Mass Shootings, American Pride, Gun Laws...

[Kieran]

1 minute ago, kabLe said:

Republicans are willing to hear the lefts argument

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[kabLe]

1 minute ago, Kieran said:

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

The fact that me and Gentoo are willing to have a civilized conversation and you resort to saying we are so lost you won't respond with anything other than the above proves my point completely.

[Kieran]

1 minute ago, kabLe said:

The fact that me and Gentoo are willing to have a civilized conversation and you resort to saying we are so lost you won't respond with anything other than the above proves my point completely.

Yeah... that's the reason...
 

@John I'd like to hear your perspective on the matter.

[kabLe]

Just now, Kieran said:

Yeah... that's the reason...
 

@John I'd like to hear your perspective on the matter.

You can say what you want and get all the back up you need, I'm still willing to have a talk with you about it and try to see eye to eye whereas you want me to completely cave to your ideals.

[jazzy]

53 minutes ago, kabLe said:

I don't find that graph accurate. According to the graph your saying NOBODY between 1919-1933 drank alcohol at all? It was illegal and nobody was like hell yeah man me I drink that shit every day. I could be reading that graph wrong but to me it says 0 liters were consumed by American citizens between those time frames which is A B S O L U T E L Y wrong and therefore that graph is not accurate?

It's hard to show data when nobody collected data. I'm not arguing the point of prohibition because there's no data, but I am arguing the point of post-prohibition because there is data, and it shows alcohol usage was down post-prohibition for many decades.

57 minutes ago, kabLe said:

You also did not address my point about you using a logical fallacy of hasty generalization to assume that just because it worked in other countries who have a different way of life and a different governmental setup that it would work in America? I'm going to hold you to that. You also then used another hasty generalization to make the same assumption again.

I mean it's a pretty insurmountable point of evidence that the rest of the world has implemented it and we haven't.  Are you gonna call any argument anyone makes a hasty generalization because I didn't write a paper on it? How can I gather enough fact based evidence that the entire world has implemented gun control before you're happy? I doubt I could ever convince you because you're adamant on this whole "american experiment" thing.

 

The american experiment was literally the test of democracy, like 200 years ago. What experiment are we running now? There are more countries that are more democratic than us. There's literally a "freedom index" and we're not even top 10 dude.

 

Also, this entire situation is humorous at best, if you want to figure out what the American population, this "diverse" country wants to do, why not just check and see how it polls?

This was even before the most recent Uvalde shooting.. I'm sure once Pew Research Center drops more research it's going to be higher again.

 

So, serious question- why does this whole american experiment matter? If the majority of Americans support restrictions, why are we so bent on protecting an amendment that's designed to be changed? Someone said it earlier, the constitution is a living document. Prohibition was an amendment, and then it wasn't.

 

You're trying to say all this shit about "no we're different we're different we're different." Bullets work the same here as everywhere else man. Why does culture or history matter? What matters is the present, and what the people want. Though I guess for people like Gentoo, it's not what the people want, it's what he wants.

[kabLe]

50 minutes ago, jazzy said:

It's hard to show data when nobody collected data. I'm not arguing the point of prohibition because there's no data, but I am arguing the point of post-prohibition because there is data, and it shows alcohol usage was down post-prohibition for many decades.

I mean it's a pretty insurmountable point of evidence that the rest of the world has implemented it and we haven't.  Are you gonna call any argument anyone makes a hasty generalization because I didn't write a paper on it? How can I gather enough fact based evidence that the entire world has implemented gun control before you're happy? I doubt I could ever convince you because you're adamant on this whole "american experiment" thing.

 

The american experiment was literally the test of democracy, like 200 years ago. What experiment are we running now? There are more countries that are more democratic than us. There's literally a "freedom index" and we're not even top 10 dude.

 

Also, this entire situation is humorous at best, if you want to figure out what the American population, this "diverse" country wants to do, why not just check and see how it polls?

This was even before the most recent Uvalde shooting.. I'm sure once Pew Research Center drops more research it's going to be higher again.

