If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   "It was... a good thing that [the Aurora shooter] had a 100-round magazine... If he had instead had... 15-round magazines, no telling how much damage he could have done until a good guy with a gun showed up." This is what the GOP actually believes   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 453
    More: Dumbass, GOP, morning, Colorado, radiation damages  
•       •       •

3761 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Feb 2014 at 3:30 PM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



453 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-13 05:00:04 PM
soporific
If trained police officers can't avoid shooting innocent people, why would we expect an armed civilian to be better? These kinds of fantasies aren't helping.

You highly overestimate police training and motives while underestimating armed civilians. Unless they're on a serious Swat-type team, cops qualify once a year, maybe shoot 500 rounds annually. They generally don't have strong motivation to become expert marksman, and if they do shoot wildly (or "accidentally" execute someone through mishandling) they aren't going to suffer much for it, if at all.

Civilians that go through the hoops of getting a CCW are often shooting enthusiasts in the first place, and often expend 500 rounds per month in practice, or more. In addition, a civilian does not have the same immunity from civil and criminal charges like an officer does, and are thus driven to be more discriminating an careful in their shots.
 
2014-02-13 05:00:22 PM

BayouOtter: Paul Baumer: BayouOtter: Paul Baumer: The theory advanced here is that 100rd mags frequently jam so QED they are not as great a threat and therefore needlessly regulated. Are the same folks positing this willing to ban them if they are perfected and therefore more lethal?

I don't think anyone wants to ban them. Its a stupid idea and almost anything else would be a better use of the money and political capital to do so.

Even paying a bunch of dropouts to dig and refill holes in a god forsaken field for a few months would be a better idea.

Well ok, but the basis for this being a "stupid idea" is that they don't work well, or something else?

Its a stupid idea because giant drum magazines aren't being used to do harm on any scale necessitating a legislative response. Rifles, as a whole, are used in less than 5% of all homicides in the United States, and the number of drum magazines in use is a tiny fraction of that. Throwing money at an object that is used in less than 5% of homicides is foolish, more so because those homicides would have likely been possible even in the magazine's absence.

Going after even a general class of weapons used in homicides is pretty stupid, because murder is predicated on socioeconomic factors and not weapon availability. Ending the drug war, working on our broken and racist policies of poverty control, income inequality and education - these topics would actually address violent crime at the cause, but that would be hard and complicated.

It is so much easier to just 'ban something - for the children!' and call it a day.


So the gentleman's statement regarding it being a "good thing" the man had a 100rd mag was in fact a red herring then, and just a show argument for the rubes.
 
2014-02-13 05:00:34 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: I'm claiming that your statement of "more guns could ever lead to less gun violence " is demonstratively false.

You haven't shown that false at all. I'm not saying gun violence couldn't rise or drop due to other factors. We have more guns and consequently more gun deaths than any other developed country. It's not very complicated.


Yet, here you are stating that more guns won't lead to less crime. Notice, I never made any statement, but I ave gave you a real situation where that did happen. In the last twenty years in the US, the number of firearms owned has gone up, yet the homicide rate has dropped to half of what it was.

So, more guns did not cause more crime.  QED - your statement is false.That's not complicated at all.

Oh, and can you prove that more guns causes more crime? Do you have a citation for that as well?
 
2014-02-13 05:01:09 PM

lordjupiter: sugar_fetus: gaspode:The only reason anyone would want one is to stroke off like an utter wanker and pretend to be a movie soldier.

I'm so glad you know what everyone needs and tell them that.

Liar!


Pfft! I don't need you to tell me that! :-)
 
2014-02-13 05:01:44 PM
Paul Baumer:
So the gentleman's statement regarding it being a "good thing" the man had a 100rd mag was in fact a red herring then, and just a show argument for the rubes.

More like a general 'its a good thing that criminal was a dumbass who picked shiatty tools/means to commit his crime, or things could have been worse.'
 
2014-02-13 05:04:23 PM

BayouOtter: murder is predicated on socioeconomic factors and not weapon availability


So a poor, uneducated, angry man with a soup spoon is just as dangerous as a poor, uneducated, angry man with an AK-47?
 
2014-02-13 05:05:00 PM
I love gun threads. Especially ones where posters dicker about which type would have caused more damage in a massacre and say it's a good think he didn't have THAT one cuz then he coulda REALLY caused some mayhem!
 
