2013 America (and Friends!) Gun Violence Thread No Plows Allowed!

[Byrthnoth]

Guns are stupid and if you like guns you are probably stupid.

Glad I could wrap everything up for you guys like that.

thx5summary

[Thunder]

I think you have been reading what you want to read.

I brought up the job argument as another facet to the argument. Hypothetical or not it still warrants thought and might be part of the thought of lawmakers. I don't think Americans would stand by to allow dozens of industries to be gutted by automation, but that is a different argument for a different topic.

I bring up the other topics because I thought the root of the anti-gun movement was to save lives. Firearm related homicides per year is a drop in the bucket compared to other issues facing this nation.

If the amount of 2nd Amendment supporters is so small, why then is it so staunchly defended?

Of course you would say I am dishonest or "not compelling" because we are on the complete opposite sides of this topic. However, I have been honest:


You just didn't want to read it. I do support a more restrictive process. Even going so far as to submit a reasonable change to an already functioning process:

No, I read it. I didn't have a problem with what you were being honest about. I had a problem with what you were being dishonest about. Your comparisons were always shit. You saying one thing right doesn't make all the other things right.

Firearm related homicides per year is a drop in the bucket compared to other issues facing this nation.

Is another one to add to the list. Oh look, it doesn't kill as much as cardiac arrest or car accidents - let's leave it alone, it practically isn't hurting anybody!

If the amount of 2nd Amendment supporters is so small, why then is it so staunchly defended?

Oh and this. A group of people can't be wrong if there are so many of them and they're suuuper stubborn!
Seriously dood, 2nd amendment is 300 years old. Those people are about as bad as new earth creationists or whatever other religion out there that's taken 100% literally out of the written text from books thousand(s) of years old. But at least those idiots subscribe to the "divine" and can be honest with their reasons for belief. The 2nd amendment people know their reason to keep guns around isn't good enough (read: they're cool as fk) so they bend over backwards trying to come up with reasons. Driving kills more! It's easier to get a license! But snickers is so sugary! Uh, THOMAS JEFFERSON!

[FNH]

The 2nd amendment people know their reason to keep guns around isn't good enough (read: they're cool as fk)

I think that is good enough. I want it, so I don't want to be kept from it. Same reason everyone does anything else.

Is this going to continue being circular, or are you going to come up with actual viable ways to solve the problem?

[Thunder]

I think that is good enough. I want it, so I don't want to be kept from it. Same reason everyone does anything else.

Is this going to continue being circular, or are you going to come up with actual viable ways to solve the problem?

It hasn't been circular - you came up with a new reason every time, this is a fitting end. Except the difference between most people doing things they like is they have the capacity to know when the avenues of their enjoyment is hurting other people and so they stop.

I accept your apology

[Headspace]

Neither did I. I preferred to see him flounder.

Speaking of flounder, let's talk about another thing people do that is douchebagey: shooting fish in a barrel.

I don't think that we should delay our efforts to enact meaningful gun control because you rednecks want the thrill of having to be up close to your target when you kill it.

Roll Tide

[Quicklet]

If the amount of 2nd Amendment supporters is so small, why then is it so staunchly defended?

Same reason the ultra-wealthy have such a disproportionate amount of influence on lawmakers. Money. There is a lot of money to be made off of whipping people into a hysteria that their guns are going to be taken away. Meanwhile, whenever we want to talk about actual, factual freedoms and rights being taken away by the government in the name of "security", these people are largely nowhere to be found or even worse, argue the complete opposite position that they use to defend gun availability.

[FNH]

It hasn't been circular - you came up with a new reason every time, this is a fitting end. Except the difference between most people doing things they like is they have the capacity to know when the avenues of their enjoyment is hurting other people and so they stop.

I tried to come up with some new reasons to prevent it from being circular. Unfortunately, you kept repeating the same argument. Which is why these discussions go nowhere every time. Everybody sticks to their position and adds nothing new. It's always "Ban them all" which is ludicrous because they don't factor in the costs literally and metaphorically.

No, I will not stop enjoying guns because a very small number of people are hurt by other people using guns that are not mine.

