Gun Control: The Tree Of Liberty Must Be Refreshed From Time To Time With The Blood Of Children And Innocents

[Esmenet]

9 minutes ago, Week said:

Do you understand that strict gun laws in one state are undermined by weak guns laws in another state? How many times has that been explained to you? You still blame inner city Chicago for it's violence while 60% of the guns are from out of state and 20%+ are specifically from Indiana. -- This is also seen at the border of the US and Mexico were a State with lax gun laws (the US) allows a flow of guns (including automatic weapons) which are more difficult to procure in Mexico. Note, Mexican drug cartels would rather 'legally' purchase firearms in the US with straw buyers than buy weapons illegally in Mexico. 

Consistency of background checks and more restrictive gun laws across states will absolutely cause a reduction in gun violence -- assault, suicide, etc.

I understand it completely. If a federal ban was put on guns, it would still not stop criminals from getting them. Not with the amount of guns in our population. State lines wouldnt mean shit. They would still get them. They wouldnt have to be imported, they're here. Its just a fact you guys are unwilling to admit to.

[Week]

15 minutes ago, Esmenet said:

I understand it completely. If a federal ban was put on guns, it would still not stop criminals from getting them. Not with the amount of guns in our population. State lines wouldnt mean shit. They would still get them. They wouldnt have to be imported, they're here. Its just a fact you guys are unwilling to admit to.

Illegal purchases would be -- illegal. Somehow, you are making the argument that guns would be just as accessible via illicit purposes as they currently are. That argument lacks believability because - duh.

You are also not responding to the fact that gun crimes (and suicides, etc.) are often committed by individuals with no prior record. 

[Suttree]

31 minutes ago, Esmenet said:

Which is?

You seem to be suggesting that gun laws don't reduce gun violence when the research is very clear that they do.

Quote

“The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths.”

 

[Week]

21 minutes ago, Esmenet said:

They wouldnt have to be imported, they're here. Its just a fact you guys are unwilling to admit to.

The fact that you mention imported also suggested that you were not getting the point -- Mexico's criminals are importing guns which are illegal in Mexico. We are essentially EXPORTING guns that are illegal in other countries because of our shitty laws.

[Kalbear]

43 minutes ago, Esmenet said:

I understand it completely. If a federal ban was put on guns, it would still not stop criminals from getting them. Not with the amount of guns in our population. State lines wouldnt mean shit. They would still get them. They wouldnt have to be imported, they're here. Its just a fact you guys are unwilling to admit to.

It wouldn't stop it, no. 

It would reduce it. 

This is another dishonest tactic - that if something does not stop a problem then it is worthless. Again, this is like saying because seat belts do not prevent 100% of casualties, they should not be used at all. 

And as stated before, the vast majority of gun-related deaths and injuries are not caused by prior criminals. Reducing that would be a massive boon overall, regardless of other issues. 

[Guy Kilmore]

1 hour ago, Esmenet said:

I understand it completely. If a federal ban was put on guns, it would still not stop criminals from getting them. Not with the amount of guns in our population. State lines wouldnt mean shit. They would still get them. They wouldnt have to be imported, they're here. Its just a fact you guys are unwilling to admit to.

It is because you will ignore all of the following that you are failing your children. 

1 hour ago, Week said:

Illegal purchases would be -- illegal. Somehow, you are making the argument that guns would be just as accessible via illicit purposes as they currently are. That argument lacks believability because - duh.

You are also not responding to the fact that gun crimes (and suicides, etc.) are often committed by individuals with no prior record. 

 

1 hour ago, Suttree said:

You seem to be suggesting that gun laws don't reduce gun violence when the research is very clear that they do.

 

 

1 hour ago, Week said:

The fact that you mention imported also suggested that you were not getting the point -- Mexico's criminals are importing guns which are illegal in Mexico. We are essentially EXPORTING guns that are illegal in other countries because of our shitty laws.

 

49 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It wouldn't stop it, no. 

It would reduce it. 

This is another dishonest tactic - that if something does not stop a problem then it is worthless. Again, this is like saying because seat belts do not prevent 100% of casualties, they should not be used at all. 

And as stated before, the vast majority of gun-related deaths and injuries are not caused by prior criminals. Reducing that would be a massive boon overall, regardless of other issues. 

 

[Jace, Extat]

50 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

It is because you will ignore all of the following that you are failing your children. 

 

 

 

 

Just throwin' this out there, broskie (and remember I'm on your side here).

The whole 'you're failing your children' thing isn't as compelling as you think. Take Jace for example. Jace hates children, and the suggestion that she's failing them actually brings a smile to her face.

I'd like to curb gun violence because it's fucking horrible and people don't deserve to live in fear of going outside. The fact that it's children as opposed to adults is entirely irrelevant to the fact that murder machines shouldn't be easier to acquire than a fucking library card.

[Guy Kilmore]

26 minutes ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

Just throwin' this out there, broskie (and remember I'm on your side here).

