American Gun Control

[LDSman]

So if violence crime is down, but gun violence isn't, it's totally not guns that are part of the problem.

Plus giving more people more guns is always a good idea. Like the times where it results in the wrong person being shot.

https://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/te...ots-carjacking-victim-in-head-then-runs-away/

I'm suspicious of this story. They don't have the shooter so how do they know that he wasn't targeting the driver?

The thought process kinda victim blames the people who get shot, while allowing gun owners to go "Well if they had a gun they wouldn't be dead".

I'm not blaming the victim. I'm blaming the laws that put them in a big *** target. The vast majority of these shootings take place in posted "Gun Free" zones. The theater shooter went to the theater with the gun free sign. He went passed the others. Malls and most schools are the same. I've posted links to a study that showed a clear difference in fatalities when citizens are able to respond vs waiting for police to show.

It allows certain gun owners to take this sick high ground, while ignoring the other solutions when they come up.

And anti-gunners completely ignore that, in many cases, their anti-gun laws hurt the people they are supposed to protect without actually having any benefit.

Edit: And gun violence is down. For some reason, mass shootings have risen.

 

[chess-z]

I'm going to pass on the 40 minute video made this year. I'll stick to the evidence as presented in court rather than a random opinion piece. As to what would I have done? Used my cell phone to call 911? Run home to my folks? Not attacked the guy.

It's really not an opinion piece, something you would've known had you watched it. Oops.

 

[LDSman]

It's really not an opinion piece, something you would've known had you watched it. Oops.

It’s rather amusing that out of all the actual points to debate, you pick this one and ignore everything else.
It’s a video made by some dude on the internet. Does he have a background in the law? In evidence? On self defense cases? What makes this person’s opinion of his interpretation of the facts relevant? It’s his opinion. I can find well made video on vaccines causing autism. Does not make them true.

 

[chess-z]

It’s rather amusing that out of all the actual points to debate, you pick this one and ignore everything else.

Watch the video, or concede that you aren't interested in a debate. Or is a 40 minute long video too much for your short attention span? Is your time so valuable that you can't spend less than 1/24th of your day to debunk a video?

 

[LDSman]

Watch the video, or concede that you aren't interested in a debate. Or is a 40 minute long video too much for your short attention span? Is your time so valuable that you can't spend less than 1/24th of your day to debunk a video?

I am not interested in debating the case of Trayvon Martin. Two separate investigations by people who really wanted Zimmerman to be guilty failed. It’s not relevant to the gun control debate. Since you like either/or statements. Are you going to respond to any of the points I’ve raised or concede that you can’t debate in a honest manner?

 

[chess-z]

The video actually agrees that Zimmerman shouldn't've been found guilty. You're intellectually shooting yourself in the foot with this ironclad determination to not challenge your own views. I'm done unless you do the reasonable thing and watch the video.

2. Read your opponent's source
The fact that I had to make this a written rule is nothing short of incredible. You can hate your opponent's position as much as you want, but to full out dismiss the sources that they use is incredibly rude. Any instance of people flat-out ignoring a source will be infracted immediately. Quite simply, it's bad forum and makes absolutely no sense because if the source is faulty you should be able to pick out the mistakes and add that to your debate.

I suppose reading and watching are qualitatively different, and since this video is an analysis rather than "actual fact", the source-yness of it is also subject to debate, but hey. You called on this rule, so I will too.

 

[LDSman]

The video actually agrees that Zimmerman shouldn't've been found guilty. You're intellectually shooting yourself in the foot with this ironclad determination to not challenge your own views. I'm done unless you do the reasonable thing and watch the video.

Then what the hell is the point in watching if the guy agrees that Zimmerman defended himself?? I can look at the court records and get the accurate information faster.

i suppose reading and watching are qualitatively different, and since this video is an analysis rather than "actual fact", the source-yness of it is also subject to debate, but hey. You called on this rule, so I will too.

It’s not a “source”. It an opinion piece that argues a old case that’s not particularly relevant. And, according to you, agrees with the outcome! And you still keep ignoring things I bring up. You aren’t debating at all. You’re demanding I do things your way.

 

[chess-z]

Well, call it the sunk-cost fallacy, but I'm going to tell you you're wrong. How can you know it's an opinion piece if you refuse to watch it? You'll notice that I said he agrees that Zimmerman should have been found not guilty, but nothing about the "defended himself" narrative. And it is particularly relevant to our current topic, is it not? And I'm ignoring you on the rest cause I've got a bit of a one track mind, and I'm not willing to spread myself between 17 different fronts. Watch the video, instead of dismissing it out of hand without even knowing the key argument. Willful ignorance is not a good look, but you still seem to think it's in the vogue.