2014-02-13 05:06:36 PM

The Name: BayouOtter: murder is predicated on socioeconomic factors and not weapon availability

So a poor, uneducated, angry man with a soup spoon is just as dangerous as a poor, uneducated, angry man with an AK-47?


If he wasn't poor, uneducated and angry we wouldn't have a problem, would we?
 
2014-02-13 05:06:51 PM

rzrwiresunrise: I love gun threads. Especially ones where posters dicker about which type would have caused more damage in a massacre and say it's a good think he didn't have THAT one cuz then he coulda REALLY caused some mayhem!


But thank god THAT one is freely available for purchase at any sporting goods store, because freedom.
 
2014-02-13 05:07:08 PM

BayouOtter: Sometimes its really disturbing to run in these circles for me, as I'm a super-liberal homosexual atheist and sometimes there can be some really weird contradictory opinions on policy.


For me, it comes down to attitude. It's the "responsible gun owner" types that insist they are as such, that any attempt to curtail their rights or access to guns is unthinkable, and then completely ignore what that broad access to guns means for other people to get them. "Not my problem." they say, and on an individual level, that's right, but having such broad access has societal costs, and I just can't view anyone as a responsible owner if they're unwilling to acknowledge that.
I feel like the backdoor methods like mag limits and banning cosmetics are because there can't be any discussion of front door methods without certain groups flying into a frothing rage and even the most innocuous suggestion seen as the direct path to banning all guns ever.
 
2014-02-13 05:07:17 PM

sugar_fetus: justtray: smells_like_meat: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.

It takes more guns to stop guns, but removing guns won't stop guns.

Gun nut logic. It only works in the way most convenient to the narrative.

So, why do cops have guns, then?


Because bad guys still have them. But they certainly aren't required to stop crime. Better question, why do English (United Kingdom) police NOT have them? Get it yet? No, I'm certain you don't.
 
2014-02-13 05:07:42 PM

sugar_fetus: UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: I'm claiming that your statement of "more guns could ever lead to less gun violence " is demonstratively false.

You haven't shown that false at all. I'm not saying gun violence couldn't rise or drop due to other factors. We have more guns and consequently more gun deaths than any other developed country. It's not very complicated.

Yet, here you are stating that more guns won't lead to less crime. Notice, I never made any statement, but I ave gave you a real situation where that did happen. In the last twenty years in the US, the number of firearms owned has gone up, yet the homicide rate has dropped to half of what it was.

So, more guns did not cause more crime.  QED - your statement is false.That's not complicated at all.

Oh, and can you prove that more guns causes more crime? Do you have a citation for that as well?


I never claimed that more guns cause more crime in general. My original claim was that more guns (or a higher rate of gun ownership) leading to a more "polite" less violent society is demonstrably false given the fact that the countries with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun violence.

Hence designating the "good guy with a gun" line of reasoning advocating for increased gun ownership is so much derp.
 
2014-02-13 05:07:44 PM

rzrwiresunrise: I love gun threads. Especially ones where posters dicker about which type would have caused more damage in a massacre and say it's a good think he didn't have THAT one cuz then he coulda REALLY caused some mayhem!


it is a good thing he did not have a jumbo jet
 
2014-02-13 05:08:35 PM

BayouOtter: The Name: BayouOtter: murder is predicated on socioeconomic factors and not weapon availability

So a poor, uneducated, angry man with a soup spoon is just as dangerous as a poor, uneducated, angry man with an AK-47?

If he wasn't poor, uneducated and angry we wouldn't have a problem, would we?


Good thing people are always rational and anger is a thing of the past.  Thanks Obama.
 
2014-02-13 05:09:14 PM

BayouOtter: The Name: BayouOtter: murder is predicated on socioeconomic factors and not weapon availability

So a poor, uneducated, angry man with a soup spoon is just as dangerous as a poor, uneducated, angry man with an AK-47?

If he wasn't poor, uneducated and angry we wouldn't have a problem, would we?


Oh?  Is the gun rights movement going to start putting its money where its mouth is on this point?  Can we expect to see an "NRA March on Washington for Economic Justice" sometime soon?
 
2014-02-13 05:10:29 PM

rzrwiresunrise: I love gun threads. Especially ones where posters dicker about which type would have caused more damage in a massacre and say it's a good think he didn't have THAT one cuz then he coulda REALLY caused some mayhem!


ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2014-02-13 05:11:19 PM

The Name: BayouOtter: The Name: BayouOtter: murder is predicated on socioeconomic factors and not weapon availability

So a poor, uneducated, angry man with a soup spoon is just as dangerous as a poor, uneducated, angry man with an AK-47?

