Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

KLAMarine said:

Uh, well, you asked.

"The weak can't naturally beat the strong, so they create something to help that will. What do you do when you're the strong person who's now the weak one because you're up against a gun? You get yourself a gun or make something even stronger.

The only real way to completely fix this is to make everyone and everything 100% equal, which you can't do. Until then, weapons of any kind will be used and will be seen as a solution and a problem."

>This was not my quote. This looks to be EricHiggin's below...

I think you may be talking to too many people at the moment...

You got me.  Good call.  I did have a post from each of you tabbed rather than just yours.  My apologies for the misattribution of the quote.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
KLAMarine said:
Paperboy_J said:

If we go by this logic then why do we have any laws at all?

So you can punish behavior that is undesirable. Murder is undesirable hence we have laws against it.

I think it is a little more complicated than that. Laws serve both a proactive and a reactive function. They exist both to punish people and to prevent additional crimes from occurring.

Proactive function is one of the important and overlooked aspects of gun control legislation in my opinion. It essentially allows creates a situation where the police are able to intervene before an incident occurs. For example, if an individual is stockpiling illegal weapons to use in a shooting, the fact that these weapons are illegal allow the police to step in and arrest this individual. If these weapons were made legal, the police would be unable to act without further information. This is also one of the goals of "red flag" laws.



I'll just leave this here for the current gun discussion:

Even Fox is fed up with guns.



the-pi-guy said:
KLAMarine said:

"It has nothing to do with everyone having a gun or banning all guns. It is merely a nullification of NRA rhetoric."

>And I think you actually strengthened NRA rhetoric: the gun as a non-factor means banning guns will achieve nothing with regards to deaths. You stated earlier

"The point is that if you proclaim that people are the problem (not gun), then you must also claim people are the solution (not gun). It's basically a nullification of the NRA rhetoric."

>If I were an NRA member, I'd add "Yes! I will happily claim guns are neither the problem nor solution: they're a non-factor! So leave guns out of this topic! Don't even bring them up!"

"You first decided to use the nullification tangentially as a means to suggest we should all have guns (which was not the point)."

>When did I suggest we should all have guns? Could you copy-paste the exact point where I suggested such a thing?

You're focusing on the people part of the equation.  His joke is about the gun part.  The point of the joke is that guns are nonconsequential.  So the argument that guns shouldn't be banned because they are used to protect people literally flies in the face of the same logic that the NRA touts with their claim that "guns don't kill people".  

And yes the NRA does argue about the people part of the equation, but the crucial part of their campaign is that guns are essential, which according to their logic they aren't.

Snoopy said:

According to that graph, the economy was better when Republicans controlled both the house and the presidency. Thank you for proving my point I guess. Don't know why you would do that for.

According to the graph:

-Unemployment started declining from 2009.

*2010 elections, would lead to 2011 Republicans controlling the house*

-Unemployment continues to decline the same way it did before.

So basically since the trend was constant, but since Republicans were in charge during part of it, it's all thanks to them.  

It's like watching a baseball team start scoring 3 runs every single inning, and then giving all the credit to the one guy who joined during the 3rd inning.

Not to mention, you are literally giving credit to the coach who only came in the 8th inning.  

Because according to you, everything that is good that happens during a Republican or a Democrat (anything in charge) is thanks to a Republican.  

And conversely everything bad is thanks to a Democrat, regardless of who's in charge.  

The frustrating thing about this, is that you're the only one claiming that your side is good and the other side is bad.  No one else has claimed that every economic success was thanks to Democrats, and every economic failure is because of Republicans.

I think the NRA would be okay with calling guns inconsequential: they neither kill nor protect people thus no reason to ban them and it would take more work to ban them than to allow their unrestricted distribution.

Take path of least resistance.

sundin13 said:
KLAMarine said:

So you can punish behavior that is undesirable. Murder is undesirable hence we have laws against it.

I think it is a little more complicated than that. Laws serve both a proactive and a reactive function. They exist both to punish people and to prevent additional crimes from occurring.

Proactive function is one of the important and overlooked aspects of gun control legislation in my opinion. It essentially allows creates a situation where the police are able to intervene before an incident occurs. For example, if an individual is stockpiling illegal weapons to use in a shooting, the fact that these weapons are illegal allow the police to step in and arrest this individual. If these weapons were made legal, the police would be unable to act without further information. This is also one of the goals of "red flag" laws.

Your description sounds reactive: police are reacting to a law being broken, in this case possession of illegal weapons.

Proactive would be someone not possessing illegal weapons to begin with because they're illegal.

I think it's easier to tally up cases of the former than the latter.



Criminals might think they're the weak so yeah "guns are created to protect the weak"
If you think guns are the ultimate equalizer you are so wrong,most of you can't even use them properly when needed and you just put yourself in danger,good but dumb people end up in jail or get shot because of this.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/dangers-of-gun-use-for-self-defense-statistics/

Suicide

Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths.

Over 50% of all suicides are committed with a firearm.

On average, 49 gun suicides were committed each day for the years 2005-2010.

White males, about 40% of the U.S. population, accounted for over 80% of firearm suicides in 2010.

A study of California handgun purchasers found that in the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among the purchasers.

Firearms were used in nearly 44% of suicide deaths among persons under age 25 in 2010.

More than 75% of guns used in suicide attempts and unintentional injuries of 0-19 year-olds were stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend.

The risk of suicide increases in homes where guns are kept loaded and/or unlocked.

Unintentional Deaths and Injuries

In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.

From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.

Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age.