 

So, serious question- why does this whole american experiment matter? If the majority of Americans support restrictions, why are we so bent on protecting an amendment that's designed to be changed? Someone said it earlier, the constitution is a living document. Prohibition was an amendment, and then it wasn't.

 

You're trying to say all this shit about "no we're different we're different we're different." Bullets work the same here as everywhere else man. Why does culture or history matter? What matters is the present, and what the people want. Though I guess for people like Gentoo, it's not what the people want, it's what he wants.

Well you made the argument that America isn't so different from other countries and I made the counter argument that it was? Literally the basis of our country is different than every other country and the left wants to assimilate while the right wants to keep the status quo. I'm not arguing stricter gun control wouldn't be better but you need to think further then "dur hurr guns kill people so lets get rid of guns" if someone wants to shoot up an elementary school they are going to find a way to do it or are incompetent. If they want to cause maximum pain and shock value, they will find a way to do it. With or with out guns. Have you ever asked yourself why he ran into an elementary school and didn't go into a more heavily populated corporate office? Because as shocking and vile as that would be, he knew full well going into an elementary school was going to cause more pain than anything else. 

 

I've also not said anything about freedom nor have I made the argument anywhere that the rest of the world hasn't banned guns. If culture doesn't matter, why are there racial quotas for jobs and schools? And why do so many people on the left argue that diversity is a great thing? If all the people in America wanted it, then it would be voted through and we wouldn't be having this conversation. We are having it because half the country wants it and the other half doesn't. 

 

I'm also not adamant on the American experiment thing, but ignoring the fact that we are the first, and only country with the structure of government that we have, and then saying that doesn't matter or that it would still work because it worked in other countries is disingenuous. 

 

We are not a democracy? We are a republic who's representatives are elected through a democratic process. You dodged most of my response though. If you are going to call out a logical fallacy, you should make sure you are also not using a logical fallacy. Just because it works for one country under a VERY specific set of circumstances does not mean it will work here. I'm not saying stricter control is a bad thing, but I'm more attacking your argument that in your perfect version of America, all guns are off the table. The only thing you reason out is that its not realistically possible to do that at this point in time.

 

If they can strike down the second amendment, why not the first? Why stop there? True this is a logical fallacy however that's why you don't point one out unless its egregious. Because unless our country is a 1:1 mirror of another who's banned guns and it worked than you have no evidence to suggest it would work at all. Your evidence suggesting it would work is just as palpable as the government becoming tyrannical. Thinking long term and potential side effects/unintended effects is one giant logical fallacy no? 

 

It's possible that banning guns leads to more in fighting and then we have Civil War 2? If you think all people are just as ready as gentoo to protect their rights which I would wager there's enough in the South alone if you actually strip the second amendment.

 

Also, you didn't address the part where the rights of the people come from the people in America whereas in the majority of other countries, rights are afforded to you by the government. I don't know about you, but that seems like a very big difference. Ask anyone from North korea which one they'd prefer.

 

As far as your graph for prohibition,  it's funny how that slight dip from before/after almost perfectly coincides with the ending of the Great Depression. In 1940, you see a sharp spike and I'm sure you are aware that the Great Depression ended in 1939. A year later people were recovering and were in a much better financial position than they were during the 5 years after prohibition had ended. Is it so far removed from reality that a year later after one of the worst economic crisis in American history, people started to drink more?

 

Lastly, when I said diversity I did not mean left vs right. We have the biggest mix of cultures on this planet. If diversity is so important in the work place because of the huge range of ideas and experiences, why would this not logically carry over to your view on weaponry? If you don't think there would be differing opinions and life styles and how that could affect how you view weaponry, then we might be at an impasse.

 

I'm gonna be honest, you seem more close minded about it than anyone else I've talked to about gun control.

 

Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.

[jazzy]

3 hours ago, kabLe said:

Well you made the argument that America isn't so different from other countries and I made the counter argument that it was? Literally the basis of our country is different than every other country and the left wants to assimilate while the right wants to keep the status quo.

