Was a bunch of children marching for gun control a success or an embarrassment? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Videos about news and current events.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14900992
One Degree wrote:Drunk driving laws and gun control have nothing in common. Drunk driving laws only punish the violator. Gun control punishes everyone, because you aren’t satisfied with just punishing the violator.

Think there's unpacking to be done on the comparison, because I think they seem more comparable when we consider what did they violate.
My impression is the comparison is that making drink driving illegal is based on it's increased risk for harm, so that even if you don't hurt someone driving, you are still punished. Similarly, one might impose restrictions on accessing guns under the premise of reducing the risk of harm so that people are restricted even though they do no harm.
So I think you have to be more clear on what the violation is here. Someone who violates a gun control law would be comparable to someone violating a drink driving law where they may not have done any harm, but are restricted for perceived risk of doing potential harm.

Rather than a dismissal that they're uncomparable, I think point would be stronger to emphasize what restrictions are overbearing or unjustifiable. A difficulty though is that because it's a 2nd amendment right, there is a kind of principled position irrespective of the circumstances. So that impositions are wrong in a moral sense unconcerned with the empirical reality. Although, I think can challenge the premise easily enough what certain gun restrictions are meant to do to reduce harm and in what way specifically rather than it being left implied by intuition. Because it seems odd to me that mass shootings are particularized against say automatic weapons being restricted, it seems a sudden leap that I don't follow except in some argument that one can shoot more with an automatic weapon and thus do less damage. Which doesn't seem to really stop shootings then, it's just damage control at best for how many people are perhaps shot, not stopping shootings in themselves.
#14901050
One Degree wrote:Gun control punishes everyone
An out and out falsehood. How does restricting semi-automatic rifles with large magazine capacities actually punishing anyone? @One Degree Please... make an argument to defend this statement.

Suntzu wrote:A tiny number of people are killed by AR-15 style weapons. Many more are killed by drowning in bath tubs or swallowing toothpicks.
There hasn't been anyone killing school children with toothpicks or bathtubs, so your comparison is dumber than dumb.

Also wrong, Sport. Stop listening to Fucker Carlson:
As the following table shows, total deaths for children 17 and under due to drowning in a bathtub were 95 in 2011, the latest year the numbers are available. Total deaths from accidental gun shots were 102. The one age range where Carlson might be able to make a case is for children 0 to 4 years old. For that group, 73 died in a bathtub and 29 were killed by guns. But in every other age group, guns are more deadly than bathtubs.

What that shows is that children 17 and under are more likely to die from accidental gunfire than from drowning in a bathtub, although the difference is small.

However, for children 5 years old and up, government data show that guns are three times more deadly than bathtubs. Carlson was not just wrong, but with his phrase, "far more children died," he was emphatically wrong.

https://wonder.cdc.gov/

Suntzu wrote:We could save thousands of more lives by passing a law requiring helmets in automobiles or putting drunk drivers in prison for the first offense both easily don't without shitting on the constitution.
There is a vast difference between accidental injuries, and people deliberately walking into schools with rapid fire guns and killing students/teachers. The Constitution was made to be amended and changed. There is justification for a change, as well.

Change doesn't "shit" on anything, unless you're some old fuckhead living in the past, wishing Jim Crow laws were still around. :knife:
#14901051
@Godstud
When you pass a law that restricts EVERYONE’S ability to purchase something, then you have punished EVERYONE. The argument is whether such mass punishment is necessary. Pretending it is not a punishment is the falsehood.
#14901053
One Degree wrote:The argument is whether such mass punishment is necessary. Pretending it is not a punishment is the falsehood.
:lol: No one is being penalized by not being permitted to have rapid fire magazine fed rifles. That's a fucking joke of a position, and you obviously cannot defend such a crybaby position without going straight to your 'feelings' being hurt.

Are you being punished because you cannot own a tank or a fighter plane? Is EVERYONE being punished in this way? :lol: Oh, woe is me! I cannot buy a Battleship!
#14901055
@One Degree Am I insulting you? I am saying your position is ridiculous. I am not saying that you are. You are not presenting arguments. You are presenting how you feel about it and pretending it's an argument. I apologize for mocking your 'feelings' argument.

I continue discussing things with people who think feelings are arguments. Try a real argument?

Answer me this:
Is your inability to purchase an armoured vehicle with a 150mm cannon, a penalty, or a punishment?

This is your assertion(although I upped the scale). If we aren't allowed to purchase something dangerous it's a penalty. It's not the community deeming that it's a threat to the community... is it?
#14901073
Godstud wrote:@One Degree Am I insulting you? I am saying your position is ridiculous. I am not saying that you are. You are not presenting arguments. You are presenting how you feel about it and pretending it's an argument. I apologize for mocking your 'feelings' argument.

