Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#4727 Feb 22 2018 at 8:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm not wrong though. The primary objective of the gun control "side" is to reduce the number of privately owned firearms in the country. Period. That's their objective. It's not like they're keeping this secret.


Yep. Give an inch.. on the radio I heard the term baby steps and next stop ban. The moment that realization hit me, I decided I am ok with mildly crazy level of gun freedom.


And at the risk of cross thread shenanigans, it's kinda similar to my "where's the bounds?" argument. If I thought for a moment that there would be a point of gun control that would satisfy the gun control activists, a point where they'd say "yeah, this is enough", I'd be perfectly on board. Heck. I'm on board with "reasonable" gun control as it is. I have no issue with banning privately owned fully automatic weapons. I have no problem with banning privately owned nuclear weapons, or chemical weapons, or hand grenades, bombs, Apache helicopters, hellfire missiles, and a host of other silly strawman arguing points that folks bring up. But that's the problem. We all agree on those things, but while I say "those are reasonable things to not allow folks to have" and thus agree that they should be banned, how often do we hear the argument that if you're not for <insert new gun control proposal here> it's the same as arguing that people should be able to own those things on the list above?

All the time, right? But, as I've mentioned many times before, this is not just a difference of position, but a difference of viewpoint on positions entirely. Some people view all social issues as directional. They push in a direction, no matter what. And they assume the "other side" is doing the same, just in the opposite direction. Others view social issues as positional. They look for what they think is a reasonable position on an issue and want to camp out there. They also, since this is human nature at work, tend to assume that the "other side" is positional too, and are constantly surprised when, having compromised on a position, find that they're just facing a demand for something farther in that "direction".

It's not wrong to be aware of this fact and account for it. So yeah, I'm fine with "reasonable" gun control. The problem is that I think we passed "reasonable" a long time ago, and have gone well into "ridiculous and counter productive". And by counter productive, I'm specifically pointing at the whole "gun free zones", which have quite clearly turned into "target rich zones" instead. We basically created the spree shooting trend over the last 20 years by doing this.

Seems pretty "reasonable" to reverse that. Again, what's the worse that could happen? We go back to the conditions prior to the passage of that act, when these kinds of shootings were so rare that it wasn't even on our radar? OMG! That would be such a disaster! Oh no. It wouldn't. Too many people are blindly following a cause and not really paying attention to the cost along the way. They see their "perfect world" where no one owns a firearm, and are willing to pay any cost to get there. Well, that "cost" is the lives of those school kids.

I don't think that's a cost worth paying. Do you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4728 Feb 22 2018 at 9:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"We need armed guards at the schools!!!!"


I didn't say this. This is the strawman you're propping up. My argument is that we repeal the gun free zones. Period. Don't place armed guards in schools. Don't pay for them. Don't spend any money on this at all. Just remove the current laws which make it illegal for school staff to have firearms on school. By their own choice. Costing us nothing.

That's it. Sure seemed to work before. Why wouldn't it work now?

Quote:
"But we have armed guards"
"No!! I meant that we need SECRET armed guards!!!"


Nope. That's not my argument. The very fact that there "could be" someone who is armed in the area is a massive deterrent to these kinds of shootings. They don't need to be "guards". That's where you're going off the rails here.

Quote:
Fuck, let's just hire ninjas.


Again with the liberal assumption that there's no middle ground between banning something, and paying for it.

Let's not "hire" anyone. Just "allow" regular school staff to bring firearms to their work, if they feel like doing so. Just like they could for a couple centuries in this country before the mid 90s. Back when these sorts of shootings were virtually unheard of.

Here's a list of school shootings in the US. Want to know how many of these shootings were "mass shootings" (4 our more fatalities), where the shooting occurred on a K-12 school, and the targets were students, prior to the mid 90s (when the Gun Free School Zones Act was modified and became law)? One. Just freaking one. Want to know how many shootings fit those three criteria since then? 7. Well... 8 now. This most recent one isn't on the list yet. So one in about 220 years (I'm not counting the pre-US stuff), and 8 in the last 20. That's... Um.. I don't feel like doing the math, but a bazillion percent increase. I'm sure!

And that's not counting the significant uptick in spree style shooting in schools in general (random targets rather than specific), and in public locations in general. The one common thread? Gun free zones. We've given people who want to do this sort of thing a way to do it where they can be reasonably certain to be without opposition until law enforcement arrives. That certainty is what enables them. We can't know how many might not have chosen to do such things if it weren't for these zones, but the statistics suggest it's a pretty significant factor in that decision.

Again. When do we accept that gun free zones aren't a great idea? Not in the US, where the 2nd amendment exists. You can't get rid of guns. You can't eliminate everyone who might do something like this prior to actually doing so. So you're just giving those people a target rich location to act out their sick fantasy. How many more people have to die before the Left sets aside their dogmatic approach to gun control and realizes that it's not working and is just getting people killed?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4729 Feb 22 2018 at 10:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Oh hey, when you make a list of "Gun Free Zones", you can prove shootings happened in "Gun Free Zones". Uh... Wow!

