Mass Shootings, American Pride, Gun Laws...

[Gentoo]

10 minutes ago, jazzy said:

This is exactly my point from earlier, this whole "govt vs the people" doesn't end up like this. Americans have owned guns for 200+ years and it hasn't stopped anyone in government from fucking over people at certain times. Additionally, you fail to acknowledge the obvious fact. I am able to own a gun right now, and I'm being "fucked by the government." How would me having a gun help the situation? Should I hold up a pharmacy every 8 weeks for my next dose? I guess I'd probably get shot by one of those good guys with a gun tho.

That's up to you. If an issue is so crippling to you that it drives you to that, I'm not gonna stand in your way lol.

 

Once again, if it has or hasn't happened is irrelevant, it's a right that people should have whether they are going to exercise it or not. Personally I think people are too pacified by readily available entertainment and drugs to hold any meaningful protest or revolution in the first world, even if the government did something horrific like bombed civilians. It doesn't help that any time someone is driven mad by the structure of society and does something about it everyone just goes "should've taken his meds".

 

Personally, I'm not invested in your plight, I will probably vote against them, and there's nothing you can do about it. I don't see healthcare or access to medication as an inalienable right, but if I were in your shoes, assuming I'd done everything I could civilly, I'd get a large group of people and go talk to the decision makers about violating your rights. You know their names, you know where they meet 

 

25 minutes ago, jazzy said:

I literally said stop jailing people at the drop of the hat, for example. Who's got a one track mind?

I concede I skimmed a bit too hastily. There you go, that's a start to some solutions that could help straighten things out, good on you.

[jazzy]

2 hours ago, Gentoo said:

Personally, I'm not invested in your plight, I will probably vote against them, and there's nothing you can do about it. I don't see healthcare or access to medication as an inalienable right

So if the government is fucking me over and you have voting rights, should I use my 2A rights to take over the government and violate the rights you used to vote? You just said you won't vote with me, even though you think the government is fucking me over. So when are we supposed to exercise our 2A against the government?

[Gentoo]

4 minutes ago, jazzy said:

So if the government is fucking me over and you have voting rights, should I use my 2A rights to take over the government and violate the rights you used to vote? You just said you won't vote with me, even though you think the government is fucking me over. So when are we supposed to exercise our 2A against the government?

Like I said, that's up to you man. Weird comparison to make here, do you not think some rights might be more important than my right to vote? If we all vote that you can't have kids, is that cool with you?

 

The democratic system, corrupt or uncorrupted, is not free from the possibility of tyranny or infringing on freedoms.

 

I don't think I said anything about taking over the government, but if that's what you think is appropriate and you can actually manage it

[delirium]

Quote

I wonder what the pound for pound is on "mental heath" when as a kid the number #1 killer of yourself and your friends is being shot. When I went to school all I was worried about was my acne and people making fun of it. Now we got motherfuckers with legally purchased "assault rifles" walking in and shooting everyone in a locked room for an hour. I'm sure that's healthy for kids' mental well being.

 

Color me skeptical on this whole mental health discussion cuz I'm stuck in the healthcare world here and have to pay like $10k/yr in insurance shit and w/o insurance my drugs cost $13k/mo. Sir will you sign my petition on M4A? How about Medicaid/Medicare expansion in my state? My state still hasn't expanded Medicare/Medicaid, is it any surprise my state is red, and my governor spoke at the NRA convention?

But more seriously, sure, I think you and a couple other people are trying to hype up mental health awareness and that's great but we're slowly rotating the dial back to this whole "America isn't the only country with bad mental health."
I think someone mentioned it in another thread about how "it's a parenting problem." Which I totally agree with, but does anyone think the government can regulate parenting? More importantly, perhaps we could stop locking up people all the time and they might have some parents 

We might have a lot mentally healthier population if we quit locking up every fucking person who breaks even the smallest crimes, and even additionally, stopped locking them up in a place so fucked up that every single American believes male prison is filled with sexual assault crimes. Seriously, the scariest thing about prison should be being locked in a prison for X years to serve a sentence, prevented from the leisure of freedom, not whether or not you might get raped.

