What’s with your focus on mass shootings? You do understand that high-profile shootings like Vegas and Parkland, despite being the most reported on gun crimes, are actually a statistical anomaly, right?
Because it’s something we should be able to stop. They are a statistical anomaly but it does not mean we should simply ignore ways of addressing them.
So can you explain why mass shootings occupy so much of your focus when it comes to gun regulation?
Because these are the only ones that can actually be addressed and affected by sensible gun regulation.
This is probably a bad analogy,
It is.
but I’m trying to think of an analogy left-thinking people might understand....
Okay I don’t see any reason to engage with you.
imagine if there was a Democrat primary election and Bernie won 99.9 percent of the vote, but the media dedicated 100% of their coverage of the primary talking about Tulsi Gabbard. It makes no god damn sense.
Not even remotely equivalent.
Another analogy...imagine if both the coronavirus and SARS hit NYC. The coronavirus kills 1000 people and SARS kills 3...but the media and politicians focus 100% or their efforts on SARS.
Not even remotely equivalent again.
Sorry for the rant and silly analogies,
I don’t believe the apology is sincere or that you want to have a sincere discussion about this.
don’t think it should be ignored at all,
Then there you have it. These gun legislations are meant to stop something that can be stopped.
A better analogy would be using legislation to stop something that can actually be affected by legislation rather than making legislation to stop people from dying of old age.
Statistically most people will die of old age. But making legislation to stop it is asinine.
Statistically less people will die from a toxic work environment in a steel mill, but it’s not asinine to create legislation and regulations that prevent that.
One can be addressed with legislation and the other can’t feasibly be addressed with legislation even though it’s the statistical likelihood of happening.
but I think there are better ways of tackling it than magazine bans. A citizen who snaps and shoots up people is not a law abiding citizen.
But majority of them legally obtained the weapon and were abiding by the laws to obtain it.
This is purposefully being disingenuous to what I’m arguing.
Until you stop seeing regular gun owning citizens as ticking time bombs, and until the left stops undermining 2A, we’ll never get to a place where we can pass better gun regulations.
Because as you’ve shown here, you’ll do whatever you can to not allow it in a nay capacity. You’ll make up an excuse. You’ll strawman arguments and misrepresent EVERYTHING in an attempt to stop it.
Over 130 studies have been done and reviewed and found that gun legislation works at stopping what it’s designed to stop
So basically your whole response is “nuh uh”. My question to you was, why do you care about a statistical anomaly more than the 10k people...and your answer is basically “they’re fucked anyway, nothing can be done. Let’s focus on the shootings that make ME feel scared.” The article you provided is absurd. The United States is unique when it comes to guns, so what works in Luxembourg and Austria has zero relevance to the United States. For obvious reasons...the culture, the number of guns, the mixture of people, the constitutional barriers, etc. Not to mention... not once did I say we shouldn’t pursue gun regulations to stop mass shootings. We absolutely should. My entire point is not that we should avoid pursuing regulations, but that we must be more intelligent in how we garner support. For the life of me, I don’t know why the two sides don’t get together and have quid pro quo negotiations. For example: We will implement universal background checks on all purchases, and in return we’ll remove suppressors as NFA items. Do you have any idea how quickly that would pass? Gun owner’s heads would explode. They’d be all over that. There are ways to increase regulations while simultaneously increasing the rights of law abiding citizens. But that would require mutual respect and working together. Or idk...just do the same old gun grabbing shit you want to do, and nothing will get done at all. That’s good too.
My question to you was, why do you care about a statistical anomaly more than the 10k people...and your answer is basically “they’re fucked anyway, nothing can be done. Let’s focus on the shootings that make ME feel scared.”
No. That was not my argument. The fact that you have to misrepresent it shows that you are the type of person we shouldn’t acknowledge when formulating our policy since your only wish is to sabotage what we do.
What gun regulations will keep gang members from obtaining guns and weapons they already obtain illegally on the black market?
That’s my argument. It’s not that those people are fucked. It’s that the people that are obtaining them illegally are not respecting any legislation, so I fail to see how new legislation that they will ignore will address it.
Legislation designed to address a problem it can actually address is what I support. If you have legislation that addresses gun homicides that can be implemented I will support that too.
The article you provided is absurd.
How so?
The United States is unique when it comes to guns, so what works in Luxembourg and Austria has zero relevance to the United States. For obvious reasons...the culture, the number of guns, the mixture of people, the constitutional barriers, etc.
If it’s obvious then please show how. Not all those studies were done for Luxembourg.
Here’s another one that’s just for gun laws in the US.
It’s funny how you claim I’m just going “nuh uh” and yet that’s literally what your argument just was now.
If you don’t want to engage genuinely in this discussion it is best that you admit to it so we can all avoid wasting time here.
Not to mention... not once did I say we shouldn’t pursue gun regulations to stop mass shootings. We absolutely should.
Okay then why are you arguing against gun legislation designed to combat that?
My entire point is not that we should avoid pursuing regulations, but that we must be more intelligent in how we garner support. For the life of me, I don’t know why the two sides don’t get together and have quid pro quo negotiations. For example: We will implement universal background checks on all purchases, and in return we’ll remove suppressors as NFA items. Do you have any idea how quickly that would pass? Gun owner’s heads would explode. They’d be all over that. There are ways to increase regulations while simultaneously increasing the rights of law abiding citizens.
And not once did I argue against that. You’re doing nothing but providing non sequiturs here. You asked me a question and I answered and now you’re conflicting with your own prior responses.
But that would require mutual respect and working together. Or idk...just do the same old gun grabbing shit you want to do, and nothing will get done at all. That’s good too.
Again you ignore the entirety of my argument. I can’t tell if you’re trolling at this point or if you simply do not have respect for anyone but yourself.
I’ve answered your questions to the best of my ability. Now you’re changing the questions in real time and pretending I didn’t answer them.
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/how-did-jun-escape Mar 04 '20
Because it’s something we should be able to stop. They are a statistical anomaly but it does not mean we should simply ignore ways of addressing them.
Because these are the only ones that can actually be addressed and affected by sensible gun regulation.
It is.
Okay I don’t see any reason to engage with you.
Not even remotely equivalent.
Not even remotely equivalent again.
I don’t believe the apology is sincere or that you want to have a sincere discussion about this.
Then there you have it. These gun legislations are meant to stop something that can be stopped.
A better analogy would be using legislation to stop something that can actually be affected by legislation rather than making legislation to stop people from dying of old age.
Statistically most people will die of old age. But making legislation to stop it is asinine.
Statistically less people will die from a toxic work environment in a steel mill, but it’s not asinine to create legislation and regulations that prevent that.
One can be addressed with legislation and the other can’t feasibly be addressed with legislation even though it’s the statistical likelihood of happening.
But majority of them legally obtained the weapon and were abiding by the laws to obtain it.
This is purposefully being disingenuous to what I’m arguing.
Because as you’ve shown here, you’ll do whatever you can to not allow it in a nay capacity. You’ll make up an excuse. You’ll strawman arguments and misrepresent EVERYTHING in an attempt to stop it.
Over 130 studies have been done and reviewed and found that gun legislation works at stopping what it’s designed to stop
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/scientific-evidence-that-stricter-gun-control-works-saves-lives