The whole 'you're failing your children' thing isn't as compelling as you think. Take Jace for example. Jace hates children, and the suggestion that she's failing them actually brings a smile to her face.

I'd like to curb gun violence because it's fucking horrible and people don't deserve to live in fear of going outside. The fact that it's children as opposed to adults is entirely irrelevant to the fact that murder machines shouldn't be easier to acquire than a fucking library card.

You are correct. 

However, I'm not making an argument, I'm advocating and making an appeal. I spend my day representing and working for those who are unable to make that appeal. Most adults, can, most children through biological development, legal and societal constructs cannot. 

Today I got tired of having to watch children grapple with something they shouldn't.  So some of this is me expressing my personal feelings on it. 

Also you see, I'm not trying to appeal to you, your thoughts on children do not matter to me in the slightest, because the outcome you desire will benefit those that I care about. If I wanted to appeal to you I would make some disparaging crack about Tom Brady, witiscm about Military History, while acknowledging your sovereignty.

[Esmenet]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

It wouldn't stop it, no. 

It would reduce it. 

This is another dishonest tactic - that if something does not stop a problem then it is worthless. Again, this is like saying because seat belts do not prevent 100% of casualties, they should not be used at all. 

And as stated before, the vast majority of gun-related deaths and injuries are not caused by prior criminals. Reducing that would be a massive boon overall, regardless of other issues. 

I'm not saying its worthless. Your'e accusing me of strawmen. You guys are picking and choosing what you want to read in my posts. For the 50th time, I'm for regulations. Sure, it would reduce it. It wouldn't stop it. Has it stopped in Chicago, St. Louis, D.C., Detroit and New Orleans? No, it hasn't. And, I linked statistics that gun-related murders have went up in the last year. Do you ignore those statistics, because it doesn't fit your narrative?

ETA: I'm just done with this. First, you guys are accusing me of trolling, strawmen, etc, etc.. Its a totally disingenuous conversation.

[Week]

14 minutes ago, Esmenet said:

I'm not saying its worthless. Your'e accusing me of strawmen. You guys are picking and choosing what you want to read in my posts. For the 50th time, I'm for regulations. Sure, it would reduce it. It wouldn't stop it. Has it stopped in Chicago, St. Louis, D.C., Detroit and New Orleans? No, it hasn't. And, I linked statistics that gun-related murders have went up in the last year. Do you ignore those statistics, because it doesn't fit your narrative?

The bolded statements are contradictory. You agree that restrictive gun laws are worthless -- until you point out statistics that you believe are relevant to the efficacy of these laws (read: arguing that they are ineffective i.e. worthless). For the nth time, you are wrong. Cities are unable to regulate the guns flowing in without broad gun control laws across the entire country.

Do you not understand geographic boundaries or statistics showing the flow of guns across those boundaries (and their relevance)? Do we need to break out crayons to explain this point again?

[pause]

So, let's start with gun control and then can move into other programs -- now you are getting into social and economic programs to combat urban poverty, policing, and other issues. You are no longer specifically addressing gun-crime and probably should go to another thread.

[Kalbear]

43 minutes ago, Esmenet said:

I'm not saying its worthless. Your'e accusing me of strawmen.

You stated that "If a federal ban was put on guns, it would still not stop criminals from getting them. Not with the amount of guns in our population. State lines wouldnt mean shit. They would still get them. They wouldnt have to be imported, they're here. Its just a fact you guys are unwilling to admit to." I pointed out that I never stated it would stop criminals and that isn't the goal of a ban. 

It would reduce gun violence. Significantly, from all accounts. 

43 minutes ago, Esmenet said:

You guys are picking and choosing what you want to read in my posts. For the 50th time, I'm for regulations. Sure, it would reduce it. It wouldn't stop it. Has it stopped in Chicago, St. Louis, D.C., Detroit and New Orleans? No, it hasn't.

But it largely has been reduced in those places compared with before - all save Chicago.

43 minutes ago, Esmenet said:

And, I linked statistics that gun-related murders have went up in the last year. Do you ignore those statistics, because it doesn't fit your narrative?

I don't ignore them. At the same time, gun restrictions went down last year overall as well; do you ignore that? In case you hadn't noticed, the federal system right now is reducing gun regulations, not making more of them. 

43 minutes ago, Esmenet said:

ETA: I'm just done with this. First, you guys are accusing me of trolling, strawmen, etc, etc.. Its a totally disingenuous conversation.

That might be the first thing you've said that's accurate, MSJ. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@Week

@Kalbear

@Guy Kilmore

Honestly, how much of a circular conversation can you stomach? This clearly isn't going anywhere nor is it going to produce a productive conversation. How many times does he have to reference Chicago only for you guys to point out the obvious that it's just a short 45 minute drive to Gary, Indiana, where firearm laws and regulations are quite weak? 