 

[LDSman]

It’s a video made by a guy on the internet. It’s an opinion piece. He makes videos of things that interest him. He expresses his opinions on things. It’s a waste of time to watch a video I don’t care about. The information in the court case is more relevant. Not guilty, evidence and testimony supported Zimmerman’s testimony. The evidence didn’t support he prosecution.
So you’re unable or unwilling to address multiple things. Great debate skills there. See you mention willful ignorance but I’m not the one ignoring everything except for the one item that’s basically the low-hanging fruit.
I’m done with you until you address other issues I’ve pointed out.

 

[chess-z]

As I with you. I'm the last person debating with you in this thread, because, let's be honest, your dickery and pigheadedness has left the ideological sparring grounds sparse and tired. I'd report you for not engaging with a source, but I'm frankly too anxious about breaking the rules to do that. The ball's in your court; you can either let me have the last word calling you out, or you can quote this post and play into my simple rhetorical trap.

Bye~~~~~~~~~

 

[LDSman]

I thought this was an interesting study. What drives homicides in those areas?

https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/n...54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/

and this is an interesting study with some interesting comments at the bottom.

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Updated listing of mass shootings around the world.

Is the US really more violent than the rest of the world?

https://crimeresearch.org/2017/01/w...blic-shootings-are-outside-the-united-states/

 

[bobjr]

I really don't buy most "Oh X part of America is bad" when there's no national regulation. It's not much of an issue when you can drive an hour away to another state with way less restrictions.

And for the victim blaming thing, because like everyone else here I'm assuming it's a "Oh, I care about myself and what affects me, but everyone else doesn't really matter" thing, I'll bring that up again. It's like if you brought up the opiod crisis and went "well some people abuse drugs, but what about those who are responsible and use drugs the right way", or the attention of sexual assault, where a lot of men go "Well what about the men who don't sexually assault people", and would say something like "Well it's a shame that happened, but that doesn't mean we need to take action against it or anything". Saying it's not the guns and it's all the other issues without the guns sounds a lot like you're saying "Well it sure is a shame these people died, but I'd rather focus on the aspect that affects me instead of the dead people and those who care about them." It's basically blaming the victims for dying without some weird law saying that X person needs a gun and that would solve all the problems. It's dealing with a symptom without looking for a cure.

But like I said, I'm someone who owns multiple guns, and if there was a national law put in place that made me give them all up I wouldn't be all that fussed about it. I use a bow more often anyway.

 

[CensoredRefugee]

But like I said, I'm someone who owns multiple guns, and if there was a national law put in place that made me give them all up I wouldn't be all that fussed about it. I use a bow more often anyway.

You wouldn't care about not having the ability to defend yourself against intruders or other threats? You also wouldn't care about the fact that an institution that uses guns to enforce its laws gets to use those guns however and whenever it wants, yet is telling you that you can't use guns yourself?

 

[bobjr]

I mean I'm also for demilitarization of the police too. Plus call me crazy, but if some foreign threat somehow manages to wage a ground war on the U.S. successfully there are a host of other problems to deal with there.

 

[LDSman]

I really don't buy most "Oh X part of America is bad" when there's no national regulation. It's not much of an issue when you can drive an hour away to another state with way less restrictions.

Per ATF regs, all handgun purchase made out of state must comply with the home state's laws and be sent to a FFL store in that state for completion of the sale. I'd be really curious to see how many of the sales were legal purchases to begin with and not someone who buys legally and then sells illegally in other states. Gun running is already illegal.

And for the victim blaming thing, because like everyone else here I'm assuming it's a "Oh, I care about myself and what affects me, but everyone else doesn't really matter" thing, I'll bring that up again. It's like if you brought up the opiod crisis and went "well some people abuse drugs, but what about those who are responsible and use drugs the right way", or the attention of sexual assault, where a lot of men go "Well what about the men who don't sexually assault people", and would say something like "Well it's a shame that happened, but that doesn't mean we need to take action against it or anything". Saying it's not the guns and it's all the other issues without the guns sounds a lot like you're saying "Well it sure is a shame these people died, but I'd rather focus on the aspect that affects me instead of the dead people and those who care about them." It's basically blaming the victims for dying without some weird law saying that X person needs a gun and that would solve all the problems. It's dealing with a symptom without looking for a cure.

