First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
Post Reply A moment of silence for the 93 million Americans that died from gun violence today
15250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Online
Posted 6/17/17 , edited 6/17/17

Nasigno wrote:

So, let's get this straight again. The idea of getting rid of murder is a pipe dream, you can try this moral high ground all you want. But in the end nobody is going to produce a system, law, or otherwise that will reduce it further than what it already is. Hence why it's at an "acceptable" rate.

People tend to just overlook how much worse it is elsewhere, and then act as if you can make all murder stop. Or the alternative when someone has an realistic view of it, they are "inhuman" or mentally screwed, thanks for pointing that finger at me cause it proves my argument on that

Death happens, you are human you are designed to die from the moment you are born. How it happens has some differing significance but at the end of, it will happen.

I would be more worried if the say the murder total was more than fractions of a percent of both the population or the actual fatality rate a year.

But be honest, do you really even care? Are you actually hurt when someone dies? Or you just trying to say you are to keep a morally "good" face? What's your "goal" post


So your argument has officially become "human death doesn't matter".

I don't see such fundamentals as really being worth discussing. If your viewpoint is that radically different, there is no way for us to find common ground. But let's get this straight, you are not supporting a position of "anti-gun control" at that point. You are supporting a position which suggests that no policy should be enacted in an attempt to decrease death...
11291 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 6/17/17
Death or healing it matters not which you seek.



1509 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / United States
Offline
Posted 6/17/17

sundin13 wrote:


Nasigno wrote:

So, let's get this straight again. The idea of getting rid of murder is a pipe dream, you can try this moral high ground all you want. But in the end nobody is going to produce a system, law, or otherwise that will reduce it further than what it already is. Hence why it's at an "acceptable" rate.

People tend to just overlook how much worse it is elsewhere, and then act as if you can make all murder stop. Or the alternative when someone has an realistic view of it, they are "inhuman" or mentally screwed, thanks for pointing that finger at me cause it proves my argument on that

Death happens, you are human you are designed to die from the moment you are born. How it happens has some differing significance but at the end of, it will happen.

I would be more worried if the say the murder total was more than fractions of a percent of both the population or the actual fatality rate a year.

But be honest, do you really even care? Are you actually hurt when someone dies? Or you just trying to say you are to keep a morally "good" face? What's your "goal" post


So your argument has officially become "human death doesn't matter".

I don't see such fundamentals as really being worth discussing. If your viewpoint is that radically different, there is no way for us to find common ground. But let's get this straight, you are not supporting a position of "anti-gun control" at that point. You are supporting a position which suggests that no policy should be enacted in an attempt to decrease death...



I mean, if you truly think about it death really doesn't matter. Every single person on this planet is most likely (unless technology can figure out a way for me to live forever, in which case I'm going with that) going to die at some point. This is a fact, you are not immortal (yet). Also, do you care every time you see someone die on the news from a DUI or something?

No, because it's not someone you're close to so it doesn't matter to you. You fear guns because you know nothing about them, and rabidly consume what the media tells you without doing your own research.
22009 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 6/17/17

sundin13 wrote:


Nasigno wrote:

So, let's get this straight again. The idea of getting rid of murder is a pipe dream, you can try this moral high ground all you want. But in the end nobody is going to produce a system, law, or otherwise that will reduce it further than what it already is. Hence why it's at an "acceptable" rate.

People tend to just overlook how much worse it is elsewhere, and then act as if you can make all murder stop. Or the alternative when someone has an realistic view of it, they are "inhuman" or mentally screwed, thanks for pointing that finger at me cause it proves my argument on that

Death happens, you are human you are designed to die from the moment you are born. How it happens has some differing significance but at the end of, it will happen.

I would be more worried if the say the murder total was more than fractions of a percent of both the population or the actual fatality rate a year.

But be honest, do you really even care? Are you actually hurt when someone dies? Or you just trying to say you are to keep a morally "good" face? What's your "goal" post


So your argument has officially become "human death doesn't matter".

I don't see such fundamentals as really being worth discussing. If your viewpoint is that radically different, there is no way for us to find common ground. But let's get this straight, you are not supporting a position of "anti-gun control" at that point. You are supporting a position which suggests that no policy should be enacted in an attempt to decrease death...


If you take away firearms you have fewer gun crimes but they just switch the method of killing so you've effectively done nothing but change it from gun crimes to bombs, knives, and blunt objects. When you do that a grandma has no chance of opposing a violent gang invading her home. If she had a gun she could oppose them and repel them, possibly killing a couple in the process and helping society (oh wait I guess that adds to gun deaths that suuuuuucks).



