DMC Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: I'm with you here in spirit, but keep in mind that there are some things that you shouldn't believe in, South Detroit being chief among them. https://www.today.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/stop-believing-perry-admits-theres-no-south-detroit-flna1C9381105 It should be noted in the final scene of Sopranos Chase has explicitly stated he turned down the music during the "born and raised in South Detroit" portion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 22 minutes ago, dmc515 said: If there's a Dem president? Yes, certainly. Sorry, I mean to say a successful one. If the Republicans hold the senate and Dems have POTUS, I cannot see there ever being a successful nomination of a new judge. I can see Democrats actually caving a bit if they controlled the Senate and there was a Republican judge, because they're idiots like that, but I cannot see in any way, shape or form a Republican senate allowing a Democrat to nominate and pass a single SCOTUS. 22 minutes ago, dmc515 said: How do you know this? I don't know this. I have an advisor that studies the courts for a living, and he doesn't know this. You're assuming the worst with no grounds. I'm assuming this based on the trends that have already happened. We've already seen Heller. We've already seen concealed permits being allowed in other states, and that challenge being simply refused to be argued. 22 minutes ago, dmc515 said: The fuck you talking about here? There is state-by-state data that shows certain regulations reduce violence, regardless of their neighbors. But not particularly all that much, and many of those are getting overturned. 22 minutes ago, dmc515 said: Again, so you give up? It was certainly easy to after Sandy Hook. Seems intractable, right? Maybe don't stop... Conversely, what data do you have to back up that giving up isn't the right option, and that there is any kind of optimism with respect to gun culture in the US? We know, perversely, that gun control laws actually got more lax after Sandy Hook and the like, and the end result was an aggregate of more permissive gun rights. We know that there is zero bipartisan support for change of gun laws at this time, and hasn't been despite the ten worst shootings in US history happening after 1998 (and 3 of the 5 worst happening in the last 2 years). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 4 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Conversely, what data do you have to back up that giving up isn't the right option Haven't read your entire post, just skimmed it at this point. Will edit this soon, but going to smoke first. But seriously, did you just suggest giving up is the right option? JFC...might have to smoke two. Or three. Who cares, right? Let's give up! ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 6 minutes ago, dmc515 said: Haven't read your entire post, just skimmed it at this point. Will edit this soon, but going to smoke first. But seriously, did you just suggest giving up is the right option? JFC...might have to smoke two. Or three. Who cares, right? Let's give up! ... Largely, yes, I did. Just let it go. Or go the other way, and lean into gun safety classes, responsible gun ownership, etc. Because fighting this fringe point just gives talking points to the other group, and gives them reason to vote Republican. Take that weapon away from them. Take that talking point and just move on. Be supportive of some smart measures that have broad approval, but don't make it the cornerstone of the campaign or even a major issue. Get Democrats with high B and A ratings from the NRA. Move on from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mother Cocanuts Posted November 9, 2017 Author Share Posted November 9, 2017 3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: But in this case, had the existing law actually been enforced the shooter wouldn't have been able to get the weapons he used to kill 26 people. This isn't true. It would've been Illegal for him to get them; he still could've gotten them. And given the fact that he shot up a church, it would at least indicate to some degree what he thinks of the law. 2 hours ago, Yukle said: Correlation can be causation, it just doesn't prove it on its own. You isolate the factor you are looking for and compare it to a range of different environments. That's how you prove it. Yes, causation must have a correlation, making this statement redundant. 2 hours ago, Yukle said: If you isolate gun ownership and the prevalence of guns without an environment compared to an area with the same conditions apart from the guns, then the homicide and suicide rates within the gun area are higher. There's no sufficient evidence for this inference. 2 hours ago, Yukle said: The thing is, your argument is really unusual in that you seem to deny that even that much is the case. Generally, gun-nuts don't deny that this is the case, they simply see it as a trade-off for what they believe is access to a necessary freedom. Generally speaking, "gun-nuts" are irrelvant 2 hours ago, Yukle said: They'd never say that guns aren't linked to violence, but that this violence is immaterial because the right to arms is an expression of freedom necessary for society to function properly, and the violence is a collateral side-effect that sadly is part and parcel of this freedom. No. I would argue that the issue is not with mere ownership, but select individuals who use their firearms in criminal behavior. And that this criminal behavior should not dictate the extent of firearm ownership for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 23 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Sorry, I mean to say a successful one. If the Republicans hold the senate and Dems have POTUS, I cannot see there ever being a successful nomination of a new judge Why not? Seems Sotomayor and Kagan were both voted in by filibuster proof majorities. Not to mention, thanks to the GOP, there is no cloture vote fore SCOTUS. So, should actually be pretty easy as long as it's early in the term. Empirically, you have absolutely no point here. 30 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I'm assuming this based on the trends that have already happened. We've already seen Heller. We've already seen concealed permits being allowed in other states, and that challenge being simply refused to be argued. Concealed permits have no relevance to pretty much all gun regulations. There are no empirics here, just conjecture. 