 

If someone is at the point of killing themselves or others can you really say that that person is in a normal state of mind? How is that not a mental health issue? 

 

A bulk of the second paragraph assumes I'm a republican based off of my responses to a gun control thread. I have no issue with free healthcare and there are plenty of models working currently in other areas of the world. I think the issue there is just how large the pharmaceutical industry has gotten in the US. A lot of the worlds R&D comes through the revenue generated here in a privatized market where money just isn't an issue. I'm aware mental health is an issue in other countries as well. If you're single and only carrying yourself on your insurance then you're getting fleeced. 

 

Parenting in the age of technology can be summed up as emotional neglect in most households as babysitters like gaming consoles and the internet has largely raised most of gen z. Not sure how to solve this issue without getting into completely radical or authoritarian territory. Maybe more funding to social workers or something I don't know.

 

Incarceration in the US is modern day slavery. That's another discussion in itself though.

 

 

Quote

Which I really think you wanted to say was "Does anyone here who's not pro 2A, actually know about guns?" but instead you used this weird roundabout way to try and be like "Aha, you don't own a gun, therefore you aren't an expert on the subject!" which is a pretty silly, given the last time we talked about this I think I adequately depicted a gun owner, who really didn't know how to use a gun.

So to answer, what I think your question should've been, is: Yes I know how to use a gun and have a small amount of hours firing them at a range and out in the country, using guns I do not own, nor have ever owned.
 

And just to narrow in on what I said earlier, can you actually tell me what made you believe I'm 'uneducated' on guns? You didn't actually debate the point, you just tried to gatekeep me out of it. Like seriously- "You're uneducated and I will find it hard to be persuaded by someone who I don't believe is educated". So what were the arguments you weren't persuaded by exactly? Was it the part where I said certain guns are better at killing people than other guns... Do you not agree with that?

 

 

I wasn't trying to attack you specifically, I was responding to the hyperbolic statement you laid out. I still stand by my statement though. I'd rather have people who are well versed in the subject they're making decisions on than people who have no idea what they're talking about. Assumed you have a warped view on guns based on the way you're posting. Guns are inanimate objects. The issue is societal which is nothing that any one individual can control; It takes a community to raise a well balanced group of individuals that will adhere to the social contract.

 

Quote

What's the basis for such an argument?

 

If your end goal is to eradicate gun violence how does making guns heavier achieve that? Mag size limits? Okay maybe less people dead or you just carry more magazines with you? Lets not forget all of the now banned attachments that are already in homes around the nation are now a hot commodity and budding black markets break out and now people still have access.

 

it's either all or nothing in my opinion. in the improbable event that I would ever have to take up arms I would like to have the most efficient tools for the job. Gun control activist will not stop until its all banned so why concede ground freely?

 

 

 

 

Quote

I think BoM posted graphs, or were we thinking these are appeal to emotion too (I noticed you never engaged him on any of this data):

 

Seems pretty asinine to nitpick a post that was made well before the graphs referenced. Would like a little more context with the data presented but have generally tried to stay out of these threads as people get upset when I post in politics.

 

 

[jazzy]

6 hours ago, Gentoo said:

If we all vote that you can't have kids, is that cool with you?

You're failing again, because once again we're back to the same point I made- if everyone democratically voted for me to not be able to have kids, how would me having a gun resolve this issue? Would I take up arms and kill everyone who voted Yes on preventing jazzy from having kids? Do you think this actually would result in me being able to have a kid?

 

This is the root issue with your entire philosophy- you can never actually leverage your weaponry against the state. Because ultimately if your goal is to retake your rights, your rights are going to be taken anyway when the state inevitably kills you for trying to retake them. You're not actually in control by owning a gun, you've just given yourself some illusion of choice in the matter.

 

Now on the other hand, Delirium is at least right on one thing- guns are a great way to defend yourself in your home... from criminals. If you're trying to use your gun to protect yourself from the state enjoy being dead.

 

6 hours ago, Gentoo said:

The democratic system, corrupt or uncorrupted, is not free from the possibility of tyranny or infringing on freedoms.

And if you arm an entire population and still promote democracy and democratically the people out majority the other people, the minority having guns doesn't somehow magically make them right.