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/grandma-grabs-gun-home-invading-goons-run-lives-article-1.2877470
15250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Online
Posted 6/17/17 , edited 6/17/17

Laura_Bodewig wrote:

I mean, if you truly think about it death really doesn't matter. Every single person on this planet is most likely (unless technology can figure out a way for me to live forever, in which case I'm going with that) going to die at some point. This is a fact, you are not immortal (yet). Also, do you care every time you see someone die on the news from a DUI or something?

No, because it's not someone you're close to so it doesn't matter to you. You fear guns because you know nothing about them, and rabidly consume what the media tells you without doing your own research.


I'm fine with someone holding that opinion, but debating legislation with someone who holds that point of view is pointless. You have to rewind the conversation to debate morality, empathy and the basic purpose of a government before actually getting to the conversation, which are conversations I don't really care to get into, at least in this context.

As for the rest, it's kind of needless condescending especially considering that you don't know any of my positions or the basis on which they were founded.


Rujikin wrote:

If you take away firearms you have fewer gun crimes but they just switch the method of killing so you've effectively done nothing but change it from gun crimes to bombs, knives, and blunt objects. When you do that a grandma has no chance of opposing a violent gang invading her home. If she had a gun she could oppose them and repel them, possibly killing a couple in the process and helping society (oh wait I guess that adds to gun deaths that suuuuuucks).


That is a wholly separate discussion and one that I'm pretty sure I've already had with you in the past.
22009 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 6/17/17 , edited 6/17/17

Laura_Bodewig wrote:
I mean, if you truly think about it death really doesn't matter. Every single person on this planet is most likely (unless technology can figure out a way for me to live forever, in which case I'm going with that) going to die at some point. This is a fact, you are not immortal (yet). Also, do you care every time you see someone die on the news from a DUI or something?

No, because it's not someone you're close to so it doesn't matter to you. You fear guns because you know nothing about them, and rabidly consume what the media tells you without doing your own research.


Personally I'm more worried about a 2000lb object ramming into me at 50MPH being driven by a drunk than I am of being shot. Many people survive being shot but car accidents are always real nasty.
22009 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 6/17/17 , edited 6/25/17


All of us here have survived the 93 million dead from gun violence yesterday! Good job everyone!
29829 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 6/17/17

Rujikin wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


Nasigno wrote:

So, let's get this straight again. The idea of getting rid of murder is a pipe dream, you can try this moral high ground all you want. But in the end nobody is going to produce a system, law, or otherwise that will reduce it further than what it already is. Hence why it's at an "acceptable" rate.

People tend to just overlook how much worse it is elsewhere, and then act as if you can make all murder stop. Or the alternative when someone has an realistic view of it, they are "inhuman" or mentally screwed, thanks for pointing that finger at me cause it proves my argument on that

Death happens, you are human you are designed to die from the moment you are born. How it happens has some differing significance but at the end of, it will happen.

I would be more worried if the say the murder total was more than fractions of a percent of both the population or the actual fatality rate a year.

But be honest, do you really even care? Are you actually hurt when someone dies? Or you just trying to say you are to keep a morally "good" face? What's your "goal" post


So your argument has officially become "human death doesn't matter".

I don't see such fundamentals as really being worth discussing. If your viewpoint is that radically different, there is no way for us to find common ground. But let's get this straight, you are not supporting a position of "anti-gun control" at that point. You are supporting a position which suggests that no policy should be enacted in an attempt to decrease death...


If you take away firearms you have fewer gun crimes but they just switch the method of killing so you've effectively done nothing but change it from gun crimes to bombs, knives, and blunt objects. When you do that a grandma has no chance of opposing a violent gang invading her home. If she had a gun she could oppose them and repel them, possibly killing a couple in the process and helping society (oh wait I guess that adds to gun deaths that suuuuuucks).



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/grandma-grabs-gun-home-invading-goons-run-lives-article-1.2877470



That happened here in Australia when we banned guns.

IMO it's much better i would rather be faced with a criminal with a knife then a gun but each to their own.
Banning guns won't work in America so the fact people keep trying is funny.
15061 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 6/17/17
It was close, I understand.
1509 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / United States
Offline
Posted 6/17/17 , edited 6/17/17

sundin13 wrote:


Laura_Bodewig wrote:

I mean, if you truly think about it death really doesn't matter. Every single person on this planet is most likely (unless technology can figure out a way for me to live forever, in which case I'm going with that) going to die at some point. This is a fact, you are not immortal (yet). Also, do you care every time you see someone die on the news from a DUI or something?