People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.

A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.

The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%).

And we must expect that the injuries are xtimes higher.

Last edited by Immersiveunreality - on 24 August 2019

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:

EricHiggin said:

I got the point, but I don't think you got where I took it. Yes, you could just ban all guns based on your original statement, that's one way to look at it. The problem is why weapons were made in the first place, and who made them. To remove guns you're just asking for other weapons to be used, or for new even more efficient weapons to be made in there place, unless you create a perfectly equal society this time around, which you won't be able to do. I'm simply looking at the bigger picture, not just the statement in a bubble.

------

Well what was the point in saying "If guns don't kill people, people do.....then guns don't protect people, people do."? Especially since you directed it at the NRA since they are using that as a scapegoat to allow guns in your eyes. It would only make sense if you thought having guns was a bad thing. Considering it's people protecting people, why would you need guns?

If it has nothing to do with people having guns or banning guns, then it really doesn't make any sense. You're not nullifying anything if you're not proving they're wrong, and the only way to do that is to prove things would be better without guns, since their point is that bad people who use guns kill people, not good people with guns. The slogan is just a shorter, more to the point version of that.

So, no you, just as KLAMarine, did not get the point.  Nor understand the nullification of the statement itself, it seems.  So I'll repeat what I said to KLAMarine for you.

Your whole logic train runs like this.

Strong dominates weak > weak obtains gun to dominate strong > strong is now the weak > new weak/former strong obtains gun to dominate against new strong/former weak = we all have guns.

We are the only developed nation on Earth with this irrational band-aid mentality.

And if you really want to go back to the actual point of it all....if people are the actual problem, why the hell aren't we trying to fix the people? If people are the problem, why the hell do we want to give the problem lethal weapons?

Snoopy said:

According to that graph, the economy was better when Republicans controlled both the house and the presidency. Thank you for proving my point I guess. Don't know why you would do that for.

Oh, so a bit of both: cognitive bias and cognitive dissonance. I really didn't suspect both but here we are.

I guess you could be unaware of when the Trump tax cuts took effect or when his Republican led congress trimmed regulations....but I'm trying to give you some expectations of knowledge on the subject. But if not, see that "2018" on the the far right of the X axis?  That's when the tax cuts took effect.  Some of the deregulation took place just prior to that "2018" marker.  Now, do you see a trend in the data plot points that started back in 2010?  You do?  Good. 

You know what?  I'm just going to make you a new chart....for clarification. 

Blue box = Obama term.
Red box = Trump term.
Yellow line = Trump deregulation.
Orange line = Trump tax cuts.
Black line = Unemployment rate trend.


I hope it's clearer for you now.

Cool, now include the part when Republicans and Democrats took over congress to see the difference. Since congress does hold more power than the President in almost every way. 2008 Democrats had both the Senate and the house of representatives. Not to mention employers cut full-time jobs to part-time jobs due to Obama's new health care changes to create artificial growth.

Last edited by Snoopy - on 24 August 2019

Yes, it's the Democrats fault, that the entire world was undergoing a recession that started while Republicans controlled Congress and the presidency.



KLAMarine said:
sundin13 said:

I think it is a little more complicated than that. Laws serve both a proactive and a reactive function. They exist both to punish people and to prevent additional crimes from occurring.

Proactive function is one of the important and overlooked aspects of gun control legislation in my opinion. It essentially allows creates a situation where the police are able to intervene before an incident occurs. For example, if an individual is stockpiling illegal weapons to use in a shooting, the fact that these weapons are illegal allow the police to step in and arrest this individual. If these weapons were made legal, the police would be unable to act without further information. This is also one of the goals of "red flag" laws.

Your description sounds reactive: police are reacting to a law being broken, in this case possession of illegal weapons.

Proactive would be someone not possessing illegal weapons to begin with because they're illegal.

I think it's easier to tally up cases of the former than the latter.

You seemed to have missed the point.

Its reactivity is an ends to the means of proactivity.

It comes down to why something is illegal. Why is owning extended magazines illegal in some places? There is no victim there. The reason it is illegal is in order to allow law enforcement intervention before someone is victimized and to prevent victimization in general. It is reactivity in service of proactivity. I'm going to call it "Fundamental Laws" vs "Proxy Laws". A "Fundamental Law" is a law against something that is fundamentally wrong, such as murder or robbery. These crimes deprive individuals of their rights and harm society in the process. A "Proxy Law" is a law against something that is not fundamentally wrong or harmful, but still is beneficial as a law in order to either aid in prosecuting fundamental laws or aid in the prevention of other illegal activities.

You could also argue that this all loops around to the idea of the purpose of the prison system. In a healthy prison system, punishment isn't the primary purpose. The four goals are as follows: Retribution, Incapacitation, Deterrence and Rehabilitation.

Three out of those four goals are proactive. They exist to both deter an individual from committing that first crime (like you mentioned) and to prevent that individual from committing another crime (through incapacitation and rehabilitation).

Basically my point is a response to the "Criminals don't follow the law" line of thinking. While that is sometimes true, there are a lot of proactive benefits to enacting new gun control legislation, including allowing police intervention before a "fundamental law" is broken.



the-pi-guy said:
Yes, it's the Democrats fault, that the entire world was undergoing a recession that started while Republicans controlled Congress and the presidency.

Actually, it is pretty low when Republican controls both Congress and the presidency. As soon as Democrats touch anything, things go to shit. Just look at California.



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-health-cancer.html

Practically hauling a corpse to reach the 2020 Election at this point.