you of all people know exactly what all Americans believe and why they believe it. Especially since there is such political divide on so many issues.

 

 

 

Additionally, on top of all this, you're definitely subject to confirmation bias. You can find a lot of examples of America not following Europe, but that doesn't mean there are no examples of America following Europe, or even Europe following America.

 

Also, as a side note, we're back to just bickering back and forth without even actually talking about any solutions.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Raider5678

[John Cuthber]

38 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I've typically heard that they don't believe they work,

Given that, for example, socialised healthcare and education plainly work in many parts of the world, why would anyone say that "they don't believe they work"?
They must have been misled.

Perhaps someone told them that socialist systems don't work.

 

 

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

Given that, for example, socialised healthcare and education plainly work in many parts of the world, why would anyone say that "they don't believe they work"?
They must have been misled.

Perhaps someone told them that socialist systems don't work.

1

That's the point.

 

 

Also, socialized education is already something the U.S. has........ just not as socialized as other countries. Ours goes to high school and stops there, rather than extending to secondary education.

[Ten oz]

33 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

No, I think it's a case of them being portrayed as a stereotype. I don't doubt that there are people who say it, but I definitely don't believe it's as common as you both seem to believe.

WASHINGTON — On April 15, 2009, Rep. Paul Ryan took to a stage in Madison, Wis., to address a crowd of angry conservative activists at one of the very first Tea Party rallies. Ryan told the cheering audience of Gadsden flag wavers that the United States under President Barack Obama, then almost three months into his first term, was headed towards “big government, European-style socialism.” The Obama administration and their supporters “want you to pay up and shut up,” he told the crowd.

— Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has said that Obama is trying “to basically Europeanize America.”

— At CPAC, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), the third-ranking Republican, denounced Obama’s economic agenda as “European-style socialism.”

https://thinkprogress.org/ap-ignores-cries-of-socialism-claims-that-congressional-republicans-have-no-desire-to-demonize-obama-627013e6551d/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/paul-ryan-fundraising_n_1791799.html

 

Their is the currently House and Senate Majority Leaders well as the Vice President saying it. It is very common and the fact you are not aware is part of the issue with your position of Guns; you haven't followed any of this long enough for context. Many of the taking points get recycled. Many of the distraction tactics and talking point just repeat with different words. They often seem fair the first hundred time you hear them. Overtime however one realizes or at least come to suspect that the arguments are just a calls for inaction. 

[Raider5678]

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Overtime however one realizes or at least come to suspect that the arguments are just a calls for inaction. 

 

At this point I would hope you'd realize I am doing anything but calling for inaction.

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

If only the US didn't have a history of similar knee-jerk responses, such as not doing something the Europe does because it's socialist...

 

If those guns have no avenue into the public in the first place, then the black market dries up.

There's not much focus on "regular" guns, so that's moot.

 

The point is that a huge number of guns are already in circulation, the price of gold goes up and up but it is still in demand. Guns pass back and forth through the population like money. Make no mistake school shootings are not just about assault rifles.  Please define regular guns...

[Raider5678]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

If those guns have no avenue into the public in the first place, then the black market dries up.

 

You mean if there's no legal way to obtain something, then the black market will dry up?

Amazing! Why don't we do that for drugs??

Not your finest argument.

 

Guns would develop a black market extremely fast. And like drugs, you'd be seeing much deadlier guns as well.

Full metal jackets, shrapnel bullets, etc, will all become much more prevalent.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

21 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

At this point I would hope you'd realize I am doing anything but calling for inaction.

I totally believe that you believe that. 

[Raider5678]

24 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 

The point is that a huge number of guns are already in circulation, the price of gold goes up and up but it is still in demand. Guns pass back and forth through the population like money. Make no mistake school shootings are not just about assault rifles.  Please define regular guns...

As I've stated before, assault rifles account for less than 3% of school shooting deaths, and we should definitely look into regulating handguns more(which makes up around 95%) as well, but nope. I'm just anti gun control to support that idea.

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I totally believe that you believe that. 

I believe we need to add universal background checks for all gun sales.

I believe we need to eliminate the private sellers and gun show loopholes.

I believe we need to have a gun license everyone must have to own any type of gun, and another for all semi-automatic guns including handguns.

I believe we need to have mental fitness checks to obtain gun licenses.

I believe we need to have said gun license renewed every two years.

I believe you should not be allowed to obtain the gun license until you're at least 18 years old.

I believe you should be required to safely store your weapons if you have children in your household.

I believe you should be disqualified from owning a gun if you ever threaten gun violence on social media.

I believe you should be disqualified from owning a gun if you ever commit a violent crime.

I believe you should be charged with first-degree murder if you sell a weapon knowingly circumventing aforementioned rules.

 

But yes. I'm actually just calling for inaction because I don't agree with your own ideas for gun control 100%. 

Your way or the highway.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Raider5678

[Moontanman]

10 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

As I've stated before, assault rifles account for less than 3% of school shooting deaths, and we should definitely look into regulating handguns more(which makes up around 95%) as well, but nope. I'm just anti gun control to support that idea.

