LarryG on 22/3/2018 at 00:33
Quote Posted by Renzatic
There are a ton of feminists out there. Only a very select few among these many run around screaming that referring to children by a gendered pronoun is a form of abuse, and all men should be castrated because masculinity is toxic by default. They hardly represent mainstream feminist thought. Don't treat them as if they do.
For example I am a feminist. I've never had any objections to gendered pronouns, except when used ungrammatically. And I certainly don't think that all men should be castrated. Being a man, I think that just might hurt a little, not to mention the negative effect it would have on the continued existence of the human race. My point: feminism is a philosophic and moral stance, not related to a proponent's gender. But all this is a distraction and has no relevance to the gun debate which is the subject of this thread. It seems that this was added to the argument because whoever could not think of any real reasoning to support their views, and so decided to attack another position they hate instead. Don't let ranting idiocy distract from what can be a valuable discussion of an important topic. Why can't we come to some compromise position which satisfies the 90% of folk who are willing to give a little to save lives?
jkcerda on 22/3/2018 at 00:49
Quote Posted by LarryG
For example I am a feminist. I've never had any objections to gendered pronouns, except when used ungrammatically. And I certainly don't think that all men should be castrated. Being a man, I think that just might hurt a little, not to mention the negative effect it would have on the continued existence of the human race. My point: feminism is a philosophic and moral stance, not related to a proponent's gender. But all this is a distraction and has no relevance to the gun debate which is the subject of this thread. It seems that this was added to the argument because whoever could not think of any real reasoning to support their views, and so decided to attack another position they hate instead. Don't let ranting idiocy distract from what can be a valuable discussion of an important topic. Why can't we come to some compromise position which satisfies the 90% of folk who are willing to give a little to save lives?
You are in CA. Where Dems have gone full retard. Do you know what's been given up already here?
Pyrian on 22/3/2018 at 01:11
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Quote Posted by Starker
Well, but you've got to admit, the kid didn't do anything bad ever again after being disciplined.
That's one thing you can say about capital punishment. It sticks.
Just because someone's dead, doesn't mean they don't have a family member ready and willing to continue the cycle of violence. I wonder if one of the teacher's family members went after the father or his family? High violence areas are notorious for having these sorts of things spiraling out of control, every single participant believing they're furthering justice.
No, y'know what strikes me as utterly insane about this story? That murdering teacher was TEACHING CLASS the next day? What. The. Eff.
dj_ivocha on 22/3/2018 at 01:15
To continue in the same vein:
Let's review:
What DIDN'T stop today's school shooting in Germany:
- Germany's... wait, there was no school shooting in Germany!
Gun control works, people! As long as the bubble you live in is the rest of the world.
The End?
Starker puts it way better than me, anyway, in most or even all of his posts.
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Thinking that things were better in the past is the worst fallacy anyone can engage in. Things are considerably better now than they ever have been (well, barring some recent circumstances).
But thinking that nothing was better in the past is equally wrong, isn't it? Generally things are better now than before, but there are often things, which were better before and are worse now, for some people and regions and countries more so than for others. Not talking about guns and school shootings and USA, but in general.
Pyrian on 22/3/2018 at 01:27
"Equally" wrong? I don't really think so. But more to the point, does anybody hold that view? President Trump ran on "Make America Great Again" directly insinuating that it used to be great and no longer is. Did anybody run on "Make America Great for the First Time", or a semantic equivalent? Generally speaking, progressives are constantly complaining about soaring income inequality.
jkcerda on 22/3/2018 at 01:49
Quote Posted by dj_ivocha
To continue in the same vein:
Let's review:
What DIDN'T stop today's school shooting in Germany:
- Germany's... wait, there was no school shooting in Germany!
Gun control works, people! As long as the bubble you live in is the rest of the world.
The End?
Starker puts it way better than me, anyway, in most or even all of his posts.
But thinking that nothing was better in the past is equally wrong, isn't it? Generally things are better now than before, but there are often things, which were better before and are worse now, for some people and regions and countries more so than for others. Not talking about guns and school shootings and USA, but in general.
We are not in Germany. How did being my unarmed work out for the Jews there?
Renzatic on 22/3/2018 at 02:22
Quote Posted by dj_ivocha
But thinking that nothing was better in the past is equally wrong, isn't it? Generally things are better now than before, but there are often things, which were better before and are worse now, for some people and regions and countries more so than for others. Not talking about guns and school shootings and USA, but in general.
It's a mix and match. Some things were better, some things were worse, some things are about the same. It all depends on when you're talking about, where, and why.