If he wasn't poor, uneducated and angry we wouldn't have a problem, would we?

Oh?  Is the gun rights movement going to start putting its money where its mouth is on this point?  Can we expect to see an "NRA March on Washington for Economic Justice" sometime soon?


And mental health and healthcare!  Don't forget how quickly they pumped and dumped that one after the rage and legislation from Newtown fizzled out, and actually started fighting against what they'd previously offered as the solution.

Very helpful!
 
2014-02-13 05:11:35 PM

justtray: sugar_fetus: justtray: smells_like_meat: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.

It takes more guns to stop guns, but removing guns won't stop guns.

Gun nut logic. It only works in the way most convenient to the narrative.

So, why do cops have guns, then?

Because bad guys still have them. But they certainly aren't required to stop crime. Better question, why do English (United Kingdom) police NOT have them? Get it yet? No, I'm certain you don't.


Yet, the bad guys in Britain still have guns. Imagine that.

And, correct - Police in the US are not required to stop crime, nor actually protect you, according to the Supreme Court.

Do *you* get it?  Nope, you don't. Keep insulting people. That's so helpful.
 
2014-02-13 05:13:01 PM
UrukHaiGuyz:My original claim was that more guns (or a higher rate of gun ownership) leading to a more "polite" less violent society is demonstrably false given the fact that the countries with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun violence.

Yet, here we are in the US with more guns *and* less crime.

Your claim is false. How many times do you have to read that to understand it?
 
2014-02-13 05:13:18 PM

BayouOtter: Paul Baumer:
So the gentleman's statement regarding it being a "good thing" the man had a 100rd mag was in fact a red herring then, and just a show argument for the rubes.

More like a general 'its a good thing that criminal was a dumbass who picked shiatty tools/means to commit his crime, or things could have been worse.'


No it was quite specific, and the topic in question were 100rd mags - "As it turned out, that was maybe a good thing that he had a 100-round magazine, because it jammed. If he had instead had four, five, six 15-round magazines, no telling how much damage he could have done until a good guy with a gun showed up."  You claimed the real answer is "Its a stupid idea because giant drum magazines aren't being used to do harm on any scale necessitating a legislative response."

So either this legislator has no idea what the basis of good policy regarding the 100rd mag is, or does know and doesn't think his constituency will accept this, and made up an answer.
 
2014-02-13 05:14:03 PM

The Name: BayouOtter: The Name: BayouOtter: murder is predicated on socioeconomic factors and not weapon availability

So a poor, uneducated, angry man with a soup spoon is just as dangerous as a poor, uneducated, angry man with an AK-47?

If he wasn't poor, uneducated and angry we wouldn't have a problem, would we?

Oh?  Is the gun rights movement going to start putting its money where its mouth is on this point?  Can we expect to see an "NRA March on Washington for Economic Justice" sometime soon?


I do, for one, as do several of my allies. We're working on a more widespread acceptance of a new model for coping with crime and violence as a holistic problem with the social order.

Gun control is the wrong argument. It is a sort of bait and switch topic. BOTH sides of the argument are essentially talking around one another, because the issue isn't guns. It's about violence, safety and crime.

We have a problem with violence in this country--both domestic and in the commission of a variety of crimes where violence is a tool to gain monetary advantage. There are then just the nutjobs who just want to hurt folks in a generalized sense for a variety of reasons that come back to the issue of mental health or deep persecution complexes and see violence as their only answer.

Gun control is a bait and switch topic, because it looks at symptoms, as opposed to the causes of violence. It looks at the tools, and opposed to real issue. The real issue is that folks see violence as a valid option. Be that against their wives, husbands, or neighbors, to "settle" an issue. It is about power, frustration, and feelings of helplessness in the face of a LOT of stress. Be that as a means to gain monetary advantage, or simply carry out their "business" which involves taking from others, or "protecting" their turf so that they can continue illegal operations, and enforce their will while engaged in activities that are likewise crimes. The tools themselves don't really matter--see England's gangland problem, or Japan's own gangs that have evolved beyond just the Yakuza--but rather that there are criminal elements that will do great violence to folks, because they see it as a valid option, and one where the risks justify the reward. In part, the reward for these criminals IS the reputation of being some bad motherf*ckers who are NOT to be messed with. This is a symptom of some problems in those societies as well.

