Blood is on the NRA's hands

[LB3]

I have read this entire thread, and one side is clearly embarrassing themself/themselves.

[LA Grant]

Go back and read through your own thread, and make a list of all the questions you've been asked which you have either outright ignored, or carefully skirted around.

 

Those would be the ones.

 

Okay so... none, then? Your post should've been "I just wanted to interject and say I have nothing to say here but I love talking. Thank you."

[meazza]

I have read this entire thread, and one side is clearly embarrassing themself/themselves.

 

And that would be?=

[FireChan]

 

There's no answer I can give you that will satisfy you but that doesn't mean there aren't solutions worth considering. I'm not going to give you the ammunition you're looking for to dismiss this more than you already have. I do have specific opinions but you're not getting them, at least not in this context. What I think should happen is definitely too far left for you considering you cannot admit that gun access is a problem. There are more moderate solutions than what I specifically want that you might be able to sympathize with more. Does that make sense? Also, FireChan, you need to start bringing something more here than just looking for "gotcha" moments. At least DC Tom sometimes has things to say, you're more gnat-like in your approach. You would be a good example for why I called DC Tom a "thought leader" in my original post. You couldn't lead yourself to the kitchen.

 

...

 

Actually, in a more general way, I'm not saying this will be my last post in this thread but I am saying I will be wrapping up at some point soon here. We're going in circles and no one is really listening. I predicted in the first post all that would happen would be people trying to "catch" me in order to dismiss the point, and with a few exceptions, that is mostly what happened. Maybe there were lurkers who enjoyed it. Hopefully some people are more doubtful about the NRA's agenda and rhetoric, or at least agree that "more guns" and "less restrictions" are definitely NOT the answer. And if that didn't happen, well, at least you had fun shouting at a stranger on the Internet today.

Maybe I'll start wishing for mass-suicides to "bring something more" you piece of human garbage.

 

Again and again, I've asked you to at least try to have an open discourse. I've admitted that mass shootings are a problem. I've admitted that I want to have an intelligent conversation with you. All you've done all thread is avoiding conversations. I ask you to clarify or explain a point, you ignore it. I ask you for citations to back up your wild claims, you ignore it. I ask you, completely honestly, to provide a solution that we debate both the merits and faults of said solution, and you deflect it.

 

You are here to convert folks to tweet outrage with you. Luckily, your insane ramblings and inability to carry a coherent conversation without jumping to wild conclusions and/or blatantly ignoring every thoughtful argument has probably hurt your cause more than helped it. Mission accomplished. I wish you wouldn't wrap up. There's probably a few other posters that are reading your nonsense and saying "I'm on the same side of the aisle as this guy? I need to reevaluate some things."

 

Come back again soon.

Edited December 3, 2015 by FireChan

[B-Man]

Go back and read through your own thread, and make a list of all the questions you've been asked which you have either outright ignored, or carefully skirted around.

 

Those would be the ones.

 

 

[FireChan]

I have read this entire thread, and one side is clearly embarrassing themself/themselves.

I pity anybody who has had the misfortune to read this abortion of a thread.

[LA Grant]

Maybe I'll start wishing for mass-suicides to "bring something more" you piece of human garbage.

 

Again and again, I've asked you to at least try to have an open discourse. I've admitted that mass shootings are a problem. I've admitted that I want to have an intelligent conversation with you. All you've done all thread is avoiding conversations. I ask you to clarify or explain a point, you ignore it. I ask you for citations to back up your wild claims, you ignore it. I ask you, completely honestly, to provide a solution that we debate both the merits and faults of said solution, and you deflect it.

 

You are here to convert folks to tweet outrage with you. Luckily, your insane ramblings and inability to carry a coherent conversation without jumping to wild conclusions and/or blatantly ignoring every thoughtful argument has probably hurt your cause more than helped it. Mission accomplished. I wish you wouldn't wrap up. There's probably a few other posters that are reading your nonsense and saying "I'm on the same side of the aisle as this guy? I need to reevaluate some things."

 

Come back again soon.

 

Eh, no, buddy. I just went back and double-checked. You just posted garbage and attacks the whole time. You didn't do any of those things. All I've seen from you is your attempts to try and get in some big "gotcha" and I'm not interested in giving it to you. The closest you've come to looking to actually talk is the bolded above. So, okay. A question for you, let's see how you handle it. Let's see this thoughtful side that you keep promising. Should the NRA have less power, more power, or the same amount of influence as they currently have? Why or why not?

[keepthefaith]

 

The plan is to agree that guns are a problem and that there are solutions. If it sounds easy, well, yeah, it should be easy. But unfortunately we live in a society where disagreement means gridlock means nothing changes. Look how hard so many of you are fighting against stronger gun restrictions, despite how common-sense it is.

You started this thread and have had 10 pages to post whatever changes you think should be made and so far I see nothing. Are you a politician? You sound like one ranting about a problem and demonizing those that don't agree with you and never proposing anything for others to consider. So far your position is that you're right on the issue, others are wrong but you can't/won't say what will make a difference.

Edited December 3, 2015 by keepthefaith

[FireChan]

No person is this dumb.