No, because it's not someone you're close to so it doesn't matter to you. You fear guns because you know nothing about them, and rabidly consume what the media tells you without doing your own research.


I'm fine with someone holding that opinion, but debating legislation with someone who holds that point of view is pointless. You have to rewind the conversation to debate morality, empathy and the basic purpose of a government before actually getting to the conversation, which are conversations I don't really care to get into, at least in this context.

As for the rest, it's kind of needless condescending especially considering that you don't know any of my positions or the basis on which they were founded.


Rujikin wrote:

If you take away firearms you have fewer gun crimes but they just switch the method of killing so you've effectively done nothing but change it from gun crimes to bombs, knives, and blunt objects. When you do that a grandma has no chance of opposing a violent gang invading her home. If she had a gun she could oppose them and repel them, possibly killing a couple in the process and helping society (oh wait I guess that adds to gun deaths that suuuuuucks).


That is a wholly separate discussion and one that I'm pretty sure I've already had with you in the past.


And while you're unwilling to have a discussion on those things, you are perfectly ok with legislating a tool you don't understand with morals you're unwilling to discuss. My point of view truly is the most logical when compared to your Judeo Christian morality (which is barely a moral code anyways). Empathy (and emotion in general) leads to poor and illogical reason and decisions.

People like you are the reason Trump got elected. You prefer to shut down the conversation, rather then have one.
1509 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / United States
Offline
Posted 6/17/17

Rujikin wrote:


Laura_Bodewig wrote:
I mean, if you truly think about it death really doesn't matter. Every single person on this planet is most likely (unless technology can figure out a way for me to live forever, in which case I'm going with that) going to die at some point. This is a fact, you are not immortal (yet). Also, do you care every time you see someone die on the news from a DUI or something?

No, because it's not someone you're close to so it doesn't matter to you. You fear guns because you know nothing about them, and rabidly consume what the media tells you without doing your own research.


Personally I'm more worried about a 2000lb object ramming into me at 50MPH being driven by a drunk than I am of being shot. Many people survive being shot but car accidents are always real nasty.


Agreed.
15250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Online
Posted 6/17/17

Laura_Bodewig wrote:

And while you're unwilling to have a discussion on those things, you are perfectly ok with legislating a tool you don't understand with morals you're unwilling to discuss. My point of view truly is the most logical when compared to your Judeo Christian morality (which is barely a moral code anyways). Empathy (and emotion in general) leads to poor and illogical reason and decisions.


You serious? You are really trying to stand behind the idea that death doesn't matter? I don't think any single person in office would agree with that position. Under that logic, we might as well do away with our entire penal code.

"Oh, you just murdered someone? Who cares? Everybody is going to die someday. Have a good day sir."

You are saying that policy should not exist to protect life. That means we can do away with OSHA, we can do away with vehicle safety regulations, legalize murder and other crimes against persons, we can throw out speed limits, and immediately halt all medical research.

You are arguing a position that completely upends virtually all of society. It is the most basic assumption in debating and while I'm fine with you personally holding that position, it is absolutely ludicrous to try to bring that perspective into any debate which extends outside of abstract philosophical pontification.
15061 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 6/17/17
It's beautiful how hyperbolic these things end up being.
524 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Online
Posted 6/17/17

sundin13 wrote:


Nasigno wrote:

So, let's get this straight again. The idea of getting rid of murder is a pipe dream, you can try this moral high ground all you want. But in the end nobody is going to produce a system, law, or otherwise that will reduce it further than what it already is. Hence why it's at an "acceptable" rate.

People tend to just overlook how much worse it is elsewhere, and then act as if you can make all murder stop. Or the alternative when someone has an realistic view of it, they are "inhuman" or mentally screwed, thanks for pointing that finger at me cause it proves my argument on that

Death happens, you are human you are designed to die from the moment you are born. How it happens has some differing significance but at the end of, it will happen.

I would be more worried if the say the murder total was more than fractions of a percent of both the population or the actual fatality rate a year.

But be honest, do you really even care? Are you actually hurt when someone dies? Or you just trying to say you are to keep a morally "good" face? What's your "goal" post


So your argument has officially become "human death doesn't matter".