Well my opinion is that america really isn't that much different from the world. Just because you have 5% more X and 10% more Y and 15% more Z doesn't really sway my opinion that it relates to gun control. Neither does our form of government (despite not being that different from many other countries) really have an effect on me either. Guns still work the same on US soil as they do Canada. And there are still crazy people willing to shoot kids in all countries. The US is just the only country that makes it the easiest.

3 hours ago, kabLe said:

I've also not said anything about freedom nor have I made the argument anywhere that the rest of the world hasn't banned guns.

You mentioned something about governments not giving rights to their citizens. It's really just not true. Plenty of governments give citizens their rights.

edit: or maybe rather I should say citizens inherently have rights to many things in most countries. This whole "the government gives you rights" vs "the people give themselves rights" is a rather annoying argument and I'm not really interested in arguing weird ass constitutional technicalities like this. The end result is the people have rights, and these people are citizens of many different countries.

3 hours ago, kabLe said:

If culture doesn't matter, why are there racial quotas for jobs and schools?

Are we still talking about gun legislation?

3 hours ago, kabLe said:

And why do so many people on the left argue that diversity is a great thing?

Do people on the right not think diversity is a great thing?

3 hours ago, kabLe said:

If all the people in America wanted it, then it would be voted through and we wouldn't be having this conversation. We are having it because half the country wants it and the other half doesn't. 

Filibuster

3 hours ago, kabLe said:

If they want to cause maximum pain and shock value, they will find a way to do it.

So do bans work do they not work? You said you're in favor of stricter gun control, but this sentence seems to imply it's futile because they will find a way anyway? Which is it man? Does gun control work or does it not?
You're making conflicting arguments and expecting me to rationally argue both of them, how can I when you yourself don't even know what your argument is?

 

3 hours ago, kabLe said:

"dur hurr guns kill people so lets get rid of guns"

I've said 300x this thread that the guns that are better at killing people should be restricted, and some guns can remain, IE the same as other countries with restrictive gun laws. But thanks for the misquote.

Also isn't it funny how we ban almost all explosive ordinances for "personal usage" because "dur hurr explosives kill people so lets get rid of explosives." Sometimes it really is that simple dawg.

 

3 hours ago, kabLe said:

only country with the structure of government that we have,

Incorrect. Except maybe we're the only ones with the electoral college, but that's probably because it's a stupid system and everyone else realized that. Plenty of countries have an eerily similar structure as the US... In fact we've even "helped" quite a few countries make their governments.

 

3 hours ago, kabLe said:

We are not a democracy? We are a republic who's representatives are elected through a democratic process.

We are an indirect democracy, that's a type of democracy... Obviously I know we elect representatives and do not directly vote on all legislation.

Serious question- are you baiting me with statements like this to get me to insult you?

 

3 hours ago, kabLe said:

If they can strike down the second amendment, why not the first? Why stop there? True this is a logical fallacy however that's why you don't point one out unless its egregious. Because unless our country is a 1:1 mirror of another who's banned guns and it worked than you have no evidence to suggest it would work at all. Your evidence suggesting it would work is just as palpable as the government becoming tyrannical. Thinking long term and potential side effects/unintended effects is one giant logical fallacy no? 

So you know what you're saying is a logical fallacy but you're still trying to use it as an argument?

3 hours ago, kabLe said:

Because unless our country is a 1:1 mirror of another who's banned guns and it worked than you have no evidence to suggest it would work at all.

Ok let me use this exact same argument:

Unless our country is a 1:1 mirror of another country who's banned guns that then turned into a tyrannical government, then you have no evidence to suggest it would happen at all.

 

Can you let me know if you think that makes sense?

3 hours ago, kabLe said:

Thinking long term and potential side effects/unintended effects is one giant logical fallacy no? 

Gonna need to elaborate on that.

3 hours ago, kabLe said:

Also, you didn't address the part where the rights of the people come from the people in America whereas in the majority of other countries, rights are afforded to you by the government.

Ok, but you said "in the majority of other countries" not all of them. There are countries with similar structures as US. The US was an outlier 200 years ago, not really the case now.