Speaking of flounder, let's talk about another thing people do that is douchebagey: shooting fish in a barrel.

I don't think that we should delay our efforts to enact meaningful gun control because you rednecks want the thrill of having to be up close to your target when you kill it.

Roll Tide

I am triggered

Same reason the ultra-wealthy have such a disproportionate amount of influence on lawmakers. Money. There is a lot of money to be made off of whipping people into a hysteria that their guns are going to be taken away. Meanwhile, whenever we want to talk about actual, factual freedoms and rights being taken away by the government in the name of "security", these people are largely nowhere to be found or even worse, argue the complete opposite position that they use to defend gun availability.

It is interesting to see the sales spikes when an event like this comes around. The sales after Sandy Hook were record setting because all these folks saw the calls for bans, so they wanted to get theirs before they couldn't. The NRA didn't even have to say anything for that to happen, the calls for a ban saved them millions in advertising. I will agree that there is a lack of consistency on both sides of the issue. I find the government is a little overreaching in both topics.

[Ragnus]

http://www.wxyz.com/news/alert-about...r-battle-creek

Reports that there's a possible freeway sniper near Battle Creek, MI.

[kuronosan]

It's okay, he's fighting the establishment.

[zoobernut]

I tried to come up with some new reasons to prevent it from being circular. Unfortunately, you kept repeating the same argument. Which is why these discussions go nowhere every time. Everybody sticks to their position and adds nothing new. It's always "Ban them all" which is ludicrous because they don't factor in the costs literally and metaphorically.

No, I will not stop enjoying guns because a very small number of people are hurt by other people using guns that are not mine.



I am triggered



It is interesting to see the sales spikes when an event like this comes around. The sales after Sandy Hook were record setting because all these folks saw the calls for bans, so they wanted to get theirs before they couldn't. The NRA didn't even have to say anything for that to happen, the calls for a ban saved them millions in advertising. I will agree that there is a lack of consistency on both sides of the issue. I find the government is a little overreaching in both topics.

I think in the long term the NRA taking a hard nose against any and all regulation is going to hurt them. It would be so easy for them to divert attention away from the more drastic gun regulation changes by drafting their own that is less severe. It was not a good move for the NRA to not take any action at all after Sandy Hook.

[Roranora]

No, I will not stop enjoying guns because a very small number of people are hurt by other people using guns that are not mine.

Your enjoyment of guns isn't going anywhere. Lucky for you. But saying 11k dead a year is 'a very small number of people hurt' sounds incredibly callous and insensitive. And why, because our nation's population is 300+ million? At what number might our gun violence seem significant to you?

[Thunder]

I tried to come up with some new reasons to prevent it from being circular. Unfortunately, you kept repeating the same argument. Which is why these discussions go nowhere every time. Everybody sticks to their position and adds nothing new. It's always "Ban them all" which is ludicrous because they don't factor in the costs literally and metaphorically.

No, I will not stop enjoying guns because a very small number of people are hurt by other people using guns that are not mine.

It wasn't circular... it was me sticking to my argument and you coming up with unfair metaphors - literally grasping at straws. Strawmen straws. Your argument, like we've agreed upon, is literally guns are cool, so I want guns and fuck the few thousand deaths a year, a few thousand armed robberies, and thousands of other crimes using guns that don't result in death.

Cost?
How about the cost associated with service and upkeep of police forces across the country tasked with policing such a heavy gun population.
How about the cost of insurance associated with the reimbursement of robberies at gunpoint and/or vandalism as a result of a gun? Or insurance payouts after a family member's been murdered or injured as a result of a gun

Yeah, discussions go nowhere every time just like discussions go nowhere every time with evangelical religious people, climate change deniers, and mazmaz. You're just too proud of your stance to realize how stupid this position of yours is

[FNH]

Your enjoyment of guns isn't going anywhere. Lucky for you. But saying 11k dead a year is 'a very small number of people hurt' sounds incredibly callous and insensitive. And why, because our nation's population is 300+ million? At what number might our gun violence seem significant to you?

id prefer to focus time on fixing bigger issues. I am in support of gun control, just not the ridiculous notion of removing them completely. So far has anyone thought of an idea that was even remotely close to possible? Because the Australia example is laughable with its potential cost on the tax payer and negative impact on the economy

It wasn't circular... it was me sticking to my argument and you coming up with unfair metaphors - literally grasping at straws. Strawmen straws. Your argument, like we've agreed upon, is literally guns are cool, so I want guns and fuck the few thousand deaths a year, a few thousand armed robberies, and thousands of other crimes using guns that don't result in death.