I don't see such fundamentals as really being worth discussing. If your viewpoint is that radically different, there is no way for us to find common ground. But let's get this straight, you are not supporting a position of "anti-gun control" at that point. You are supporting a position which suggests that no policy should be enacted in an attempt to decrease death...


In the current context of how it is happening, no there is no reasonable level you can promote that will actually make any degree of measurable change to the loss of life to homicide.

You are right, I do not support gun control as it is not an answer as its not the problem, the problem is people killing people. It's already illegal so no law is gonna make it more illegal.

So fundamentally you have a problem that cannot be totally fixed and appealing emotion to it is just basically doing nothing. It's great to have feelings, pass a law, do whatever but at the end of it. What has it done? Nothing is the answer.

Emotion is not a tool to bring to debating legislation. That just brings rhetoric and appeals that in this argument anyone against you is for people dying. It closes to all possibilities outside what you feel is right. I'm not going to run on that argument as it is just an emotional hype with no tolerance or capability to listen.

This also ignores the fact that you have to accept people are going to die, and that people are going to break the law. The law exists because people have done it, or will do it again. You have to accept this and make for reasonable levels of what is expected. Emotional and idealistic goals need not be pushes as the expected goal, aiming to reduce or keep a low norm is far more plausible.

So again, are you going to be realistic or idealistic?
15250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Online
Posted 6/17/17 , edited 6/17/17

Nasigno wrote:
In the current context of how it is happening, no there is no reasonable level you can promote that will actually make any degree of measurable change to the loss of life to homicide.

You are right, I do not support gun control as it is not an answer as its not the problem, the problem is people killing people. It's already illegal so no law is gonna make it more illegal.

So fundamentally you have a problem that cannot be totally fixed and appealing emotion to it is just basically doing nothing. It's great to have feelings, pass a law, do whatever but at the end of it. What has it done? Nothing is the answer.

Emotion is not a tool to bring to debating legislation. That just brings rhetoric and appeals that in this argument anyone against you is for people dying. It closes to all possibilities outside what you feel is right. I'm not going to run on that argument as it is just an emotional hype with no tolerance or capability to listen.

This also ignores the fact that you have to accept people are going to die, and that people are going to break the law. The law exists because people have done it, or will do it again. You have to accept this and make for reasonable levels of what is expected. Emotional and idealistic goals need not be pushes as the expected goal, aiming to reduce or keep a low norm is far more plausible.

So again, are you going to be realistic or idealistic?


See, I do think that is a fair conversation to have. "What will the actual effect of policy changes be?" It's a fair question to ask and one that should be asked before enacting policy. I try to analyze policy by performing a cost/benefit analysis. I look at the negatives that the policy brings and weigh them against the positives. Using that information, I come to my conclusion.

That is why I took issue with your original post. It wasn't that you were utilizing a cost/benefit analysis, instead, you were looking at hypothetical benefits and saying "it only affects less that 1%". If a hypothetical piece of legislation can improve the lives of 1% of the population with no cost, that is a hugely important and beneficial piece of legislation that should be put into place. The question that should be asked is not "what is the scope of the benefits and do they meet some literally impossible standard", it should be "do the benefits outweigh the costs".

As for what further legislation seeks to accomplish, no one is expecting 100% of crime to be eliminated and I'd say the vast majority of people who argue for gun control are not arguing for the elimination of guns.

And as for emotion, I don't think you understand me. I am not arguing an appeal to emotion. I am arguing that the government's fundamental job is to serve the people and that means acting to protect them when possible.


Let me pose a hypothetical (note, this is hypothetical):

A law is proposed which limits gun ownership for people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors.
All Universities who projected the effects of this law saw a statistically significant decrease in homicide rates and no hidden drawbacks.

Would you support this law?

Rujikin wrote:

If you take away firearms you have fewer gun crimes but they just switch the method of killing so you've effectively done nothing but change it from gun crimes to bombs, knives, and blunt objects. When you do that a grandma has no chance of opposing a violent gang invading her home. If she had a gun she could oppose them and repel them, possibly killing a couple in the process and helping society (oh wait I guess that adds to gun deaths that suuuuuucks).


I'm sorry, I can't not say something.

Do you notice anything with your graph there? Here, let me draw some lines on it:



Notice anything now?

While "Knife/Sharp Instrument" increased by about 4 or 5, "Firearm" decreased by 14 or 15.

Now, I don't care to get into a big debate about the inversely proportional relationship between different manners of homicide, I just want to point out that your "evidence" doesn't make quite as strong of a case as you seem to think it does.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.