First Baptist wasn't a Gun Free Zone -- 26 Dead, Las Vegas isn't a Gun Free Zone -- 58 dead, Emanuel African Methodist in Charleston wasn't a Gun Free Zone (though that didn't stop right-wing pundits from lying and claiming it was) -- 9 dead.

Meanwhile, Parkland has armed guard and 17 are dead. Marshall County High School (less than a month ago) had an armed guard and four dead, 18 others wounded.

It's a beautiful fiction, especially when you have to keep piling on the qualifiers (uh, but only like secret guns and, um, only count these shootings and, uh, it only counts if the targets are random and, uh...) to try and make the argument work but the argument just doesn't work.
Quote:
The very fact that there "could be" someone who is armed in the area is a massive deterrent to these kinds of shootings.

Even in cases where it's known, not "could be" but they KNOW there's an armed guard, it doesn't stop it. But let's pretend those don't count because those guards are TOO known and, uh, it has to be secret maybe-guns only!

Edited, Feb 22nd 2018 10:12pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4730 Feb 22 2018 at 10:46 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you, Joph!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#4731 Feb 23 2018 at 12:36 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
You do get that private firearm ownership is a right.
So is peacable assembly, but that doesn't mean I can do that wherever the fuck I want.

It's almost...get this...it's almost like rights frequently have limitations on them.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#4732 Feb 23 2018 at 5:47 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
You do get that private firearm ownership is a right. Not something we could do, if we jump through enough hoops. A freaking right. It's not like a drivers license, which is a privilege you have to prove you should obtain. It's a right. You can't compare them in this manner.
Out of curiosity (anyone can answer this), as I've never bothered to fully research it and not ensure I'm getting a coles notes, but does the 2nd amendment say anything about what types of firearms should be included in that right? Does it allow specifically for long barrel or short barrel or cannons or just that you have a right to bare arms?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#4733 Feb 23 2018 at 6:19 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Was that an option? I wasn't happy about prospect of real estate taxes going up for armed teachers, but I would gladly pay for non-union ninjas.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#4734 Feb 23 2018 at 7:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Oh, ninjas are unionized. That's just basic Ninja 101.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Out of curiosity (anyone can answer this), as I've never bothered to fully research it and not ensure I'm getting a coles notes, but does the 2nd amendment say anything about what types of firearms should be included in that right? Does it allow specifically for long barrel or short barrel or cannons or just that you have a right to bare arms?

No, it doesn't although the Supreme Court has ruled that the right isn't absolute and doesn't extend to things like cannon or artillery. In fact, the modern interpretation of the Second Amendment is a fairly recent development where it was previously more tightly restricted and the SCotUS ruled on numerous occasions that state regulations and prohibitions were entirely acceptable.
United State v Cruikskank (1876) wrote:
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.
Presser v Illinois (1886) wrote:
But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.
Miller v Texas (1894) wrote:
In his motion for a rehearing, however, defendant claimed that the law of the state of Texas forbidding the carrying of weapons, and authorizing the arrest, without warrant, of any person violating such law, under which certain questions arose upon the trial of the case, was in conflict with the second and fourth amendments to the constitution of the United States, one of which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [...] We have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant was denied the benefit of any of these provisions, and, even if he were, it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts.
Robertson v Baldwin (1897) wrote:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons
United States v Miller (1939) wrote:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. [...] The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

...etc, etc. The current "Second Amendment means owning guns is a private right and everyone can have guns and hide guns and carry guns over state lines and..." view is a modern bit of, oh shall we say, judicial activism brought into place by successful lobbying and political pressure in the 70s and 80s.

Edited, Feb 23rd 2018 8:13am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4735 Feb 23 2018 at 8:35 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
"We need armed guards at the schools!!!!"
I didn't say this.
One of your original solutions was to have a single weapon in a locker that only the Principal had access to.
gbaji wrote:
m.. I don't feel like doing the math
That's good because I'd have to make fun of you for ignoring that in that time the gun laws have also been considerably loosened.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4736 Feb 23 2018 at 12:08 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Meanwhile, Parkland has armed guard and 17 are dead.
Turns out that the trained guard in question decided to hang outside for a few minutes while the shooting took place. Kind of undermines the whole "arming and training teachers" rhetoric quite a bit.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4737 Feb 23 2018 at 12:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, we don't need trained guards anyway if they're not willing to get shot. If there's anyone I have faith in during a gunfight, it's some 24 year old Early Childhood Education major making $22,000 a year who just got handed a 9mm with her union contract.

