Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Should students be allowed to walk out of school to support pro gun rights?


KCitons

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

And we are back to the topic of this thread. 

I think you want to talk about gun control.  I think you are doing it in your own way, which may rile some people up.  That's okay though, it's your particular style.  How about when people jab back at you, just let it slide off your back and stick to the conversation you want to have instead of the reactionary conversations no one wants to have :thumbup:  Just a friendly opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I agree with this. What can we do to reach a compromise for both sides. The issue I have is that one side is hell bent on banning things because that may be the easiest solution and one that fits their agenda. I also think that regardless of the NRA, there are lawful gun owners that want to find a compromise that everyone will be happy with. 

How about ignoring those "hell bent on banning things" and engaging those who are closer to the middle in terms of compromise.  @msommer and myself have put forth many many many times approaches that don't require banning anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Commish said:

If I am being completely honest, I didn't read that whole post because of the way it started so I missed this...apologies.  It's still not clear what you believe is being "protested" on the "other side" though.  That part makes no sense to me, but it seems that people here are fine with pro gun "protests".  Does that surprise you?  Where do we go from here?

Something that is striking to me about this "battle" (an you elude to it above) is the emotional element.  More specifically, a lot seem to miss that this whole battle is build on emotion.  Emotion is the foundation of this whole thing.  If we stripped away the emotion and looked at this from a pure logic perspective, there wouldn't be a battle.  It's crystal clear from a logical perspective what should be done.  I am all in favor of removing the emotion part.  It would sure cut down on the drama :thumbup: 

The bolded isn't really true. People are fine with other peoples rights to protest, but think it's stupid to protest for something they already have a right to own.

I would compare it to voting. Why vote when your candidate is already in office?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm not sorry for not being able to respect a man like Trump.

Has nothing to do with respect for the individual. It just seems to me that people are allowed to make their own decision on what is worth fighting for, we don't respect each persons decision. Could he have been capable of fighting, sure. Just like everyone that posted in that thread could. But, they would choose to dodge the draft for personal reasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KCitons said:

The bolded isn't really true. People are fine with other peoples rights to protest

Then the bolded is true.  That's the answer.  The rest of your sentence is where you're getting mixed up.  I think it's fine for anyone to protest for any cause they want.  I also think some of those causes would be stupid.  But it's still fine for them to do it.  You're conflating two very different things to try to make a point, and it's not working.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KCitons said:

Has nothing to do with respect for the individual. It just seems to me that people are allowed to make their own decision on what is worth fighting for, we don't respect each persons decision. Could he have been capable of fighting, sure. Just like everyone that posted in that thread could. But, they would choose to dodge the draft for personal reasons. 

I don't think this debate is worth having right now in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Commish said:

How about ignoring those "hell bent on banning things" and engaging those who are closer to the middle in terms of compromise.  @msommer and myself have put forth many many many times approaches that don't require banning anything.

This is where you are using one thread to establish your case. I have been willing to discuss compromise when it comes to gun control. Usually, it falls apart in both directions due to people at the opposite ends of the spectrum that want an all or nothing approach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KCitons said:

Too soon?

Nope, just off topic for this thread.  Trying to keep it easier to read and stay on one topic.  That, and I don't really want to use my energy on talking about Trump right now.  I'm saving it for St. Patty's Day festivities this afternoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ignoratio Elenchi said:

Then the bolded is true.  That's the answer.  The rest of your sentence is where you're getting mixed up.  I think it's fine for anyone to protest for any cause they want.  I also think some of those causes would be stupid.  But it's still fine for them to do it.  You're conflating two very different things to try to make a point, and it's not working.  

It's not conflating. I didn't agree with Kaepernick's timing for his protests, but I supported his right to protest. How did that turn out? Again, people that felt the way I did, were berated for not agreeing with what the players were doing. 

It's a double standard based on what you believe. This thread just confirms what I already felt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Perhaps it could have been worded as "would you support students protesting to support gun rights?"

Perhaps it should have been. Then I wouldn't have had to ask.

Quote

What would the kids be protesting for? 

When you asked 

Quote

 if students organized a walk out to support gun rights?

and I wouldn't have needed to say

Quote

People already have a right to own guns. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Nope, just off topic for this thread.  Trying to keep it easier to read and stay on one topic.  That, and I don't really want to use my energy on talking about Trump right now.  I'm saving it for St. Patty's Day festivities this afternoon.

Have fun, be safe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mile High said:

Perhaps it should have been. Then I wouldn't have had to ask.

When you asked 

and I wouldn't have needed to say

 

And we are back to the point of standing up for what you have. When the government talks about raising taxes, do you protest before or after something happens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, KCitons said:

The bolded isn't really true. People are fine with other peoples rights to protest, but think it's stupid to protest for something they already have a right to own.

I would compare it to voting. Why vote when your candidate is already in office?

Are we really going to parse words here?  That's what you want to do?  Fine....amend my statement to read "people are fine with the right to have pro gun protests".  Again....does that surprise you?  I'm not sure why it would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, KCitons said:
4 hours ago, The Commish said:

How about ignoring those "hell bent on banning things" and engaging those who are closer to the middle in terms of compromise.  @msommer and myself have put forth many many many times approaches that don't require banning anything.