 

Umm I was replying to Swansont

[Raider5678]

8 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Umm I was replying to Swansont

I know.

I was trying to support what you were saying, that wasn't aimed at you.

I was supporting the "Make no mistake school shootings are not just about assault rifles." statement.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Raider5678

[swansont]

57 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

You mean if there's no legal way to obtain something, then the black market will dry up?

Amazing! Why don't we do that for drugs??

Not your finest argument.

Are legal drugs easier or harder to obtain than illegal drugs? 

Quote

Guns would develop a black market extremely fast. And like drugs, you'd be seeing much deadlier guns as well.

Full metal jackets, shrapnel bullets, etc, will all become much more prevalent.

Why would this be? (Full metal jackets and shrapnel bullets are not guns). People are going to spend extra money to buy deadlier guns?

Is this what happened when we had the assault weapons ban? Is this what happens in countries with strong gun laws?

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

 

The point is that a huge number of guns are already in circulation, the price of gold goes up and up but it is still in demand. Guns pass back and forth through the population like money. Make no mistake school shootings are not just about assault rifles.  Please define regular guns...

I was quoting you. You introduced the term. I assume you meant hanguns and bolt-action rifles.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

The same way iNow took my statements as "Nope." and dismissed it. Rather than looking at the reasoning I provided, it's dismissed immediately as though there is no reasoning

There were some comments you made that were equivalent to “no, that’s not going to work, “ which didn’t articulate your reasoning. I think for the most part you were trying to illuminate how hard such a position would be to get support on in many regions. You should know that I’m not oblivious to those obstacles. After all, I lived in Texas for over 2 decades. 

That said, I do hope you realize that I immediately rethought my original reply and subsequently responded to essentially every point you made. It doesn’t appear this entered your consciousness, however, given your description here in this quote the next day. 

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I realize Europe isn't a country. I misspoke as Zapatos said.  Come to think of it, how would you say that? Two different entities? Two different unions?

Megaregion works. EMEA, APJ, NOAM, LATAM... Within those you can have subregions like MEE, MENA, LAC, NOAM-NE, etc.

Edited February 20, 2018 by iNow

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Are legal drugs easier or harder to obtain than illegal drugs? 

Why would this be? (Full metal jackets and shrapnel bullets are not guns). People are going to spend extra money to buy deadlier guns?

Is this what happened when we had the assault weapons ban?

1

Legal drugs are harder to obtain. I'm not saying anything to incriminate anyone, but I know easy ways that I could find out how to obtain drugs quickly. Getting a prescription is not on that list.

 

Look no farther then drugs. Before the war on drugs, it wasn't very potent. After the war on drugs had begun, it's much more profitable to ship one ounce packets of highly potent drugs then 1 pound bags of relatively mild drugs. With guns, in the hypothetical scenario that we banned a particular weapon, let's say assault rifles, it'd be much the same. Rather than selling many lower "potency" guns, they'd sell guns, with the ammo designed to kill. 

 

No. It's not what happened. But there is also a massive difference. The assault weapons ban didn't make all assault weapons illegal, nor did it really ban even the sale of them.

It made them illegal to manufacture. Didn't even bann the selling of them. So I'm not exactly sure that's a good example of what a full out bann would result in.

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

That's odd. How many people do you know say they don't want to copy Europe because the policies are socialist? I've never heard it. I've typically heard that they don't believe they work, but never dismissed as "Well they work, but they're socialist."

I've seen the dismissal a number of times, e.g. in the healthcare debates ~8 years ago. Assessing policies on evidence instead of ideology doesn't seem to be a GOP forte (see also abstinence-only, creationism, climate change, etc.). 

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

Since you want to explore this further, can you give some examples of America not following another country's lead, lest they appear weak? 

I didn't (not on this thread, for sure) and I made no such claim.

[Raider5678]

Just now, swansont said:

I've seen the dismissal a number of times, e.g. in the healthcare debates ~8 years ago. Assessing policies on evidence instead of ideology doesn't seem to be a GOP forte (see also abstinence-only, creationism, climate change, etc.). 

 

Part of the previous solution that was entertained is getting rid of most current politicians, that'd most likely include getting rid of most of the GOP.

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Legal drugs are harder to obtain. I'm not saying anything to incriminate anyone, but I know easy ways that I could find out how to obtain drugs quickly. Getting a prescription is not on that list.

Not all legal drugs require a prescription, and a prescription would seem to be a poor analogy here.

9 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Look no farther then drugs. Before the war on drugs, it wasn't very potent. After the war on drugs had begun, it's much more profitable to ship one ounce packets of highly potent drugs then 1 pound bags of relatively mild drugs. With guns, in the hypothetical scenario that we banned a particular weapon, let's say assault rifles, it'd be much the same. Rather than selling many lower "potency" guns, they'd sell guns, with the ammo designed to kill. 

It's obvious to me, and probably to many others, that an AR-15 and the ammo it uses is designed to kill. Can you make somebody more dead?

9 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

No. It's not what happened. But there is also a massive difference. The assault weapons ban didn't make all assault weapons illegal, nor did it really ban even the sale of them.

