Don't believe your lying eyes (Enco)

Homepage Forums Politics Don't believe your lying eyes (Enco)

This topic contains 79 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  Unseen 1 year, 1 month ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 80 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #50477

    Unseen
    Participant

    @ Enco

    I repeat: WHERE in the country is looser gun regulation resulting in a safer place to live?

    Surely there must be evidence.

    #50480

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Unseen,

    I’ve given you Vermont and New Hampshire, Dummy!

    #50481

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Autumn,

    Regardless of whether one believes a person has the right to end their own life or not, a person can hope a person doesn’t kill themselves over a state of mind that would have subsided enough for them to seek help if they had managed to wait it out a little longer.

    I’ve already said as much and in much fewer words.

    While there are many ways a person can end their lives, there is a peculiar relationship between firearms and suicide, handguns specifically.

    And the life of an Individual is still soverign and The Biddy Brigade can still go fly a kite.

    No one is claiming all violence and extremism ends with tighter controls on firearms. Few even claim all firearm violence ends.

    You haven’t been paying attention to Unseen or Davis have you?

    What people are looking at is harm reduction.

    Depriving peaceful people of arms only reduces harm to violent criminals, the ones whose safety doesn’t matter.

    #50482

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Autumn,

    Except you aren’t. You’re just building a field of gun-control scarecrows then going hog wild on a crusade against your own creations. Meanwhile, gun control advocates are standing off to the side scratching their heads asking ‘Are those scarecrows supposed to be us?’

    Assertion not found in evidence. Join your fellow Biddies on the windy playground.

    #50483

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Unseen,

    Anyway, let’s accept your premise that at least some drank at gunpoint. Now, imagine there were no guns at Jonestown so there was no gunpoint.

    Some in the January 6 mob were armed. Were they they fabled armed citizens bent on protecting us from an oppressive Federal Government.Were they The Good Guys With Guns? I view them as Assholes With Guns.

    If there are fewer guns and also some control over who has them the gun homicide rate would have to go down.

    You can’t see that. It’s a sickness.

    One, yes people were forced to drink poison and yes, followers of Jim Jones were physically and sexually abused. Had Jim Jones and his heavies dealt with armed citizens, his cult fever dreams would have ended much sooner with no loss of innocent lives.

    The rulers who deprive others of arms always use armed enforcers to do it. The fact that you don’t see that is the failing on your part.

    #50484


    Participant

    Autumn,

    Except you aren’t. You’re just building a field of gun-control scarecrows then going hog wild on a crusade against your own creations. Meanwhile, gun control advocates are standing off to the side scratching their heads asking ‘Are those scarecrows supposed to be us?’

    Assertion not found in evidence. Join your fellow Biddies on the windy playground.

    I already laid it out for you in an earlier post. You have presented gun control advocates as if they a) treat gun control as if it will eliminate all gun violence and b) are concerned with suicide by firearms out of some possessive believe that humans are resources belonging to society. These are both straw man positions.

    With a note regarding point a, that’s me making the most generous assumption, because if that’s not the case it speaks volumes of your rational thinking skills, none of it good.

    #50485


    Participant

    I’ve already said as much and in much fewer words.

    How are you this fucking stupid? Like, do you work at it? The point is that you’re making a straw man argument. You attribute a credible position to yourself and an absurd position to those your don’t agree with. It’s garbage. It’s a joke.

    While there are many ways a person can end their lives, there is a peculiar relationship between firearms and suicide, handguns specifically.

    And the life of an Individual is still soverign and The Biddy Brigade can still go fly a kite.

    This is irrelevant. No one is proposing criminalization of suicide or any policies on suicide. Personally, I support a person’s right to end their own life. However, it is not incompatible with wanting to a risk factor potentially linked to avoidable suicides.

    No one is claiming all violence and extremism ends with tighter controls on firearms. Few even claim all firearm violence ends.

    You haven’t been paying attention to Unseen or Davis have you?

    I have. I am confident both are fully aware that even with stiffer firearms legislation, there would still be some gun deaths, especially in a country like America where gun control wouldn’t immediately address the large volume of firearms already circulating both legally and illegally.

    What people are looking at is harm reduction.

    Depriving peaceful people of arms only reduces harm to violent criminals, the ones whose safety doesn’t matter.

    There isn’t a means of only providing firearms to ‘peaceful people’. Once they enter circulation, they become accessible to people whether those people are peaceful or violent, criminal or law-abiding, whether they are at risk of committing a violent offence in the future or not. That’s the reality. Illegally possessed firearms are overwhelmingly diverted from legal channels. Saying that ought not be the case does not make a dent in the reality.