 

Serious question- why do you participate in society at all? Honestly this is such a side tangent and the foundation for your arguments aren't based on reality, they're based on hypotheticals your paranoid brain has concocted to rationalize why you think gun clutching is actually a way to live. Earlier in this thread you were legit using a logical fallacy (appeal to probability) as a basis for your argument, which you're once again doing.

 

What's next, multiverse arguments? Please ground yourself back into reality.

 

1 hour ago, delirium said:

If someone is at the point of killing themselves or others can you really say that that person is in a normal state of mind? How is that not a mental health issue? 

I never said they were? I never said it wasn't? In fact, one of my first replies:

On 6/3/2022 at 1:20 PM, jazzy said:

The root problem is mental health, but I think Republican's whole charade of "mental health" is kind of fictitious in nature because we're probably not going to prevent people from going literally insane in our lifetime, and wanting to kill kids. It's just a universal constant with humans at this point. Not saying we can't improve the lives of people substantially to prevent them from WANTING to do that, but yeah, you guys can guess where I'm going with this.

 

1 hour ago, delirium said:

I have no issue with free healthcare and there are plenty of models working currently in other areas of the world.

You know some other models working in other areas of the world? Gun control.

1 hour ago, delirium said:

I'm aware mental health is an issue in other countries as well.

So then you're aware that these countries also have lower rates of gun violence? Are you just avoiding this point or what?

1 hour ago, delirium said:

I wasn't trying to attack you specifically

You said afterwards:

On 6/3/2022 at 8:13 PM, delirium said:

Thank you for admitting that you're uneducated on the subject. While I understand people are still allowed to have opinions on subjects they have little to no understanding of; I think subject knowledge still plays a huge part in most debates or persuasive arguments in general.  

So what part defined your belief I was uneducated on the subject? I noticed you still did not answer this question

I'm going to highlight a few things I'm going to hold to you because you keep avoiding them:
 

1 hour ago, delirium said:

Which I really think you wanted to say was "Does anyone here who's not pro 2A, actually know about guns?" but instead you used this weird roundabout way to try and be like "Aha, you don't own a gun, therefore you aren't an expert on the subject!" which is a pretty silly, given the last time we talked about this I think I adequately depicted a gun owner, who really didn't know how to use a gun.

So to answer, what I think your question should've been, is: Yes I know how to use a gun and have a small amount of hours firing them at a range and out in the country, using guns I do not own, nor have ever owned.
 

And just to narrow in on what I said earlier, can you actually tell me what made you believe I'm 'uneducated' on guns? You didn't actually debate the point, you just tried to gatekeep me out of it. Like seriously- "You're uneducated and I will find it hard to be persuaded by someone who I don't believe is educated". So what were the arguments you weren't persuaded by exactly? Was it the part where I said certain guns are better at killing people than other guns... Do you not agree with that?

 

1 hour ago, delirium said:

If your end goal is to eradicate gun violence how does making guns heavier achieve that?

I should've said weighted rating system- basically a system to identify characteristics in guns that afford mass shooters more efficient opportunities over other guns.
 

 

1 hour ago, delirium said:

Okay maybe less people dead or you just carry more magazines with you?

I mean, does reloading not take time? Not to mention they do have some heft to them, even if they're low capacity

1 hour ago, delirium said:

Lets not forget all of the now banned attachments that are already in homes around the nation are now a hot commodity and budding black markets break out and now people still have access.

So are you implying banning certain weaponry/modifications has no impact on the ability to get these items? Or would you agree that banning something reduces the availability?

2 hours ago, delirium said:

it's either all or nothing in my opinion.

Well your opinion is not founded in reality. Plenty of countries banned >90% of guns decades ago but allowed certain guns in certain scenarios and these countries have significantly lower gun violence than USA (as shown in BoM's post)
 

[BoM]

27 minutes ago, jazzy said:

Well your opinion is not founded in reality.

[Gentoo]

12 minutes ago, jazzy said:

You're failing again, because once again we're back to the same point I made- if everyone democratically voted for me to not be able to have kids, how would me having a gun resolve this issue? Would I take up arms and kill everyone who voted Yes on preventing jazzy from having kids? Do you think this actually would result in me being able to have a kid?