It made them illegal to manufacture. Didn't even bann the selling of them. So I'm not exactly sure that's a good example of what a full out bann would result in.

 

And for some odd reason, mass murders decreased...

[zapatos]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

I didn't (not on this thread, for sure) and I made no such claim.

I guess I interpreted you responding to the post as an indication you wanted  to talk about it.

[Raider5678]

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

1. Not all legal drugs require a prescription, and a prescription would seem to be a poor analogy here.

2. It's obvious to me, and probably to many others, that an AR-15 and the ammo it uses is designed to kill. Can you make somebody more dead?

3. And for some odd reason, mass murders decreased...

 

1. Opioids

2. They're designed to kill yes, but I assure you, they are not as deadly as it can be. Research into different ammunition banned by the Geneva convention. Then imagine las vegas with one of the ammunition rounds. The casualties would have been much closer to the thousands. That being said, I'm not saying we shouldn't restrict assault weapons.

You can't make someone more dead, but you can make it so that they'll die 90% of the time if they're hit. Currently, there are usually far more injuries than deaths.

3. Okay, listen. I didn't say anything about the effectiveness of the ban that took place. I said it's much different than the ban you seemed to think it was. It did not limit the sale of them. It did not limit who could own them. It did not even put restrictions on them. It made them illegal to manufacture. 

At no point did I even comment on whether it reduced murders.

I very clearly said if the guns were completely banned a black market would develop.

And I know for a fact, that you realized that. You're not even remotely close to being short-sighted.

So comparing what I said and trying to place it onto another subject is just taking my argument out of context, placing it into your own scenario, and then musing about how it no longer holds up.

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by Raider5678

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

1. Opioids

Opioids require a prescription, so how is that relevant? I could see that if it required a third party to approve a gun sale, on the evaluation that you need a gun (i.e. a prescription) but that isn't the case.

9 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

2. They're designed to kill yes, but I assure you, they are not as deadly as it can be. Research into different ammunition banned by the Geneva convention. Then imagine las vegas with one of the ammunition rounds. The casualties would have been much closer to the thousands. That being said, I'm not saying we shouldn't restrict assault weapons.

You can't make someone more dead, but you can make it so that they'll die 90% of the time if they're hit. Currently, there are usually far more injuries than deaths.

So, logically, these weapons should result in more deaths.

9 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

3. Okay, listen. I didn't say anything about the effectiveness of the ban that took place. I said it's much different than the ban you seemed to think it was. It did not limit the sale of them. It did not limit who could own them. It did not even put restrictions on them. It made them illegal to manufacture. 

At no point did I even comment on whether it reduced murders.

You are offering it up as support for your "things will get worse" argument. Why did it work in reducing mass murders, if your position is valid?

9 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I very clearly said if the guns were completely banned a black market would develop.

You went further than that. You said that more deadly weapons would be sold. Logically, more people would end up dying as a result. Did this happen, with the empirical data we have?

9 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

And I know for a fact, that you realized that. You're not even remotely close to being short-sighted.

So comparing what I said and trying to place it onto another subject is just taking my argument out of context, placing it into your own scenario, and then musing about how it no longer holds up.

How is this out of context? 

10 hours ago, zapatos said:

I guess I interpreted you responding to the post as an indication you wanted  to talk about it.

It was a rebuttal to the insinuation that the US's intentions are never driven or rationalized by similar sentiments.   

[Strange]

10 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I very clearly said if the guns were completely banned a black market would develop.

I assume there is already a black market (for illegal and/or untraceable weapons, for example).

But in countries where sales/ownership of guns has been strictly controlled or just banned, it has solved the problem. Despite the inevitable existence of a criminal black market for guns. The people who commit these mass killings are not generally criminals (beforehand). Many of them are school age. It is the easy access to weapons that is the problem. I am not aware of many cases where an otherwise normal citizen has taken to the black market in order to engage in a mass shooting. They used the weapons that were readily available.

I have seen a lot of people say that people would still buy guns illegally, or would use knives, or sticks or poison or ... But in places where guns were banned after a mass killing, there have been no more mass killings of this sort (occasional terrorist attacks, maybe, but that is a different problem that requires different solutions).

[StringJunky]

31 minutes ago, Strange said:

I assume there is already a black market (for illegal and/or untraceable weapons, for example).

But in countries where sales/ownership of guns has been strictly controlled or just banned, it has solved the problem. Despite the inevitable existence of a criminal black market for guns. The people who commit these mass killings are not generally criminals (beforehand). Many of them are school age. It is the easy access to weapons that is the problem. I am not aware of many cases where an otherwise normal citizen has taken to the black market in order to engage in a mass shooting. They used the weapons that were readily available.

I have seen a lot of people say that people would still buy guns illegally, or would use knives, or sticks or poison or ... But in places where guns were banned after a mass killing, there have been no more mass killings of this sort (occasional terrorist attacks, maybe, but that is a different problem that requires different solutions).

Every obstacle you remove, they will put up another one. I'm waiting for the sound of crickets...