We need to take a long, hard look at violence in this country. We need to. The root causes, the rising economic inequality, the stress of modern society, mental health care, economic factors, education, and social mobility opportunities. What is causing folks to turn to violence as something that they feel justified in committing. This is not a comfortable conversation. Violence like this is a symptom of failings within our society. Just as students' behavior is indicative of issues at home, our society likewise is giving us clear signs that all is NOT well. And we are focusing on the tools, as opposed to the reasons that folks commit these crimes. And we focus on the tools, because it's easier to get folks focused on the tools, as opposed to having the real conversation we should be having. The real conversation is stalled, and in fact, the public and officials are distracted from facing the real issues when you throw "gun control" out there, because it's a red herring. It's supposed to distract folks. It is a bait and switch, because no one really wants to talk about the real ills that we face.

We are in a time of great economic upheaval. Or rather, a lot of folks are facing economic uncertainty, while others are doing more than just fine, they're making out like bandits, and that leads to a certain degree of ire. We are facing a population with declining prospects, while some are doing very well, and that leads to some grim decisions. It leads to greater stress, it leads folks to feelings of helplessness, and we are surprised when folks act while under constant and enduring stressors? Frustration and constant fear for the future leads folks down some dark paths. Couple it with a crisis in mental health care, as well as folks uncertain how to even get help, and their ability to even think about paying for it, and you get a lot of folks who simply cannot get help, and a lot of folks who are turned out of a mental health care system that is over burdened already. We have a nation that is looking to lash out at somebody, and often they turn on whoever is closest, as opposed to turning that ire on someone responsible--and in fact those responsible for the plight of so many, REALLY want the conversation turned away from looking at the real issues, because if folks focused on the real issues, their gravy train would end, so it's better for folks to talk about something else entirely. Something like gun control, which only deals with symptoms, gets folks heated up, and pointed firmly away from the real issues that we face, and thus, they can continue doing what they do, and from behind firm walls, and in communities that are gated, locked away, and firmly out of the public eye, save to wave on occasion, and throw out a bone or two of hope that some of the peons may make it out, and get them skirmishing with one another for that chance, as opposed to wondering why they should be fighting so damn hard for table scraps.
 
2014-02-13 05:14:21 PM

factoryconnection: dittybopper: I think you mistook the address, 1959 Southern Boulevard, for the year it happened, which was 1990.

I'm sorry to say that even that date was a generation ago.  I'm seriously sorry that 1990 was a generation ago, and kinda still in shock.


I hate to agree with ditty, but he is right.

Less convenient methods than grabbing a rifle are equally deadly and available to the crazies.

I have no problem with gun regulations fwiw.
 
2014-02-13 05:14:50 PM

give me doughnuts: sprawl15: Great_Milenko: If they always jam, why would anyone want to buy one?

because they're easier to get than mexican viagra


And they look "tacticool".

[cdn2.armslist.com image 640x480]

That way you think you're really a bad-ass, when all you really are is a dumdass with a .223 that has a flashlight on it.


That looks like a lowered Honda Civic with a bookcase wing on the back and lots of stickers.
 
2014-02-13 05:15:37 PM

sugar_fetus: UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: I'm claiming that your statement of "more guns could ever lead to less gun violence " is demonstratively false.

You haven't shown that false at all. I'm not saying gun violence couldn't rise or drop due to other factors. We have more guns and consequently more gun deaths than any other developed country. It's not very complicated.

Yet, here you are stating that more guns won't lead to less crime. Notice, I never made any statement, but I ave gave you a real situation where that did happen. In the last twenty years in the US, the number of firearms owned has gone up, yet the homicide rate has dropped to half of what it was.

So, more guns did not cause more crime.  QED - your statement is false.That's not complicated at all.

Oh, and can you prove that more guns causes more crime? Do you have a citation for that as well?


I'll help him. Yes, I have a number of statistically valid studies that you will continue to ignore. I keep them just handy for idiots like yourself when you try to make this false argument.

More guns = more homicide http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
Guns in home increase risk of homicide and suicide http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
Intentional gun homicides outnumber justified homicides by 50:1, and suicides by 100:1
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls

This doesn't even include the fact that the UK has 4x the rate of violent crime per capita as the united states while maintaining 4x lower rate of homicide per capita. I wonder what the difference is??? Spoiler - guns create more homicide, a LOT more.