I guess you could say that as much as it's a fallacy to say things were better back in the day, it's equally so assuming they're worse.
Like from a crime standpoint, we're far, far better off now than we were in the 80's, and especially the 90's. But our hyperactive media, and our tendency towards committing handfuls of big, headline leading crimes over a series of smaller ones makes things seem worse than they actually are.
Same with social issues. Despite the protestations of a small but still sizable minority, we're a more inclusive, happy-go-lucky bunch now than we've ever been.
But from an economic standpoint, while our economy as a whole is still charging on full steam ahead, our middle class isn't nearly so well off as it was in the 50's and 60's.
So yeah, mixed bag.
Quote Posted by jkcerda
We are not in Germany. How did being my unarmed work out for the Jews there?
Uh uh, oh no you din't.
catbarf on 22/3/2018 at 02:22
Quote Posted by Starker
Cakes aren't contributing to tens of thousands of deaths every year. Also, there are now more guns in America than ever before, so there's seems to be plenty of cake left.
Imagine if the analogy would be about owning a tiger instead. If a lot of people had tigers and a large amount of people would get mauled regularly, you'd be sure to see some regulation fast.
A lot of people own alcohol, and a lot of Americans die from it regularly- ~90,000 per year, blowing guns out of the water as far as death toll is concerned, to say nothing of the lives and families destroyed by substance abuse. It's not terribly regulated either. But if you try to tell someone that their enjoyment of a beer on the weekend makes them complicit in children being killed by drunk drivers, that their hobby doesn't outweigh lives, I think the majority of the public would consider you to be some kind of moralistic loon.
I'm not trying to say 'well if guns are banned you should ban alcohol!!!'; but it highlights the difference in how people react depending on whether or not they're personally invested in the item under discussion. If you're in the group that drinks or owns guns or raises tigers or whatever you'll probably blame misuse on the individuals rather than the object they misused, and if you're not in the group (and not personally affected or invested) then you'll probably blame the object itself. There's a massive perspective disconnect between people who have grown up with guns and people who haven't.
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Well, the compromise in this instance will be that the pro-gun contingent will be allowed to keep their semi-auto AR15's.
That's not compromise so much as acquiescence. The gun community is, at this point, pretty firmly dug into 'not one step back' because they have no reason to believe that gun control advocates will ever be happy with any level of 'compromise' short of an outright ban. They're able to successfully recruit casual gun owners (eg hunters) to their cause by pointing to the historically incremental trend of gun control and saying
you'll be next. Put yourself in their shoes: Okay, so gun owners will be allowed to keep their semi-auto AR-15s for now. But if they think you're going to just come back in a few years to try to ban them anyways, well, why would they give you a stepping-stone now?
Actual compromise means give and take on both sides, and that's the only way to get past this tug-of-war. There are plenty of bones you could throw to the gun community to get them to swallow increased regulation without undue public risk, plenty of useless regulations that could be exchanged for direct, meaningful changes like universal background checks, licensing, or restriction of handguns. But gun owners aren't going to budge as long as 'compromise' really means 'play nice and we'll only encroach a little, this is it, pinky swear'. They've already seen how well that's gone for them (see: cake comic).
LarryG on 22/3/2018 at 02:50
Somehow killing yourself through alcohol poisoning seems like something that a libertarian would argue is a personal right, but killing someone else through whatever means is stepping your personal rights all over someone else's, something that every libertarian should abhor. So why aren't libertarians in favor of reasonable gun control? It seems like a natural for them given their professed beliefs.
Renzatic on 22/3/2018 at 02:53
Quote Posted by catbarf
Actual compromise means give and take on both sides, and that's the only way to get past this tug-of-war. There are plenty of bones you could throw to the gun community to get them to swallow increased regulation without undue public risk, plenty of useless regulations that could be exchanged for direct, meaningful changes like universal background checks, licensing, or restriction of handguns. But gun owners aren't going to budge as long as 'compromise' really means 'play nice and we'll only encroach a little, this is it, pinky swear'. They've already seen how well that's gone for them (see: cake comic).
Which is exactly why the first thing I recommend anyone do is scrap every single idiotic gun law we currently have on the books across the nation, and start from scratch.
JK's stupid meme about the AR with the scope actually has a point behind the stupidity. What's the point of banning a version of what's effectively the exact same weapon as the street legal gun due to a few cosmetic differences? That law isn't protecting anyone, preventing anything. All it does is irk the suburban commando tacticool crowd, who'll just turn around and vote for less gun regulations out of spite.