Sorry I neglected to extend the argument to larger groups of people, I assumed you were able to do that on your own. It's possible or plausible that the majority of voters are not educated on most of the platforms a candidate is running on, or that candidates or parties will push legislation they didn't run on. Voters are already mostly limited in their choices in candidates by their respective parties, but they have no recourse once candidates are actually elected. This isn't a direct democracy, it's representative, and the majority of voters aren't educated enough to even understand the language being used or consider versions of reality alternative to the one their entertainment box is spitting out.

 

If you are fighting for an issue affecting a minority of people that most people aren't educated on, if you are fighting for something that most people would agree with but are too pacified to do anything about, it's not impossible to make waves. 

 

I think your argument about the military crushing the populus is already weak and inaccurate, but even still, you don't have to blow everything up to the federal level immediately - maybe a local government outlaws ICEs in the wrong county, use your imagination.

 

29 minutes ago, jazzy said:

And if you arm an entire population and still promote democracy and democratically the people out majority the other people, the minority having guns doesn't somehow magically make them right.

Why not lol, if there's enough of them to overthrow an institution and not enough on the other side of the aisle to stop them, it doesn't really sound like they have a minority opinion, just a minority of people.

 

35 minutes ago, jazzy said:

Serious question- why do you participate in society at all? Honestly this is such a side tangent and the foundation for your arguments aren't based on reality, they're based on hypotheticals your paranoid brain has concocted to rationalize why you think gun clutching is actually a way to live. Earlier in this thread you were legit using a logical fallacy (appeal to probability) as a basis for your argument, which you're once again doing.

Ironically enough, I prefer to live my life as unmolested by larger institutions as possible, I think participation in the local community is much healthier. I'm not sure how this is relevant in any right, do you have some solution to opting out?

 

The basis of the legislative branch is hypotheticals, actuality is handled by the executive and judicial branch

I don't need to use appeal to probability to support my point, whether it happens or not is irrelevant, if the possibility exists is all that matters.

[darkspace44]

I don't even own a gun, but I know it's practically impossible to remove guns from the US, there's way too many legal and illegal guns. Even if you make a it harder to acquire a gun the amount of illegal guns will be still out there, and will always be increasing.  I think this falls into the mental state of this country has dropped substantially sadly. 

[jazzy]

15 hours ago, Gentoo said:

Sorry I neglected to extend the argument to larger groups of people, I assumed you were able to do that on your own.

So just to post this in the thread because you dodged it in discord. If the people of this country and the republic of this country held a majority vote to ban guns and it passed, would you abide by the law set forth and give up your guns? Or would you use violence to prevent the state from taking them?

 

1 hour ago, darkspace44 said:

I don't even own a gun, but I know it's practically impossible to remove guns from the US, there's way too many legal and illegal guns. Even if you make a it harder to acquire a gun the amount of illegal guns will be still out there, and will always be increasing.

It's not a 2 year process. We banned full auto guns before you were born and as a result it's almost impossible to obtain a modern full auto gun legally. It's a multi generational process to slowly eradicate the use of most weaponry in the US. Almost all of these mass shootings are done by legally acquired guns that are acquired in a short period of time (see most recent hospital shooting where gun was acquired same day, and Uvalde shooting where gun was acquired within the same 2 weeks). We can make it harder to acquire most guns by creating due processes. Most people don't know how to illegally acquire certain objects, and when acquiring illegal items it is a lot easier for the government to find these people due to honeypot measures.

Basically- the idea of giving up before even getting started is rather silly.

 

Delirium said it earlier- many countries implemented universal healthcare, when we have not. Many countries have additionally enacted stricter gun control. What we're trying to accomplish isn't some impossibility. It's a herculean task for a herculean problem.

[Gentoo]

3 hours ago, jazzy said:

So just to post this in the thread because you dodged it in discord. If the people of this country and the republic of this country held a majority vote to ban guns and it passed, would you abide by the law set forth and give up your guns? Or would you use violence to prevent the state from taking them?

I didn't dodge this in Discord. I would use violence