Your turn. Time for you to post non causal, statistically invalid graphs that show crime going down due to Roe vs Wade and falsely attributing it to guns, or better yet trying to cherry pick the one country that has high rates of gun ownership but maintain low crime, while ignoring all examples to the contrary.

Or maybe youll just pretend like you didn't see this post. Your kind is soooooo predictable.
 
2014-02-13 05:16:27 PM
Paul Baumer:
So either this legislator has no idea what the basis of good policy regarding the 100rd mag is, or does know and doesn't think his constituency will accept this, and made up an answer.

You're confusing my opinion on why banning 100 round magazines is stupid with what I thought he meant by his statement. They are two distinct opinions.
 
2014-02-13 05:16:36 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: rzrwiresunrise: I love gun threads. Especially ones where posters dicker about which type would have caused more damage in a massacre and say it's a good think he didn't have THAT one cuz then he coulda REALLY caused some mayhem!

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 500x476]


fc00.deviantart.net
 
2014-02-13 05:19:15 PM
The party of "common sense", folks
 
2014-02-13 05:20:49 PM

sugar_fetus: UrukHaiGuyz:My original claim was that more guns (or a higher rate of gun ownership) leading to a more "polite" less violent society is demonstrably false given the fact that the countries with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun violence.

Yet, here we are in the US with more guns *and* less crime.

Your claim is false. How many times do you have to read that to understand it?


EVERYWHERE has less crime than in the past. You in the USA have more crime than places with many many less guns (oh yes you do). Any statistics you have seen claiming the UK for example has more crime than the US are utterly fabricated.

Guns are at best not a crime deterrent.
 
2014-02-13 05:21:11 PM

lordjupiter: The party of "common sense", folks


While the opposition says that gun bans are 'common sense'. Its almost like people of all stripes use the phrase 'common sense' to make their ideas sound good without actually proving that they are reasonable, while at the same time poisoning the well of their opponent's objections.
 
2014-02-13 05:21:18 PM

sugar_fetus: justtray: sugar_fetus: justtray: smells_like_meat: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.

It takes more guns to stop guns, but removing guns won't stop guns.

Gun nut logic. It only works in the way most convenient to the narrative.

So, why do cops have guns, then?

Because bad guys still have them. But they certainly aren't required to stop crime. Better question, why do English (United Kingdom) police NOT have them? Get it yet? No, I'm certain you don't.

Yet, the bad guys in Britain still have guns. Imagine that.

And, correct - Police in the US are not required to stop crime, nor actually protect you, according to the Supreme Court.

Do *you* get it?  Nope, you don't. Keep insulting people. That's so helpful.


I don't see you conceding the point. Now you're just repeating more irrelevant freeper talking points.

If you can't handle it, get out. This isn't a place for uninformed fools to get coddled.
 
2014-02-13 05:22:42 PM

sugar_fetus: UrukHaiGuyz:My original claim was that more guns (or a higher rate of gun ownership) leading to a more "polite" less violent society is demonstrably false given the fact that the countries with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun violence.

Yet, here we are in the US with more guns *and* less crime.

Your claim is false. How many times do you have to read that to understand it?


What someone who doesn't understand basic causation looks like. Why do you wear your ignorance like a badge of honor? Have you considered that maybe your argument is just invalid, which is why it keeps getting pointed out as such? Of course not. You're sure you're right, despite it being explained to you why you are not.

Sad.
 
2014-02-13 05:23:25 PM

sugar_fetus: UrukHaiGuyz:My original claim was that more guns (or a higher rate of gun ownership) leading to a more "polite" less violent society is demonstrably false given the fact that the countries with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun violence.

Yet, here we are in the US with more guns *and* less crime.

Your claim is false. How many times do you have to read that to understand it?


As much fun as it is running in circles with you, I'm gonna have to call it quits after this one- we don't seem to be getting anywhere at all. There are a lot of factors at play here, including poverty rates, per capita imprisonment and recidivism rates, current enforcement levels of various illegal activities- all of these and more can have a huge impact on the crime rate in general and gun violence in particular.

Did you look at all at my citation? It shows clearly the correlation between gun ownership and rates and gun violence in 27 developed countries. The two are not absolutely correlated, but the trend is clear enough to indicate that higher levels of gun ownership do not reliably reduce gun violence.

Unless you can show that the *reason* crime rates in the U.S. are lower is due to increased ownership, you can't reasonably claim that higher ownership rates reduce crime, as the bulk of worldwide evidence shows otherwise.
 