I continue discussing things with people who think feelings are arguments. Try a real argument?

Answer me this:
Is your inability to purchase an armoured vehicle with a 150mm cannon, a penalty, or a punishment?

This is your assertion(although I upped the scale). If we aren't allowed to purchase something dangerous it's a penalty. It's not the community deeming that it's a threat to the community... is it?


Yes, if you deny something it is a punishment since it definitely is not a reward.
#14901075
One Degree wrote: Yes, if you deny something it is a punishment since it definitely is not a reward.
:lol: I am extremely sorry, but things are not only rewards or punishments, just as the world is not just black and white.

If I deny you the ability to purchase a nuclear weapon, it's not a punishment. Your argument is terribly childish and completely absurd.

I mean, really, if I deny my child the use of a firearm at age 7, is it a punishment, or am I just being a good goddamned parent? He wants it. Am I obligated to get it for him or it's considered punishment? You have to make reasonable arguments, and not just simply complain that if it's not good it's bad. There are degrees in everything.
Last edited by Godstud on 30 Mar 2018 03:10, edited 1 time in total.
#14901078
That's not the point, Suntzu. The point is that the 2nd AMENDMENT can be changed according to what is best for society. You could argue that even the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee your rights to a gun, since it can be changed, and automatic weapons have already been banned.

In fact, I could ban all weapons except muskets and STILL adhere to the 2nd Amendment. I actually think this is a good idea. :lol: No mass shootings if you're armed with a musket, and you still have a gun.
#14901085
Stormsmith wrote:I can not believe the number of adults grumbling about taking automatic weapons off the table.

50 years ago, Christmas cards rattled on about the spirits of Christmas. Santa was drunk. There was a "one for the road" mentality afoot. As a result, people died. Then MADD arose, and slowly the drinking and driving attitude began to be seen for what it is: an irresponsible force that put innocent lives at risk. The resistance against common sense gun laws suggests you need another MADD-like movement. Unbelievable.


Eventually it will happen with guns. The silly arguments about video games and movies have already fallen by the wayside. The harsh truth that gun nuts have to face is that they are dropping into the minority. It's a gradual decline and there will be setbacks along the path but they are on their way out. And the hilariously macho "it's the only thing standing between us and tyranny" nonsense is probably doing them more harm than good at this point. As if the police are afraid of Jimbob and his Glock.
#14901092
Stormsmith wrote:I can not believe the number of adults grumbling about taking automatic weapons off the table.

50 years ago, Christmas cards rattled on about the spirits of Christmas. Santa was drunk. There was a "one for the road" mentality afoot. As a result, people died. Then MADD arose, and slowly the drinking and driving attitude began to be seen for what it is: an irresponsible force that put innocent lives at risk. The resistance against common sense gun laws suggests you need another MADD-like movement. Unbelievable.


You obviously don't know about constitutional rights. It doesn't end with bump stocks or automatic weapons. BTW whats an automatic weapon ? Completely believable.
#14901094
You know little about constitutional rights, as well, @Finfinder. These rights can be changed. That's what AMENDMENTS are.

Automatic weapon? really? Are you just playing dumb?

Since you appear to be playing dumb: An automatic firearm continuously fires rounds as long as the trigger is pressed or held and there is ammunition in the magazine/chamber. In contrast, a semi-automatic firearm fires one round with each individual trigger-pull.

I am sure Stormsmith was including semi-automatic weapons in this. Do you want to cherry pick and argue semantics some more?

If anything, the people arguing and upset that the youths of America marched against guns, are the ones who are a national embarrassment to the USA.
#14901100
I meant to write semi automatic

Wellsy
Good post. My intention though was simply to point out that society can change when what was seen as good is re-examined. I don't think semis are needed at all, but absolutely get rid of those big mags.

One Bullet
No one is being punished. Automatics were banned, no one's whinging about that. If semis are also banned, you've still got long guns. Give the deer a fighting chance.

Fin
Not sure where you're going with this constitional stuff. I presume you know that changing gun laws is the same as passing any bill. It doesn't become an issue for constitionality its until the bill is passed and then challenged in a court.

Misty, my dear
Oh Lord that man is dense!

Godstud, mate...thanks for all your comments.

It blows me away that, by law, kids receive a free education. So they're shipped off to schools 4 - 5 days a week, and are at the mercy of wandering murderers.
#14901102
Godstud wrote:The youth rallies against gun violence are not "choreographed" by adults.

It's total astroturf. Kids are just going along with it so they can get out of class or get extra credit. It's all bullshit.

Godstud wrote:Children are dying in school shootings because assholes don't want to change gun laws because they think gun rights are more important than the rights of children to life.

No. Children are dying in schools because law enforcement isn't doing their fucking jobs.