 

 

Because he wouldn't be a total hypocrite without calling PPP an echo chamber, and then only echoing his own statements without fielding any challenges.

 

 

Gun violence sucks, no one disagrees. What solutions are there?

 

 

How do we "improve" gun control, LA? As an aside, what is your position on marijuana legalization?

 

 

If you don't offer solutions and how you'd implement them in US, why bother? You keep repeating yourself over and over. Just because there are like-minded individuals who believe gun violence sucks, doesn't mean they have any realistic way to curb it.

 

If you have a solution, present it. Let's talk about it. Let's discuss its merits, and its flaws. You aren't engaging in intelligent discourse, you're proselytizing. You don't want to formulate an argument or change someone's mind with a rational, logical argument, rather convert folks to scream at the top of their lungs that something must be done, even if no one knows what that something is. You want mindless drones who have no thoughts other than non-productive outrage. You are a contributor to some of the biggest problems in the West today.

 

 

When has making something "next to impossible" to acquire ever been successful in the US?

 

 

 

I do think this is a valid point. But it's still harder to get cocaine and heroin than it is a gun. Still, yeah I have always thought it is funny how the liberal/conservative agendas differ on what should and should not be banned. It's just kinda comical. I saw a version of this joke going around:

 

Conservatives be like:

Abortion? BAN IT

Drugs? BAN IT

Gay marriage? BAN IT

Guns? Well, guys, listen, banning things never works.

 

 

Why didn't you put the opposite side on there?

 

Also, citation needed.

 

 

How?

 

 

 

Eh, no, buddy. I just went back and double-checked. You just posted garbage and attacks the whole time. You didn't do any of those things. All I've seen from you is your attempts to try and get in some big "gotcha" and I'm not interested in giving it to you. The closest you've come to looking to actually talk is the bolded above. So, okay. A question for you, let's see how you handle it. Let's see this thoughtful side that you keep promising. Should the NRA have less power, more power, or the same amount of influence as they currently have? Why or why not?

I'm just going to pretend that you didn't say this, for your sake.

 

I am torn on this topic. Somethings the NRA does, I hate. I hate how they twist every conversation about gun violence into "mental health," exclusively. It's detrimental and causes road blocks towards any real progress. I am also skeptical about any interest group that wields massive influence in political matters, as I believe that corruption is the norm in most of our government. However, the NRA is also the last bastion of defense for protecting the Second Amendment. Without their influence, I fear there would already be bans in place for many, if not all, firearms, and that is something I cannot abide. This country was founded with the ideals put in writing in the Second Amendment, and I believe that those ideals are timeless. I believe that protection is a responsibility of every citizen, whether from internal or external threats. I believe that a government only serves the interests of its citizens because it fears its citizens, and disarming the population eliminates that fear. So, I'll say, the same. It's not ideal, but I don't see an easy-fix.

 

Give me another.

Edited December 3, 2015 by FireChan

[Ozymandius]

[Deranged Rhino]

"If NYC were all white" ...? That's not at all unsettling or ignorant.

[blzrul]

 

Punishing someone who is the owner of record of a gun used in a crime is not a bad idea however there are challenges to that which I'll get to. When our house was broken in to my wife and I decided to take some measures. One get a safe for her jewelry seeing that's pretty much what they stole. They turned over our mattress and rifled through our clothing drawers. I asked the police why and they said they were looking for guns because that's where some people (irresponsible people) keep their firearms. We also bought a gun and now own two. When we are not in our house our guns are locked in the safe. But lets say someone breaks in our house while we're asleep. Happens more than I'm afraid to admit in Oakland. The guns are out because we don't want to have to get to the safe and mess with the combination while someone is breaking in. So in this scenario they overpower us and somehow make away with our guns. They now have a gun that is registered to us. If he uses it in a crime we are now liable for some sort of punishment? What do you recommend is our punishment?

When you are not at home, secure the guns. When you are at home, take it out. That's what we did. Big old gun safe that no-one was going to carry out, or would need explosives to crack. At night, when things got scary, the gun was liberated from the safe. Just something else to add to the bedtime routine. Small price to pay.

 

Better idea is if guns were all fitted with thumbprint recognition locks. No matchee, not shootee. That would work for new ones, although if a retrofit WERE possible I would support a government program to pay for it.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

I'm just going to pretend that you didn't say this, for your sake.

 

 

 

 

Pretty generous of you................when he obviously lied.

 

 

Meanwhile:

 

NOW THIS IS GUN CONTROL: Watch This Tank Carry a Beer Without Spilling a Drop.

 

 

 

 

.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Okay so... none, then? Your post should've been "I just wanted to interject and say I have nothing to say here but I love talking. Thank you."

Again, this is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty. You've been asked many questions that were inconvenient to your argument, so you simply dismissed them with a bit of magical handwavium and a sprinkle of ad hom.

 

GG asked you: "Did the NRA supply the pipe bombs?"

 

Your response was that "it's irrelevant", when clearly it is very relevant.

 

Rob's House asked you: "Do you have a solution?"