@Esmenet

Quit citing individual cities. It's a ridiculous argument that serves no purpose in a honest conversation. Laws in individual cities, and to a lesser extent states, won't be as productive or effective as comprehensive federal laws. 

[Yukle]

I have noticed that every single gun debate boils down to these two arguments:

A ) Guns kills people and having lots of guns kills lots of people.

versus

B ) But I really really want one.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Just now, Yukle said:

I have noticed that every single gun debate boils down to these two arguments:

A ) Guns kills people and having lots of guns kills lots of people.

versus

B ) But I really really want one.

Wrong! Having lots of guns makes you safer from the other people with lots of guns. Everyone knows the only way to make sure you're safe from guns is to have more guns than the other guys. 

At the end of the day, you either think having less guns makes your society safer or having more guns will make your society safer. One is rather obvious while the other makes you  at the stupidity of the argument. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

@Week

@Kalbear

@Guy Kilmore

Honestly, how much of a circular conversation can you stomach? This clearly isn't going anywhere nor is it going to produce a productive conversation. How many times does he have to reference Chicago only for you guys to point out the obvious that it's just a short 45 minute drive to Gary, Indiana, where firearm laws and regulations are quite weak? 

I have kids, so I'm well-versed in MSJ's form of circular discussion that attempts to back up the point he wanted to just say as an opinion. 

And really, it's an interesting question - how do you fight Chicago's gun violence and issues? It almost certainly is not restriction in guns, any more than the same tactics to reduce school shootings would reduce Chicago's gun violence (which oddly has almost no school shootings reported despite violence all over the place). 

If he wants to talk about how to fix Chicago, cool beans. But using Chicago as the anecdote to prove that gun violence can't be reduced by restricting guns is an obviously fallacious reasoning, just like fixing hunger isn't solved by me eating something. 

 

[DanteGabriel]

The repeated invocations of Chicago are what made it easy to peg their intentions. It told me that their talking points came from right wing media.

[Yukle]

gunz is really good bcoz the founding fathers sed we gets to have dem.

crooked shillary would of taken ur gunz and den all dem libral dems would take ur rights and ur freedom and without gunz there is no freedom.

usa is the only free cuntry in da world and the world wishes they had our freedom bcoz they are jelous that there guns are in libral rubbish piles and therefore there is violence everywhere as kids have no guns to shoot all of the terrists who have guns which they got illegaly

look at chicago which is full of blacks who shoot each other bcoz obama was a gay muslim libral who tried t otake there guns and with no guns there was more shoortings how do u explain that u american hating terrists?

evidence and facts means nothing bcoz facts are part of the msm agenda to disprove the truth that gunz are the only way to stop folks shooting each other

#maga

[Hereward]

@EsmenetLet's assume, for the sake of argument, that we don't care about inner city gun violence (God forbid in Trump's America). Let's assume, as a first step, that we only care about school shootings. Now, almost every one of the depressingly countless school shootings you have is committed by someone who owns, or is using, a legal weapon, legally acquired, right up until the moment they shoot the fuck out of a bunch of kids. Let us further assume that if guns were illegal, that these socially awkward loners would, instead of buying a gun at their local store, or borrowing one from their responsible gun owning relative, have to venture into the criminal underworld and negotiate with a scary as fuck criminal. Do you think that that might, in some small way, provide a barrier to shooting lots and lots of children?

[Yukle]

8 minutes ago, Hereward said:

@EsmenetLet's assume, for the sake of argument, that we don't care about inner city gun violence (God forbid in Trump's America). Let's assume, as a first step, that we only care about school shootings. Now, almost every one of the depressingly countless school shootings you have is committed by someone who owns, or is using, a legal weapon, legally acquired, right up until the moment they shoot the fuck out of a bunch of kids. Let us further assume that if guns were illegal, that these socially awkward loners would, instead of buying a gun at their local store, or borrowing one from their responsible gun owning relative, have to venture into the criminal underworld and negotiate with a scary as fuck criminal. Do you think that that might, in some small way, provide a barrier to shooting lots and lots of children?

$50 says you don't get a sensible reply.

Which tactic will be adopted?

1) Ignore.

2) Redirect onto a different argument.

3) Stupid argument that you didn't get the point and "I'm not going to even bother trying to explain it to you. I give up."

ETA: I think report writing has put me in a crabbier mood than normal.

But I really do tire of why gun-nuts put people's lives before their oh-so-precious guns. It's the thing that makes me most grateful not to be American.

[Darth Richard II]

11 minutes ago, Yukle said:

$50 says you don't get a sensible reply.

Which tactic will be adopted?

1) Ignore.

2) Redirect onto a different argument.

3) Stupid argument that you didn't get the point and "I'm not going to even bother trying to explain it to you. I give up."

ETA: I think report writing has put me in a crabbier mood than normal.

But I really do tire of why gun-nuts put people's lives before their oh-so-precious guns. It's the thing that makes me most grateful not to be American.

50 bucks on #3