33 minutes ago, Kalbear said: But not particularly all that much, and many of those are getting overturned. What's getting overturned? Beyond handgun bans? Please cite. 34 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Conversely, what data do you have to back up that giving up isn't the right option, and that there is any kind of optimism with respect to gun culture in the US? Again, what does this even mean? How am I supposed to produce data that you shouldn't be a pussy? 35 minutes ago, Kalbear said: We know, perversely, that gun control laws actually got more lax after Sandy Hook and the like, and the end result was an aggregate of more permissive gun rights. We know that there is zero bipartisan support for change of gun laws at this time, and hasn't been despite the ten worst shootings in US history happening after 1998 (and 3 of the 5 worst happening in the last 2 years). Right, so take your ball and go home I guess. The reason there is no bipartisan support is because of what I already said - salience. There's a way to convince members that gun control is just as salient, but not if you're just gonna give up. 22 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Because fighting this fringe point just gives talking points to the other group, and gives them reason to vote Republican. No. It doesn't. Most Republicans agree with reasonable gun control measures. Fighting the fringe means maintaining intensity. That's it. 23 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Be supportive of some smart measures that have broad approval, but don't make it the cornerstone of the campaign or even a major issue. Get Democrats with high B and A ratings from the NRA. Move on from it. The NRA rating doesn't really matter if you have a sack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 38 minutes ago, dmc515 said: Why not? Seems Sotomayor and Kagan were both voted in by filibuster proof majorities. Not to mention, thanks to the GOP, there is no cloture vote fore SCOTUS. So, should actually be pretty easy as long as it's early in the term. Empirically, you have absolutely no point here. I think you're deliberately misunderstanding me. I said that the only way that a SCOTUS gets through is if both the senate and POTUS are the same party. 38 minutes ago, dmc515 said: Concealed permits have no relevance to pretty much all gun regulations. There are no empirics here, just conjecture. Yes, so? 38 minutes ago, dmc515 said: What's getting overturned? Beyond handgun bans? Please cite. It's conjecture combined with things like the mental health law that was overturned recently. Maybe you've read about that? 38 minutes ago, dmc515 said: Again, what does this even mean? How am I supposed to produce data that you shouldn't be a pussy? Please, keep up with the gendered attacks; it makes you much more manly. Yes, produce data that shows that there is any reason to be optimistic. That the trend for gun control is good. That anyone is changing their mind. Surely you have some, given how optimistic you are. 38 minutes ago, dmc515 said: Right, so take your ball and go home I guess. The reason there is no bipartisan support is because of what I already said - salience. There's a way to convince members that gun control is just as salient, but not if you're just gonna give up. And what is that way? I've asked this several times now. 38 minutes ago, dmc515 said: No. It doesn't. Most Republicans agree with reasonable gun control measures. Fighting the fringe means maintaining intensity. That's it. Most Republican voters agree with reasonable gun control measures. Most representatives emphatically do not. And if they do, chances are they'll get replaced in the next primary. 38 minutes ago, dmc515 said: The NRA rating doesn't really matter if you have a sack. Yay, more machismo bullshit. Can you point to Republicans who are actually running and have said sacks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 4 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I think you're deliberately misunderstanding me. I said that the only way that a SCOTUS gets through is if both the senate and POTUS are the same party. No, it was not deliberate. Your language was confusing. 6 minutes ago, Kalbear said: It's conjecture combined with things like the mental health law that was overturned recently. Maybe you've read about that? So...no citations, just posing as if I should have read something you don't cite... 7 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Yes, produce data that shows that there is any reason to be optimistic. That the trend for gun control is good. That anyone is changing their mind. Surely you have some, given how optimistic you are. Ah. Gotcha. So it's apparently data that's got you down. That's a nice thing to hold on to. 10 minutes ago, Kalbear said: And what is that way? I've asked this several times now. Ugh. This is the problem with data-driven sites. "That way" is you, and me, and everybody. It's getting on board with something that - gasp - is not founded in data. But rather, encouraging people that gun control can stop people from dying. Do you have a problem with that? 16 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Most Republican voters agree with reasonable gun control measures. Most representatives emphatically do not. And if they do, chances are they'll get replaced in the next primary. What's your point? Bannon wants to change things, good for him. Maybe try to counteract that. Or do you just wanna bend over again? 19 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Yay, more machismo bullshit. Can you point to Republicans who are actually running and have said sacks? No. I was hoping you had said sack instead of making excuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 DMC, Right now with Heller as the controling law legislators in every State and Town in the US have the ability to enact laws and regulations that control and limit fiearm ownership and usage. The only regulation that is off the table is an absolute ban or regulation that is the equivalent of an absolute ban. Instead of fighting for the one thing that is denied by Heller why not attempt the reasonable regulation that is allowed by Heller? Right now, while Trump is President, it is impossible to flip the ideological bent of the SCOTUS. Do what you can do now and worry about the impossible later when it again becomes possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 I have to say that as much as I don't care for it, I think Kalbears' take is well measured here. We had our formative moment, and we blinked. The other side shrugged. 