Cost?
How about the cost associated with service and upkeep of police forces across the country tasked with policing such a heavy gun population.
How about the cost of insurance associated with the reimbursement of robberies at gunpoint and/or vandalism as a result of a gun? Or insurance payouts after a family member's been murdered or injured as a result of a gun

Yeah, discussions go nowhere every time just like discussions go nowhere every time with evangelical religious people, climate change deniers, and mazmaz. You're just too proud of your stance to realize how stupid this position of yours is

If the costs to the insurance were too high they wouldn't exist or wouldn't insure the event. Fortunately, they are still profitable despite those payouts. Police forces would still be maintained to enforce your gun ban along with the other laws of the land.
As for the last paragraph: pot calling the kettle black

[zoobernut]

id prefer to focus time on fixing bigger issues. I am in support of gun control, just not the ridiculous notion of removing them completely. So far has anyone thought of an idea that was even remotely close to possible? Because the Australia example is laughable with its potential cost on the tax payer and negative impact on the economy

The cost to the tax payer and the negative impact on the economy would be offset by the cost to the taxpayer and the negative impact on the economy mitigated by gun related crimes, violence, and accidents being minimized. If you are going to split hairs in one direction don't completely negate part of the equation you have to consider all elements for it to be proper math.

[FNH]

The cost to the tax payer and the negative impact on the economy would be offset by the cost to the taxpayer and the negative impact on the economy mitigated by gun related crimes, violence, and accidents being minimized. If you are going to split hairs in one direction don't completely negate part of the equation you have to consider all elements for it to be proper math.

My hypothetical for losing 232k jobs and a 42 billion dollar economic impact with 6 billion dollars in taxes just from the firearms industry is based on the thought of wiping out that industry. Think GM folding in a day. That doesn't even include whatever trickle down impact to mining and other industries. What is yours based on?

[zoobernut]

My hypothetical for losing 232k jobs and a 42 billion dollar economic impact with 6 billion dollars in taxes just from the firearms industry is based on the thought of wiping out that industry. Think GM folding in a day. That doesn't even include whatever trickle down impact to mining and other industries. What is yours based on?

I wasn't quoting actual figures I am just saying that if you are going to use that as an argument you need to use all the figures in the equation. You are only looking at part of it. That is like looking at gross income and thinking it is profit when running a business. If that is going to be your stance the burden is on you to include all the figures.

[FNH]

I wasn't quoting actual figures I am just saying that if you are going to use that as an argument you need to use all the figures in the equation. You are only looking at part of it. That is like looking at gross income and thinking it is profit when running a business. If that is going to be your stance the burden is on you to include all the figures.

I just did for mine. There isn't evidence for your hypothetical offsetting costs that I can find.

[zoobernut]

I just did for mine. There isn't evidence for your hypothetical offsetting costs that I can find.

It seems pretty logical that there are costs to the economy and tax payers associated with gun related crimes, violence, and deaths. I mean you can even find the cost to the economy and tax payers associated with car accidents and obesity. It is there just because you can't find information on it.

Your argument is moot until you can include that in your math.

[Tyche]

I just did for mine. There isn't evidence for your hypothetical offsetting costs that I can find.

It took me all of 5 seconds...you didn't look very hard. According to Business Insider, the cost is about 229 billion dollars a year

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-v...ry-year-2015-4

[FNH]

Estimated to be a costs of 229 billion yearly. Compared to the cost of unemployment benefits paid to 232k workers for 1 yr being around 3.8 trillion