    That said, gun control proposals in America typically don’t seek to ban firearms but rather reducing the likelihood they end up in the wrong hands: children, people in mental health crisis, people on the verge of committing crimes of passion, people with histories of violent behaviour (etc.). How effective such policies are likely varies and is up for debate, but again, the name of the game is reduction.

    #50486


    Participant

    .

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  ---.
    #50488

    Davis
    Moderator

    Autumn pretty much sums it up. Switzerland has a very high number of guns (partly due to high level of reservist soldiers). And yet with their VERY reasonable controls:

    • background checks
    • mandatory training
    • gun safes
    • potential inspections
    • periodic target practice
    • mental health checks
    • licensing

    Avoidable gun related casualties are very low. None of this is controversial. Everyone is happy being able to have a gun if they qualify, and rested assured that untrained or instable or mentally ill or incompetent people won’t try to kill them or accidentally kill them and that their kids are safe from all of this. Enco, if you cannot get this, then again, we think in two different worlds. Lets end this shit fest discussion now. Thankfully very very few people outside of America think like you and fewer and fewer people in America do these days than before.

    #50489

    Unseen
    Participant

    Unseen, I’ve given you Vermont and New Hampshire, Dummy!

    a) Two of the smallest whitest most affluent states in the country. Not exactly evidence to support a general theory, Enco, though it does imply that we might have fewer gun homicides with a more equitable distribution of wealth.

    b) States with more guns have more gun deaths:

    Using data from a 2016 study in Injury Prevention and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mother Jones put together the chart above that shows states with more guns tend to have far more gun deaths, including homicides and suicides. This has been found across the empirical research: “Within the United States, a wide array of empirical evidence indicates that more guns in a community leads to more homicide,” David Hemenway, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center’s director, wrote in Private Guns, Public Health.

    c) Unsurprisingly, the regions with the weakest gun control laws tend have the highest rates of gun homicides.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  Unseen.
    #50490

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Unseen, Davis, and Autumn,

    Hey, I am fully willing to let this drop too. It’s even futile to point out the fallacies behind gun control to True Believers in it.

    Just know that all you support affects real human beings.

    Even a man of peace knew that Peace requires a Peacemaker:

    Why Martin Luther King Couldn’t Get A Carry Permit

    Why Martin Luther King Couldn’t Get a Carry Permit

    His predecessor Ghandi also held that of all the crimes the British Empire imposed upon India, depriving them of arms was the most blackest.

    And an Omnisexual love-everybody-and-everything gal like Sophie B. Hawkins can be a Mama Bear who places primacy on the safety and life of her young. (Fast forward to 5:22 and watch to the end.)

    Liberal in Bed Conservative in the Head,
    Sophie B. Hawkins, Breitbart & Steele @ Big Gay Party

    And there are millions more like them.

    #50492

    Unseen
    Participant

    @ Autumn: No one is claiming all violence and extremism ends with tighter controls on firearms. Few even claim all firearm violence ends. You haven’t been paying attention to Unseen or Davis have you?

    I dare you to find me saying anything like “all violence and extremism ends with tighter controls on firearms. Nobody I’m aware of claims that removing guns would create a blissful violence-free world. I can see now that your runaway inventive imagination is a big problem.

    It’s evident from the maps of gun violence, though, that areas with few guns and/or tighter controls on firearms that gun violence tends to go down, and that widespread gun ownership DOES NOT enhance the quality of life.

    #50493

    Unseen
    Participant

    @ Enco

    So, you are still banking on the old “We need guns in case of an oppressive government” argument.

    This argument makes the assumption that the armed people who overthrow the government view “oppression” the way most Americans do. If you imagine the anarchic mob of January 6 as armed, most of us will see that that is a faulty assumption. All it took was one sociopathic narcissist proto dictator to convince large numbers of Americans that the election was stolen to create a mob that, had they been armed and had the complicity of state legislatures, might have actually overthrown the democratically elected government and replaced it with a dictator.

    Putting our democracy in the hands of whichever armed mob is better armed is a bet that clearly is very likely to go bad.

    #50494


    Participant

    Unseen, Davis, and Autumn, Hey, I am fully willing to let this drop too. It’s even futile to point out the fallacies behind gun control to True Believers in it.

    I haven’t actually advocated for gun control once in this thread. It’s not a topic I am passionate about. I am just curious about why you overestimate the coherence and quality of your arguments so much, not just here but generally on the forum. Sometimes I wonder how far it goes.

    #50496

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Autumn,

    You don’t even know what a Strawman is because you couldn’t or wouldn’t even point out how I made one. So wonder about your own argumentative prowess. Phooey!

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 80 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.