20 1st graders lined up against a classroom wall and executed in cold blood. If that can't move the needle, I'm not sure what can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mance Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 46 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: 1st graders lined up against a classroom wall and executed in cold blood. If that can't move the needle, I'm not sure what can. I think its kind of a mistake to keep focusing on there being any sort of gradated atrocity threshold for support of gun control measures. For many gun owners the natural, sincere, expression of concern for these mass shooting events is MOAR GUNZ! And when they hear voices on the other side calling for less, they are having their very own "OMG, don't they care? what will it take?" conversations about us. To dismiss their position as being about not caring about dead kids just misses the point. They do care, they just have very different ideas about solutions. So there is no magic number of dead kids that could be reached that would make them see "reason" or whatever, because the more violence they see or hear about or experience, the more they feel the need to protect them and theirs with moar gunz! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 ^^^^^^ When the main talking point becomes "It's too soon to talk about this, you are politicizing this horrible tragedy" and that talking point sticks, I have to assume that they don't really care. It might not be particularly helpful or insightful, but there it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mance Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 And thats fair too. But I'd say the "too soon" mantra is something you get more from politicos covering for the NRA or other donor class figures. Whereas I'm talking more about what regular mom and pop gun owners are feeling when they see coverage of any of these shooting events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 1 hour ago, The Mance said: And thats fair too. But I'd say the "too soon" mantra is something you get more from politicos covering for the NRA or other donor class figures. Whereas I'm talking more about what regular mom and pop gun owners are feeling when they see coverage of any of these shooting events. If they were willing to be cool about that and say 'MOAR GUNS FOR MORE GOOD PEOPLE' I'd be cool with it. They don't, though, so I kind of think they don't give a shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 Heh, I just realized Mohernuts here has created his own safespace, ala that south park episode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mance Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 26 minutes ago, Kalbear said: If they were willing to be cool about that and say 'MOAR GUNS FOR MORE GOOD PEOPLE' I'd be cool with it. They don't, though, so I kind of think they don't give a shit. But isn't that exactly what they're saying when they promote the good guy with a gun myth? I mean, its right there on the tin. After Newtown, wasn't there a big call from the right for arming teachers, or putting armed security guards in schools? Why? Because they didn't care about all the school kids? No, its because they have thoroughly blinkered, imo, ideas for preventing another school shooting. But that isn't the same as not caring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 6 minutes ago, The Mance said: But isn't that exactly what they're saying when they promote the good guy with a gun myth? I mean, its right there on the tin. After Newtown, wasn't there a big call from the right for arming teachers, or putting armed security guards in schools? Why? Because they didn't care about all the school kids? No, its because they have thoroughly blinkered, imo, ideas for preventing another school shooting. But that isn't the same as not caring. Yeah, I think that's a fair assessment. How about they don't care enough to give up their right to own guns? That ultimately that right is more important than 20 dead kids, or whatever the toll of the next big shooting happens to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 33 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said: Heh, I just realized Mohernuts here has created his own safespace, ala that south park episode. He really has. This thread and the Weinstein thread were the only two he's been posting in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 19 minutes ago, The Mance said: But isn't that exactly what they're saying when they promote the good guy with a gun myth? I mean, its right there on the tin. After Newtown, wasn't there a big call from the right for arming teachers, or putting armed security guards in schools? Why? Because they didn't care about all the school kids? No, its because they have thoroughly blinkered, imo, ideas for preventing another school shooting. But that isn't the same as not caring. I think it kind of is the same thing as not caring, especially when they say that they're in favor of more background checks and reasonable gun control stuff, but then...don't vote on it or don't care. I guess they might care, but it's not caring with action; it's thoughts and prayers. They certainly don't care enough to do anything about it, including things like proposing security guards in schools or arming teachers as actual laws that can be discussed. They have ideas but nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mance Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 12 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Yeah, I think that's a fair assessment. How about they don't care enough to give up their right to own guns? That ultimately that right is more important than 20 dead kids, or whatever the toll of the next big shooting happens to be. I...don't see how thats any different than what you were saying before. Is there some distinction I'm missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.