2014-02-13 05:23:48 PM
gaspode:

EVERYWHERE has less crime than in the past. You in the USA have more crime than places with many many less guns (oh yes you do). Any statistics you have seen claiming the UK for example has more crime than the US are utterly fabricated.

Its a good thing that we have no cultural, demographic, economic, historical, legal, or geographical differences to go along with the disparate rates of firearm proliferation. Otherwise it'd kind of take the strength out of your attempt to make a point.

Oh wait, there are huge differences! Whoops.

Guns are at best not a crime deterrent.

I guess cops can stop carrying guns, then.
 
2014-02-13 05:27:13 PM

BayouOtter: lordjupiter: The party of "common sense", folks

While the opposition says that gun bans are 'common sense'. Its almost like people of all stripes use the phrase 'common sense' to make their ideas sound good without actually proving that they are reasonable, while at the same time poisoning the well of their opponent's objections.



It's a useless statement but the right wing does think they have a lock on "common sense" as champions of traditional values.  From what I can tell the MAJORITY of what the opposition thinks relates to gun control measures similar to those used for other items the gun lobby commonly compare to guns (i.e. cars) rather than a full ban.

But in general yes most people call themselves meaningless terms like "centrist" and "pragmatist" and "realist" simply because their own ideas and opinions by definition seem like the "common sense" that best defines an objective reality.  Once established, confirmation bias cements it.  These types of arguments have been going on for thousands of years and will never end.
 
2014-02-13 05:27:13 PM

BayouOtter: I do, for one, as do several of my allies.


Yeah, I get that every time I bring up that point, and I don't care what soup kitchens you and your gun club volunteer at.  I'll stop criticizing the movement --because that, not you, is what I am criticizing-- when Congress is just as afraid to vote against a raise in the minimum wage as it is to vote against gun control.
 
2014-02-13 05:32:34 PM
So, it's a good thing that he bought something potentially more deadly but more likely to fail?

Is this supposed to comfort me when I start sending my children to school?
 
2014-02-13 05:36:04 PM

The Name: BayouOtter: I do, for one, as do several of my allies.

Yeah, I get that every time I bring up that point, and I don't care what soup kitchens you and your gun club volunteer at.  I'll stop criticizing the movement --because that, not you, is what I am criticizing-- when Congress is just as afraid to vote against a raise in the minimum wage as it is to vote against gun control.


Part of the problem is that a lot of my fellow liberals cannot let go of gun-ban fantasies. There was a golden opportunity after Newtown when massive reforms to mental health care could have been passed with the threat of gun-related stuff happening. The odds of getting the Republicans to go along with that would have been much better than chasing after gun-bans, but they just refused to put it on the backburner. They threw away a real chance to actually accomplish something practical and progressive for a very long and expensive shot at something ineffective.

I mean I've sat down with some of these people and made a list, like so:
Gun control
Prison Reform
Justice System Reform.
Police Oversight
Health Care (Including Mental Health)
Fighting Poverty
Ending the Drug War
etc.
They will agree with me on everything but gun control, and I'll say something like "Okay, we agree that ten other things will make the world better for sure. We disagree on one thing. Lets put the one thing aside, let it be status quo, and get the other ten accomplished. Then come back to the one. That way we can stop wasting energy opposing each other and work together on things we agree will help everybody."

Almost every time I get declined. That is the crux of the problem.
 
2014-02-13 05:36:30 PM

bborchar: So, it's a good thing that he bought something potentially more deadly but more likely to fail?

Is this supposed to comfort me when I start sending my children to school?


No the law of averages is supposed to comfort you.  Your kids are statistically extremely unlikely to be shot and killed at school.  But the kids who do get killed at school, well fark them.  They're just statistics.  Like traffic deaths or lightning strikes.  Not real people being massacred.  Only numbers.
 
2014-02-13 05:37:21 PM

bborchar: So, it's a good thing that he bought something potentially more deadly but more likely to fail?

Is this supposed to comfort me when I start sending my children to school?


The fact that your child is more likely to die in a pool or falling off his bike should comfort you. Stop being so paranoid about highly unlikely events and pay attention to the ones that are actual threats to your child, like traffic accidents.
 
2014-02-13 05:39:22 PM

BayouOtter: The Name: BayouOtter: I do, for one, as do several of my allies.

Yeah, I get that every time I bring up that point, and I don't care what soup kitchens you and your gun club volunteer at.  I'll stop criticizing the movement --because that, not you, is what I am criticizing-- when Congress is just as afraid to vote against a raise in the minimum wage as it is to vote against gun control.