 

Your response was "The solution is to consider gun control as positive and necessary." That isn't a solution, it's a platitude. Solutions are an actionable list of steps.

 

GG asked you: "Is that why the mass killings you're so concerned about tend to occur in states with extremely severe gun control laws?"

 

You didn't bother to respond.

 

GG asked you: "Does France have tighter gun control laws than the US?"

 

You didn't bother to respond.

 

FireChan asked you: "Then why is that [semantical] the only argument you'll address?"

 

You responded that you already addressed all arguments in your original post. You didn't. There were no answers to arguments because you didn't engage anyone; but rather you hopped up onto a soap box, and issued a string of fiat declarations which you demanded everyone accept as a fact. That's not how honest discussion works, you are not a preacher, and we are not your congregation. Further, you don't get to decide what the "facts" are, especially when your salvo includes flawed data.

 

GG asked you: "I don't recall him saying that the number of shootings is not a problem. I recall him saying that the numbers are fairly static and need to be looked at in the proper context and not sensationalized.

 

If there's a truly troubling pattern on the data that you linked, it's the huge number of "Unkown" alleged shooters. Why not focus attention on that?"

 

You didn't bother to respond.

 

FireChan and Chef Jim Asked you: "How do we "improve" gun control, LA? As an aside, what is your position on marijuana legalization?" and "What is gun control to you?"

 

Your response was in essence, that you weren't going to answer those questions because you thought they would disagree with your answers, and attempted to buttress that with an Appeal to Popularity fallacy.

 

Answer those questions, and then the follow up questions to those questions, and then you'll be having a discussion. You may even learn something along the way. Something tells me that you won't answer though, and that I'm due for another one of your ad hom attacks, and a bit more handwavium.

Edited December 3, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Pretty generous of you................when he obviously lied.

 

 

Meanwhile:

 

NOW THIS IS GUN CONTROL: Watch This Tank Carry a Beer Without Spilling a Drop.

 

 

 

 

.

 

Say what you will about the Germans, but when it comes to engineering they're pretty darn impressive.

[meazza]

 

Say what you will about the Germans, but when it comes to engineering they're pretty darn impressive.

 

Until you get your maintenance bill at Audi after 30,000 miles.

[LA Grant]

I'm just going to pretend that you didn't say this, for your sake.

 

I am torn on this topic. Somethings the NRA does, I hate. I hate how they twist every conversation about gun violence into "mental health," exclusively. It's detrimental and causes road blocks towards any real progress. I am also skeptical about any interest group that wields massive influence in political matters, as I believe that corruption is the norm in most of our government. However, the NRA is also the last bastion of defense for protecting the Second Amendment. Without their influence, I fear there would already be bans in place for many, if not all, firearms, and that is something I cannot abide. This country was founded with the ideals put in writing in the Second Amendment, and I believe that those ideals are timeless. I believe that protection is a responsibility of every citizen, whether from internal or external threats. I believe that a government only serves the interests of its citizens because it fears its citizens, and disarming the population eliminates that fear. So, I'll say, the same. It's not ideal, but I don't see an easy-fix.

 

Give me another.

 

That is a fairly solid and well-reasoned answer and we have some agreement. I think it is insane to not be skeptical of the NRA — obviously I feel much stronger in that skepticism. They encourage a very dangerous attitude and set of behaviors. They encourage people to be fearful and to stock up on weapons to increase their standing.

 

I'm glad you bring up the Second Amendment because I think whenever gun control is talked about, this is obviously what we're really talking about, isn't it. Here's a key disagreement — you call it timeless and gun-control advocates like myself think it is entirely outdated. Obviously the Founding Fathers were not talking about modern guns when they wrote it, so how could it be timeless? They were talking about state militias, not individuals owning handguns or automatic weapons. Incidentally, it was the NRA who perverted its original meaning for their own gain.

 

Here's some more info on that.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/02/oregon-college-shooting-guns-kill-people-in-us-pervert-second-amendment

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/266272/how-to-argue-gun-control/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172146191

 

I also disagree that the government only fears citizens because they are armed. I think the real problem is money in government. You show some agreement there too, corruption is a big problem. For us, corruption comes in the way of lobbyists. The NRA, as you say, hold a lot influence because they have, well, a lot of money. That directly impedes our representatives working toward solutions. Someone earlier in this thread posted a really cut and dry example, too, of research requested by doctors and scientists being denied by those same influences. So obviously the NRA and their influence are a huge, huge part of the problem.

 

I agree that citizens are responsible for protection. I think identifying the NRA as a negative influence on our government is a responsible move that citizens could make in the interest of our own protection.

 

(To the point that anyone is being "ignored" by me, there have been 4+ replies to this thread since I began typing this!)

[keepthefaith]

 

Until you get your maintenance bill at Audi after 30,000 miles.

It's still under warranty at 30K and even 60K, maintenance included!

[meazza]

It's still under warranty at 30K and even 60K, maintenance included!

 

I'm talking about scheduled maintenance based on mileage not repairs. I paid $560 my last visit!

 

Bastards!

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Until you get your maintenance bill at Audi after 30,000 miles.

 

Touche! And that sucks... 560 is highway robbery.