Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 3 minutes ago, Kalbear said: It's gonna be fun to get to the part where this shows how Mother Cocanuts is in favor of having as many guns as you want in your house, but cannot take them anywhere in public. You should use this, Scot. AVENGE THE IGNORED! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 8 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said: If it's government property, then don't they have the right to stipulate terms on their property? It isn't "government" property. It is property held in common. Are you saying the DC government has the power to tell people walking on public right of ways they don't have the right to keep and bear arms there because the government "owns" public right of ways? Or, are you going to take the novel position that I don't have the right too tell a private citizen who is armed they don't have the right to enter my property while they are armed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: You should use this, Scot. AVENGE THE IGNORED! Done, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Done, I think. Much obliged, Ser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 17 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: You should use this, Scot. AVENGE THE IGNORED! I'm looking forward to the Politico think-pieces on the ignored and silenced voices of the Westeros.org Miscellaneous forum's Gun Control Threads. That'll be a great read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 11 minutes ago, Week said: I'm looking forward to the Politico think-pieces on the ignored and silenced voices of the Westeros.org Miscellaneous forum's Gun Control Threads. That'll be a great read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mother Cocanuts Posted November 8, 2017 Author Share Posted November 8, 2017 19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: It isn't "government" property. It is property held in common. If public right of ways are in fact property held in common, then government should have no right to impose stipulations unless voted upon. But this is only undermining your point: are firearms property held in common? 28 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Are you saying the DC government has the power to tell people walking on public right of ways they don't have the right to keep and bear arms there because the government "owns" public right of ways? If public right of ways were in fact state property, then the answer would be, "yes" (if, once again, you believe government can own property.) You have since elucidated that public right of ways are property held in common. 33 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Or, are you going to take the novel position that I don't have the right too tell a private citizen who is armed they don't have the right to enter my property while they are armed? No. You have that right. 33 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Done, I think. Not really. You actually have an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 20 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said: If public right of ways are in fact property held in common, then government should have no right to impose stipulations unless voted upon. But this is only undermining your point: are firearms property held in common? They certainly can be. Say a soldier's rifle for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukle Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 Sandy Hook was the turning point. Gun-nuts can't let their guns go for the sake of children, so they sure as hell aren't going to get rid of them for anything else. Columbine killed high-school children, Sandy Hook primary school children. The next massacre could be in a kindergarten and the one after that in a birth suite and "Second Amendment-ers" would still cling to their guns, considering it a worthy price for "freedom". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 5 minutes ago, Yukle said: Sandy Hook was the turning point. Gun-nuts can't let their guns go for the sake of children, so they sure as hell aren't going to get rid of them for anything else. Columbine killed high-school children, Sandy Hook primary school children. The next massacre could be in a kindergarten and the one after that in a birth suite and "Second Amendment-ers" would still cling to their guns, considering it a worthy price for "freedom". Yeah, a church in Texas where multiple kids were killed praying to God should be a bridge too far, but it won't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 Came across a couple of quotes in an essay about Gun Control today that I thought could be applied directly to this thread. Interestingly enough, the quotes themselves had nothing to do with Gun Control directly. Someone who lies and someone who tells the truth are playing on opposite sides, so to speak, in the same game. Each responds to the facts as he understands them, although the response of the one is guided by the authority of the truth, while the response of the other defies that authority and refuses to meet its demands. The bullshitter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are. Harry G. Frankfurt, Professor Emeritus, Yale University (From his book, On Bullshit) and the second... It’s helpful to keep in mind Alberto Brandolini’s Bullshit Asymmetry Principle or what’s sometimes known as Brandolini’s law: “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Kalbear said: Yeah, a church in Texas where multiple kids were killed praying to God should be a bridge too far, but it won't be. Reportedly the gunmen went around pew to pew(no pun intended there, yikes) and shot crying babies in the head. So. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 MC, I just noticed that you never answered my question about the law that would have kept the Texas church shooter from getting a firearm. Had it been enforced he wouldn't have been able to do what he did. Do you oppose laws that keep people convicted of domestic violence from obtaining firearms? If yes, why? There is a correlation between domestic violence and people who engage in mass shootings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mother Cocanuts Posted November 9, 2017 Author Share Posted November 9, 2017 49 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: MC, I just noticed that you never answered my question about the law that would have kept the Texas church shooter from getting a firearm. Had it been enforced he wouldn't have been able to do what he did. Do you oppose laws that keep people convicted of domestic violence from obtaining firearms? If yes, why? There is a correlation between domestic violence and people who engage in mass shootings. Yes. Because the scope of what's considered domestic violence is too broad. And, once again, correlation isn't causation. Allow me this reductio ad absurdum: there's also a strong correlation with crime and poverty; do we round up poor people and detain them? Or do we just restrict in particular their actions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 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. Doesn't it demonstrate that, if enforced, these laws can be effective in stopping mass shootings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukle Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 30 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said: Yes. Because the scope of what's considered domestic violence is too broad. And, once again, correlation isn't causation. Allow me this reductio ad absurdum: there's also a strong correlation with crime and poverty; do we round up poor people and detain them? Or do we just restrict in particular their actions? 