4cal wrote:Hopefully the kids will keep that in mind as they confront those who would stand opposed.

Bwahaha. Maybe they'll say, "Hey, look at this scar St. Pete. Got this in Afghanistan shootin at some Hajis."

Godstud wrote:Against the immigration of non-whites? Racist, obviously. You bring in skin-colour into the equation, instead of just saying, immigrants. Being against immigration is one thing, but as soon you have to specify skin colour(i.e. race), then you are no longer anything but racist.

How many Mexicans and Syrians has Thailand allowed in?

Godstud wrote::eh: Answer me this question: What about making schools safer for school children is a despicable agenda?

I thought you were against racial segregation...

One Degree wrote:Most schools already have appropriate safety measures but they are meaningless when someone is intent upon killing you.

They are also pointless when the shooter is already known to law enforcment, and law enforcement doesn't do anything because Obama didn't want them to. They are also pointless, because having police officers in schools only works if the police officers actually do something.

Godstud wrote:There are ways to stop mass shootings.

Yeah. Online courses!

Godstud wrote:You aren't going to be able to kill 17 people with a knife, and a knife is far easier to defend against than a firearm. Are you going to explain how 59 people are going to be killed, and hundreds injured at a concert by a guy with a knife?


Chinese authorities say two WOMEN were part of knife-wielding terror gang which left at least 33 dead and 143 wounded after attacking a train station in China

Godstud wrote:How does restricting semi-automatic rifles with large magazine capacities actually punishing anyone?

It affects black people more than white people, so it's racist.

Godstud wrote:You could argue that even the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee your rights to a gun, since it can be changed, and automatic weapons have already been banned.

That doesn't preclude their use, however. It just means that liberals feel better about themselves.

Godstud wrote:In fact, I could ban all weapons except muskets and STILL adhere to the 2nd Amendment. I actually think this is a good idea. :lol: No mass shootings if you're armed with a musket, and you still have a gun.

The colonists used rifles. Primarily Pennsylvania flint lock rifles. They were far more accurate than British muskets.

4cal wrote:The harsh truth that gun nuts have to face is that they are dropping into the minority.

Doesn't matter. We have all the guns.

4cal wrote:As if the police are afraid of Jimbob and his Glock.

They were afraid to go into Parkland High School and kill the dipshit with the AR-15. A neighboring police force had to do that for them.

Godstud wrote:You know little about constitutional rights, as well, @Finfinder. These rights can be changed. That's what AMENDMENTS are.

Good luck with that. It takes 2/3rds of the House and Senate and 3/4 of the legislatures of the several states. The numbers simply aren't there.
#14901123
Blackjack21 wrote:Kids are just going along with it so they can get out of class or get extra credit.
Your argument is bullshit.

Blackjack21 wrote:Children are dying in schools because law enforcement isn't doing their fucking jobs.
So stationing police officers outside every school is your solution, or is it enforcing gun control? make up your fucking mind.

Blackjack21 wrote:How many Mexicans and Syrians has Thailand allowed in?
The requirements for citizenship apply to everyone, regardless of where they are from. How is that relevant to the current discussion? Are you losing that thing you consider your mind?

Blackjack21 wrote:I thought you were against racial segregation
:roll: Nice try, racist. Racial segregation isn't going to stop these incidents. Gun control is.

Blackjack21 wrote:Yeah. Online courses!
Your solution to school shootings is to shut down schools, and do home-schooling? Any other stupid fucking ideas? You seem to chock full of them, today. :knife:

Blackjack21 wrote:Chinese authorities say two WOMEN were part of knife-wielding terror gang which left at least 33 dead and 143 wounded after attacking a train station in China
Not in a school, in the USA. Irrelevant to the discussion. Also, there were TEN assailants. If they'd had guns, hundreds would have died. Yet another mindless argument about how knives are the same as guns.

Blackjack21 wrote:It affects black people more than white people, so it's racist.
Banning certain weapons, is not racist. Your argument is stupid, AGAIN. I also dismiss it, as you're one of the most racist right-wingers on this forum.

Blackjack21 wrote:Good luck with that. It takes 2/3rds of the House and Senate and 3/4 of the legislatures of the several states.
The numbers simply aren't there. Not yet, but old assholes who consider guns more important than lives are going to die off, and the young people who don't like all the gun violence will change the laws so that the people are safer. Those young people you dismiss now, are the people who are going to vote that 2nd Amendment into the gutter of history, where it belongs. The old white male assholes will just have to sit at home lamenting, hand-wringing, and whinging about their lost gun rights.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

You mean the settlements they abandoned in 2006 f[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Meanwhile, your opponents argue that everyone e[…]

People tend to forget that the French now have a s[…]

Neither is an option too. Neither have your inte[…]