Part of the problem is that a lot of my fellow liberals cannot let go of gun-ban fantasies. There was a golden opportunity after Newtown when massive reforms to mental health care could have been passed with the threat of gun-related stuff happening. The odds of getting the Republicans to go along with that would have been much better than chasing after gun-bans, but they just refused to put it on the backburner. They threw away a real chance to actually accomplish something practical and progressive for a very long and expensive shot at something ineffective.

I mean I've sat down with some of these people and made a list, like so:
Gun control
Prison Reform
Justice System Reform.
Police Oversight
Health Care (Including Mental Health)
Fighting Poverty
Ending the Drug War
etc.
They will agree with me on everything but gun control, and I'll say something like "Okay, we agree that ten other things will make the world better for sure. We disagree on one thing. Lets put the one thing aside, let it be status quo, and get the other ten accomplished. Then come back to the one. That way we can stop wasting energy opposing each other and work together on things we agree will help everybody."

Almost every time I get declined. That is the crux of the problem.



The problem, if you're being honest here, is that you're trying to backburner something that should not be put aside.  That smacks of the typical NRA fueled delay tactics that have been used for decades as a way of DOING NOTHING.  There's no reason we can't work on 10 problems at once if we can work on 9, yes?
 
2014-02-13 05:39:58 PM

BayouOtter: bborchar: So, it's a good thing that he bought something potentially more deadly but more likely to fail?

Is this supposed to comfort me when I start sending my children to school?

The fact that your child is more likely to die in a pool or falling off his bike should comfort you. Stop being so paranoid about highly unlikely events and pay attention to the ones that are actual threats to your child, like traffic accidents.


Called it.
 
2014-02-13 05:42:57 PM

lordjupiter: No the law of averages is supposed to comfort you.


or at least negate the immediate fear reaction from events that are particularly horrific which the brain naturally has a tendency to weigh out of proportion

"you're appealing to rationality" is not a sound basis for playing the facile argument card
 
2014-02-13 05:43:36 PM
Yeah, like some of the others have said, this guy has a point in the fact that those 100-rd mags are pieces of shiate.

Doesn't mean that anyone got "lucky", just that those things are notorious for jamming, but I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it.
 
2014-02-13 05:46:56 PM
lordjupiter:
I mean I've sat down with some of these people and made a list, like so:
Gun control
Prison Reform
Justice System Reform.
Police Oversight
Health Care (Including Mental Health)
Fighting Poverty
Ending the Drug War
etc.
They will agree with me on everything but gun control, and I'll say something like "Okay, we agree that ten other things will make the world better for sure. We disagree on one thing. Lets put the one thing aside, let it be status quo, and get the other ten accomplished. Then come back to the one. That way we can stop wasting energy opposing each other and work together on things we agree will help everybody."

Almost every time I get declined. That is the crux of the problem.


The problem, if you're being honest here, is that you're trying to backburner something that should not be put aside.  That smacks of the typical NRA fueled delay tactics that have been used for decades as a way of DOING NOTHING.  There's no reason we can't work on 10 problems at once if we can work on 9, yes?


Well first of all I disagree with the assumption that gun control can't be backburnered. I don't believe it is an effective, much less efficient way to address violence or crime in our society.

The reason it is difficult to work on the multiple issue when there is an active disagreement (issue X here) is that the actions of one side must be opposed by the other if they hold those beliefs in good faith. The amount of resources (money, time, etc) are finite, so any action on X cannot be spent on issues A, B or C. In attempt to win on issue X, one side will put resources toward it, the other side must negate it with an equal amount of resources or suffer a setback. Therefore resources are spent by two opposing sides to maintain more or less the status quo, which means those resources have been wasted. A more efficient use of those resources would be for both sides to ignore X and combine their resources on issues A, B and C, it has the same result for X (status quo) and better returns from A,B and C.
 
2014-02-13 05:48:01 PM

sprawl15: lordjupiter: No the law of averages is supposed to comfort you.

or at least negate the immediate fear reaction from events that are particularly horrific which the brain naturally has a tendency to weigh out of proportion

"you're appealing to rationality" is not a sound basis for playing the facile argument card


No, because the argument is based on the sense of selfishness and worry rather than actual societal need.  Just because X number is bigger than Y it may mean that raw probability is enough to soothe the individual but it does nothing for the actual people behind those numbers.  It's an especially disingenuous argument when the typical analogous threats are more regulated than guns.