Yet again, an appeal to emotion. A problem with your analogies is that if opiods were treated like guns, you'd have an availability to willow bark tea or aspirin. Or forcing all men to wear a locking chastity belt. You keep trying to say that I'm saying we shouldn't do "something" but that's not true. I've made other suggestions that you don't agree with.
Your "solutions" of various gun bans is dealing with the symptom not the cause. As one of the links show, the murders in this country are in limited areas. If guns were the cause, the murders would be situated in areas with higher gun ownership rather than areas that are trying to restrict guns.

But like I said, I'm someone who owns multiple guns, and if there was a national law put in place that made me give them all up I wouldn't be all that fussed about it. I use a bow more often anyway.

I don't get this thinking. You presumably paid for those guns. Why would you give up something you own and paid for, that you did not use illegally and would not use illegally, in the hopes that someone who usually acquires a gun in an illegal manner (theft or straw purchases) would somehow not decide to use a different weapon to kill someone?

I mean I'm also for demilitarization of the police too. Plus call me crazy, but if some foreign threat somehow manages to wage a ground war on the U.S. successfully there are a host of other problems to deal with there.

Part of the issue is that the police are expected to be first responders to any number of situations. They get paid to figure out a SWAT team for their area. Then the locals who demanded that the police be able to respond to rare, high risk events quickly, demand to know why the police aren't using the SWAT teams so to justify the budget, the police start using SWAT on various things and mission creep happens. Plus the way the media handles police shooting events is really sucky. Constant articles on what the family claims happened while the police investigate and then bare coverage of what really happened which leave people with the impression of a police murder rather than an attack on the officer from someone deranged or desperate to get away.

Interesting article on Reasoning.

http://newbostonpost.com/2017/11/09/undoing-the-dis-education-of-millennials/

 

[CensoredRefugee]

I mean I'm also for demilitarization of the police too.

Same. However, if you really want stricter gun laws to be enforced, won't they need to be heavily armed to deal with potential resisters? As for myself, I think gun control overall is immoral because people have the right to defend themselves, and the government has no business interfering with that right. The fact that some people can commit evil with guns doesn't change this.

 

[LDSman]

Same. However, if you really want stricter gun laws to be enforced, won't they need to be heavily armed to deal with potential resisters? As for myself, I think gun control overall is immoral because people have the right to defend themselves, and the government has no business interfering with that right. The fact that some people can commit evil with guns doesn't change this.

While it is true that everyone has the right to defend themselves in an appropriate manner, there are some people who shouldn't be allowed some types of weapons. Usually such people are mentally deranged and can't function in society or those people that have proven to a court of law that they can't be trusted to follow the laws.

 

[CensoredRefugee]

While it is true that everyone has the right to defend themselves in an appropriate manner, there are some people who shouldn't be allowed some types of weapons. Usually such people are mentally deranged and can't function in society or those people that have proven to a court of law that they can't be trusted to follow the laws.

Yes, I agree, not everyone is suitable or capable of owning a firearm. I just oppose gun control laws that apply to everyone simply because some people feel that guns are too dangerous for civilians to use, while they are okay with people in authority having those same weapons, even though they (those in authority) are just people as well. I don't understand why some believe that the label of "authority" somehow makes people more trustworthy or good than the average person.

 

[LDSman]

It is interesting that some of the people calling for bans have armed bodyguards.

Edit:


So the claims about Republicans not doing anything about Gun Control after shootings is untrue.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/senate-gun-votes-224560

Both parties put forth dueling proposals. Republicans wanted to fix the background check system (maybe that would have help in CA...) and revise some of the legal definitions on who is banned from owning guns due to mental health issues and the other bill would have a way to show that people on the terrorist watch list are actually a threat when attempting to purchase a gun. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Democrats wanted to expand the background check system (it's broken in places, how does expanding it help if the right info isn't being provided?) and to deny any gun sales to people on the list even though people get on that list accidentally.

And here is a bill that was sponsored by a Republican re the mental health system.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/230861-republican-seeks-to-revive-stalled-mental-health-bill

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/286705-house-passes-mental-health-bill

So if Dems refuse to pass a bill because they want it to go further and the Reps won't vote for a bill that they say goes too far, who is at fault?

Frankly, passing a bill that doesn't go far enough (to some) is better IMO. At least it's progress and you can point at it and go "we tried that, it didn't work."

 

[Mordent99]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...f-wife-during-gun-safety-discussion/23282083/

Ironic, ain't it?