3 hours ago, kabLe said:

It's possible that banning guns leads to more in fighting and then we have Civil War 2? If you think all people are just as ready as gentoo to protect their rights which I would wager there's enough in the South alone if you actually strip the second amendment.

If the majority of Americans want legislation to happen, and/or amend the constitution, and a minority group of people disagree and are determined to wage war over it, that isn't a valid reason to avoid doing so. If you were truly a fan of the "american experiment" you would understand how absurd it is to avoid democracy for the sake of convenience. Wouldn't you agree?

3 hours ago, kabLe said:

As far as your graph for prohibition,  it's funny how that slight dip from before/after almost perfectly coincides with the ending of the Great Depression. In 1940, you see a sharp spike and I'm sure you are aware that the Great Depression ended in 1939. A year later people were recovering and were in a much better financial position than they were during the 5 years after prohibition had ended. Is it so far removed from reality that a year later after one of the worst economic crisis in American history, people started to drink more?

I'm really not interested in debating prohibition in this thread, just I wanted to let you know the argument of prohibition = bad is not as clear cut as you intended to make it.

3 hours ago, kabLe said:

Lastly, when I said diversity I did not mean left vs right.

I never believed you did.

3 hours ago, kabLe said:

If you don't think there would be differing opinions and life styles and how that could affect how you view weaponry, then we might be at an impasse.

Fully aware there are differing views? I'm also very aware we're at an impasse!

3 hours ago, kabLe said:

I'm gonna be honest, you seem more close minded about it than anyone else I've talked to about gun control.

Tag Gentoo back in, he was more entertaining

[kabLe]

8 hours ago, jazzy said:

Well my opinion is that america really isn't that much different from the world. 

GG

 

Your just like Gentoo I hate to tell you chief. Only difference is which side of the aisle you stand on. Both just as unwilling to see the other side no matter what. Actually, I'd say your worse because anything anyone has said you refuse to give even a little ground on their opinion unless they objectively agree guns should be banned lol. Your head is just as far in the sand in regard to banning guns as Gentoos is on keeping them.

 

I'm not hating on you for your belief system nor will I belittle or insult you for those views in the same regard that you've attempted to do to me but you clearly are no longer interested in seeing eye to eye or coming to some kind of middle ground on our views. At the end of the day, regardless of your opinion, our country is structured and operated different than a lot of countries, and no other country has ever had as many guns in circulation for as long as we have so no you don't have any evidence that in American society banning guns would either work or even be listened to. Your just assuming everyone is like you and would lay down their firearms in a buy back program and in 10 years we would be good to go. I've already conceded that stricter gun control could be a good thing but I also never refuted that it wouldn't. I simply disagree that banning guns would be effective at all due to the way our population has continually told the Federal government to eat paint based on other points in our history where they tried to restrict something that was already heavily in circulation. There was never a point in history where we had a bombing problem or 1:2 ratio on population to bombs owned. I appreciate the dialogue though.

[jazzy]

Dudes like "Why can't I convince the guy who I told America isn't a democracy that we should keep our guns"

 

You should travel outside of America sometime, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

1 hour ago, kabLe said:

There was never a point in history where we had a bombing problem

Nobody tell him.

 

Also I think you keep conflating my argument that I want to ban all guns. I certainly think we can ban 90% of firearm types, but 10% can be left under strict control. We were talking about changing/removing 2A, which is a test of democracy. If Americans aren't willing to amend amendments, this whole thing is fucked.

[kabLe]

25 minutes ago, jazzy said:

Dudes like "Why can't I convince the guy who I told America isn't a democracy that we should keep our guns"

 

You should travel outside of America sometime, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

Nobody tell him.

 

Also I think you keep conflating my argument that I want to ban all guns. I certainly think we can ban 90% of firearm types, but 10% can be left under strict control. We were talking about changing/removing 2A, which is a test of democracy. If Americans aren't willing to amend amendments, this whole thing is fucked.

 

In your words how much fact based evidence do I need to provide to prove that the US is not a democracy.