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. 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. 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. It's sometimes euphemistically called, "the price of freedom." 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. I disagree with this idea, but I see that it has a foundation in sense. Your argument seems to deny that guns increase violence, which doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 9 hours ago, Kalbear said: When a Democrat can actually nominate and have passed a SCOTUS justice let me know. Otherwise I think it'll be at least 10 years before something like Heller gets revisited in any meaningful way, and far more likely that even more erosions of state gun laws will take place. Yeah man, so let's give up, right? And acquiesce to Heller and what it entails. Because...what? Then the other side will listen? This is incredibly feckless. 9 hours ago, Kalbear said: I prefer realist, because honestly without massive gun restrictions that would obviously violate the 2nd amendment there is no real change to be had in the US. What would "obviously violate" the 2nd amendment. There are literally dozens of gun control measures that do not violate the 2nd amendment in the slightist. 9 hours ago, Kalbear said: It's based on data. Gun control has helped some of the 30k deaths, but hasn't helped shootings like Vegas because states are states, and you can simply drive across the border. What's based on data? Gun control not helping mass shootings? K. That's not the point and you know it. 9 hours ago, Kalbear said: Or you have people just selling things left and right. Or you have law enforcement ignoring things like failed background check flags because they've got better things to do. Furthermore, I see virtually no actual desire by the US populace to change things in any meaningful way, despite massive tragedies and violence. Sandy Hook was a turning point for me. This country is not particularly interested in change here. Right. So maybe endeavor to change that? This is precisely the defeatist attitude I was referring to, dangling participles and all. I don't think I need to tell you this, but you know why the NRA wins in spite of ~90 percent being against them? Because the other 10 percent views gun control as their most salient issue. Let's make gun control a salient issue. Let's stop bending over to farcical interpretations of the 2nd amendment. Let's make being for gun violence mean something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, dmc515 said: Yeah man, so let's give up, right? And acquiesce to Heller and what it entails. Because...what? Then the other side will listen? This is incredibly feckless. I'd rather give up and fight battles that are winnable instead of making gun control a litmus test that riles up the base. If Democrats simply ceded the notion about gun control entirely and were all on the same page, a whole lot of the ammunition that the Republican party currently has would entirely dry up. That said, do you really believe that this SCOTUS will vote in favor of any gun control, anywhere? Do you really believe based on the total lack of punishment that McConnell received, that there will ever be a SCOTUS nomination when the senate is controlled by the other party now? 3 minutes ago, dmc515 said: What would "obviously violate" the 2nd amendment. There are literally dozens of gun control measures that do not violate the 2nd amendment in the slightist. Sure. Most of them are ineffective at stopping the 30k deaths each year that we have. The best ones I can think of are mandatory waiting periods, but those are likely not going to pass scrutiny under SCOTUS; the only reason they do exist is that people haven't put a case up yet. 3 minutes ago, dmc515 said: What's based on data? Gun control not helping mass shootings? K. That's not the point and you know it. Gun control not helping shooting deaths in general, especially when you crack down on it in a state basis. When Illinois has strict gun control but Indiana doesn't, you're gonna have a bad time. I guess another option is to build border walls around Illinois? 3 minutes ago, dmc515 said: Right. So maybe endeavor to change that? This is precisely the defeatist attitude I was referring to, dangling participles and all. I don't think I need to tell you this, but you know why the NRA wins in spite of ~90 percent being against them? Because the other 10 percent views gun control as their most salient issue. Let's make gun control a salient issue. Let's stop bending over to farcical interpretations of the 2nd amendment. Let's make being for gun violence mean something. Again, Sandy Hook didn't change things. The most popular POTUS in a generation crying on camera about the deaths of children didn't change things. As scary as Las Vegas was, almost nothing has been done (Massachusetts banned bump-fire stocks, and that's it). Americans don't appear to want to give up their guns. 90% of the populace isn't against the NRA; they're in favor of background checks, perhaps, but they don't care that much. The problem is that there is a minority that is incredibly good at getting people on their side, and the issue is just not that crucial compared to others. I would much rather stop attempting to change the entire culture of the US away from guns and go for other issues entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 36 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Do you really believe based on the total lack of punishment that McConnell received, that there will ever be a SCOTUS nomination when the senate is controlled by the other party now? If there's a Dem president? Yes, certainly. 36 minutes ago, Kalbear said: The best ones I can think of are mandatory waiting periods, but those are likely not going to pass scrutiny under SCOTUS; the only reason they do exist is that people haven't put a case up yet. 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. 39 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Gun control not helping shooting deaths in general, especially when you crack down on it in a state basis. When Illinois has strict gun control but Indiana doesn't, you're gonna have a bad time. I guess another option is to build border walls around Illinois? The fuck you talking about here? There is state-by-state data that shows certain regulations reduce violence, regardless of their neighbors. 40 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Again, Sandy Hook didn't change things. The most popular POTUS in a generation crying on camera about the deaths of children didn't change things. As scary as Las Vegas was, almost nothing has been done (Massachusetts banned bump-fire stocks, and that's it). Again, so you give up? It was certainly easy to after Sandy Hook. Seems intractable, right? Maybe don't stop... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 13 minutes ago, dmc515 said: .Again, so you give up? It was certainly easy to after Sandy Hook. Seems intractable, right? Maybe don't stop... 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.