Edited, Feb 23rd 2018 12:42pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4738 Feb 23 2018 at 3:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
45 has cycled into blaming video games and movies for school shootings.



And the GamerGaters are snapping their spines bending over backward to defend it.

Truly we are in the stupidest timeline.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#4739 Feb 23 2018 at 4:19 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Samira wrote:
Truly we are in the stupidest timeline.
We better be.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#4740 Feb 23 2018 at 5:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
45 has cycled into blaming video games and movies for school shootings.
And the GamerGaters are snapping their spines bending over backward to defend it.

Probably saying that no one was killing people because of video games until they started adding girls and stuff to the games.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4741 Feb 23 2018 at 6:53 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Girls who refused to give them the sex they deserved.
#4742 Feb 24 2018 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Samira wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
45 has cycled into blaming video games and movies for school shootings.
And the GamerGaters are snapping their spines bending over backward to defend it.

Probably saying that no one was killing people because of video games until they started adding girls and stuff to the games.


Based on my knowledge of GG they generally like girls in games, just not the games industry.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#4743 Feb 24 2018 at 2:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
I was going to say something but the ads on this site now make it impossible. How do you all manage? With or without ad blocker-- it bombards my browser with ads so quickly that the page comes to a grinding halt after a certain amount of time. I had about 19 paragraphs of **** wrote out ready for no one to read and lost it all.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#4744 Feb 24 2018 at 3:30 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
My premium hasn't expired yet.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#4745 Feb 24 2018 at 4:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
Based on my knowledge of GG they generally like girls in games, just not the games industry.

Only if it's T&A. They hilariously lost their shit over (for example) Rae being added to Killing Floor 2 going on and on and on about SJWs and Tumblr and shit and how Killing Floor was ruined now. The best part is when they try to hide it as something like "Well, it's just that it's unrealistic because she's in a dress and wouldn't wear a dress to fight zombies" in a game where the most iconic uniform from the franchise is a chicken mascot suit and they have things like a suit of medieval armor made of cardboard.
Kuwoobie wrote:
I was going to say something but the ads on this site now make it impossible. How do you all manage? With or without ad blocker-- it bombards my browser with ads so quickly that the page comes to a grinding halt after a certain amount of time.

I use a Grease Monkey script that blocks the ad panels.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4746 Feb 24 2018 at 7:51 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
I was going to say something but the ads on this site now make it impossible. How do you all manage? With or without ad blocker-- it bombards my browser with ads so quickly that the page comes to a grinding halt after a certain amount of time. I had about 19 paragraphs of **** wrote out ready for no one to read and lost it all.
I have quality internet and a capable computer. As long as Zam itself isn't f'n up, runs fairly smooth for me. The second i travel anywhere else though, yea, it goes to ****.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#4747 Feb 25 2018 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
AT&T Fast Lanes
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#4748 Feb 25 2018 at 2:00 PM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Samira wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
45 has cycled into blaming video games and movies for school shootings.
And the GamerGaters are snapping their spines bending over backward to defend it.

Probably saying that no one was killing people because of video games until they started adding girls and stuff to the games.


Based on my knowledge of GG they generally like girls in games, just not the games industry.
Not exactly that either. Plenty of great women(Roberta Williams, for instance) in the games industry. It's SJWs in the games industry GG isn't a fan of. And at the more extreme, people who want to change the games industry in general(unless that change involves outlawing lootboxes, which many would probably be behind).

Edit: To address Samira's comment, yeah, a number of GGers who are Trump supporters aren't being as harsh about him saying it as I'd like. But I haven't seen anyone I know from GG defending him, just excusing him as not knowing better. Most of what I've seen that could be interpreted as defending him has been people telling journalists who **** on games, saying they cause sexism and aggression(despite studies saying otherwise) who are now defending games because it was Trump who said it that they're being massive hypocrites.

Edited, Feb 25th 2018 1:04pm by Poldaran
#4749 Feb 25 2018 at 3:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Most of what I've seen that could be interpreted as defending him has been people telling journalists who **** on games, saying they cause sexism and aggression(despite studies saying otherwise) who are now defending games because it was Trump who said it that they're being massive hypocrites.

Massive hypocrites like giving Trump as pass for saying the same thing when they whined and bitched about the journalists doing it? Imagine that Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4750 Feb 26 2018 at 8:21 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
GGers and Vidya SJWs are still things? I thought they had mutually assuredly annihilated themselves and moved on to rainbowier pastures.

Kevin Smith had a massive heart attack last night. Not the biggest fan myself, but there's really very few super comic geeks like him in the business so it'd be a shame to see him go.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4751 Feb 26 2018 at 8:30 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
GGers and Vidya SJWs are still things?

Only when one side or the other thinks they can score easy points thru some claims of hypocrisy. Otherwise they are ignored/forgotten.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 301 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (301)