In other words, you can't declare something a non-issue just because worse issues exist.
 
2014-02-13 05:51:26 PM

BayouOtter: lordjupiter:
I mean I've sat down with some of these people and made a list, like so:
Gun control
Prison Reform
Justice System Reform.
Police Oversight
Health Care (Including Mental Health)
Fighting Poverty
Ending the Drug War
etc.
They will agree with me on everything but gun control, and I'll say something like "Okay, we agree that ten other things will make the world better for sure. We disagree on one thing. Lets put the one thing aside, let it be status quo, and get the other ten accomplished. Then come back to the one. That way we can stop wasting energy opposing each other and work together on things we agree will help everybody."

Almost every time I get declined. That is the crux of the problem.


The problem, if you're being honest here, is that you're trying to backburner something that should not be put aside.  That smacks of the typical NRA fueled delay tactics that have been used for decades as a way of DOING NOTHING.  There's no reason we can't work on 10 problems at once if we can work on 9, yes?

Well first of all I disagree with the assumption that gun control can't be backburnered. I don't believe it is an effective, much less efficient way to address violence or crime in our society.

The reason it is difficult to work on the multiple issue when there is an active disagreement (issue X here) is that the actions of one side must be opposed by the other if they hold those beliefs in good faith. The amount of resources (money, time, etc) are finite, so any action on X cannot be spent on issues A, B or C. In attempt to win on issue X, one side will put resources toward it, the other side must negate it with an equal amount of resources or suffer a setback. Therefore resources are spent by two opposing sides to maintain more or less the status quo, which means those resources have been wasted. A more efficient use of those resources would be for both sides to ignore X and combine their resources on issues A, B and C, it has the same result for X (stat ...



And which of those other 9 issues do both sides completely agree on?  Or even agree on enough to come together and solve?  I mean, are you seriously paying attention to the political landscape in America if you think gun control is the one issue where no consensus exist, and we just need to pool efforts toward fixing everything else?
 
2014-02-13 05:52:11 PM
lordjupiter:
No, because the argument is based on the sense of selfishness and worry rather than actual societal need.

"I had a very emotional reaction to highly unlikely event. Enact expensive policy that waste finite resources to do little, if anything to prevent a similar event." - A totally unselfish person.

In other words, you can't declare something a non-issue just because worse issues exist.

Someone being murdered is a tragedy, true. It is not a good reason to throw limited government resources away for no gain, though.
 
2014-02-13 05:53:59 PM

lordjupiter: And which of those other 9 issues do both sides completely agree on?  Or even agree on enough to come together and solve?  I mean, are you seriously paying attention to the political landscape in America if you think gun control is the one issue where no consensus exist, and we just need to pool efforts toward fixing everything else?


For a little while there was a consensus to move forward on mental health and the availability of care. You'll remember this from my Boobiess on the subject. It was a lost opportunity to actually accomplish something, all because of the fixation on gun control.
 
2014-02-13 05:55:03 PM

AngryDragon: You gun grabbers are really an obsessed lot, aren't you?


Attention Walmart Shoppers, we have a special on "potatoes" in Aisle 7.
 
2014-02-13 05:57:07 PM

lordjupiter: No, because the argument is based on the sense of selfishness and worry rather than actual societal need.


it's not, though. "the best way to spend limited resources on gun deaths is to focus those resources on those categories of gun death or the causal factors of gun death, especially those that make up the majority of deaths" is a rational approach.

lordjupiter: Just because X number is bigger than Y it may mean that raw probability is enough to soothe the individual but it does nothing for the actual people behind those numbers.


this is the exact same argument behind the "well 9/11 was bad and those were 3000 real americans that died and never forget therefore comma". it's an appeal to emotion. you're saying that the death of a child in a school shooting is somehow more meaningful to you than the death of a child in a gangland shootout or the death of a child from drowning in a pool. there's actual people behind all the numbers.

we don't have infinite money, we don't have infinite political capital, and we don't have infinite power. we have limited resources, and the moral burden is to help as many people with those resources as we can. if i had a magic wand i'd wave newton away, absolutey. if you told me to choose between waving newton away or choosing to wave away one category of the thousands of children dying because child abuse, neglect, fires, disease, etc, every year, i'd have to sit down and look at the numbers. to let one event that was plastered on my television screen overwhelm every rational faculty i have is to poison the very concept of compassion
 
Displayed 50 of 453 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report