This is where you are using one thread to establish your case. I have been willing to discuss compromise when it comes to gun control. Usually, it falls apart in both directions due to people at the opposite ends of the spectrum that want an all or nothing approach. 

I'm not making a case.  I'm making a suggestion on how to approach the topic.  I have yet to have a conversation with someone willing to compromise "fall apart" yet on these boards.  This is why I was very specific in my suggestion that perhaps you ignore the extreme and focus on those willing to compromise.  You're not going to change an extreme position.  Best you can do is draw it out and label it what it is, then move on.  If things are falling apart it's because you are either ignoring the reasonable and bantering with an idiot on one extreme or you really aren't interested in legit discussion and allow it to devolve into :hophead: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Are we really going to parse words here?  That's what you want to do?  Fine....amend my statement to read "people are fine with the right to have pro gun protests".  Again....does that surprise you?  I'm not sure why it would.

I have nothing more to go on than the words in your post. I don't have tone, or the ability to read your mind. Sorry for clarifying your statement. 

9 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I'm not making a case.  I'm making a suggestion on how to approach the topic.  I have yet to have a conversation with someone willing to compromise "fall apart" yet on these boards.  This is why I was very specific in my suggestion that perhaps you ignore the extreme and focus on those willing to compromise.  You're not going to change an extreme position.  Best you can do is draw it out and label it what it is, then move on.  If things are falling apart it's because you are either ignoring the reasonable and bantering with an idiot on one extreme or you really aren't interested in legit discussion and allow it to devolve into :hophead: 

Politician Spock is one that has been pretty hard line on removing the 2nd Amendment and banning all guns. That's just the one that comes to mind. I haven't spent much time recently in the gun thread. That's just one example. I've had conversations with other posters (even in this thread) about compromise. So, your statements are not entirely accurate. I can engage in legit discussion, but as those discussions progress (and other topics are discussed) the hypocrisy of other posters becomes obvious. The one that makes me laugh is that anyone who owns a rifle has blood on their hands. But anyone that drinks (even if they don't drive) is just a guy doing guy things. It's ridiculous. 

Again, the point of this thread was not about whether to ban guns or not. I didn't know we were filtering threads based on validity. If so, then we have a lot of other work to do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KCitons said:

I have nothing more to go on than the words in your post. I don't have tone, or the ability to read your mind. Sorry for clarifying your statement. 

Politician Spock is one that has been pretty hard line on removing the 2nd Amendment and banning all guns. That's just the one that comes to mind. I haven't spent much time recently in the gun thread. That's just one example. I've had conversations with other posters (even in this thread) about compromise. So, your statements are not entirely accurate. I can engage in legit discussion, but as those discussions progress (and other topics are discussed) the hypocrisy of other posters becomes obvious. The one that makes me laugh is that anyone who owns a rifle has blood on their hands. But anyone that drinks (even if they don't drive) is just a guy doing guy things. It's ridiculous. 

Again, the point of this thread was not about whether to ban guns or not. I didn't know we were filtering threads based on validity. If so, then we have a lot of other work to do. 

Exactly...and no offense to PS because he's usually rather level headed, but his position of banning all guns is rather idiotic.  So with him, that's why the conversation is falling apart, as I said before.  It's simple enough to note the extreme and move on.  To make his position an excuse to complain about "the board" as a whole is rather lazy IMO.  There are plenty of us around here willing to have that discussion, but you are focused on the extreme and for whatever reason are trying to make them the norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Exactly...and no offense to PS because he's usually rather level headed, but his position of banning all guns is rather idiotic.  So with him, that's why the conversation is falling apart, as I said before.  It's simple enough to note the extreme and move on.  To make his position an excuse to complain about "the board" as a whole is rather lazy IMO.  There are plenty of us around here willing to have that discussion, but you are focused on the extreme and for whatever reason are trying to make them the norm.

You started out great, but then lost me with the focus on the extreme. 

I have plenty of discussions on varying topics from DACA, to gun control, to protesting (guns or during the Anthem), to DUI laws. All of which I am led to believe shouldn't be compared to each other unless it fits the narrative of one side. The position of SP is only on one subject. But, he's not alone in his stance on that argument, whether it's on this board or in society in general. As shallow at this may sound, the movement on gun control is really the topic of the moment. And before everyone jumps in and attacks me for that comment, it's because of the horrors of school shootings that have brought it to the forefront of attention. People show genuine concern for our children to be a safe at schools. I know it's a standard argument to say, what about the innocent people of Chicago that are killed every day? Nobody in this forum is rallying for that cause, no walkouts, no shoes left at the Capitol Building in Springfield. If 5 people die this weekend in Chicago, nobody cares. If five people die in a school shooting on Monday, a thread is created within an hour and the outrage begins. Another comparison is that 28 people die every day from alcohol related driving. It's been 19 days since a mass shooting, that's 532 people that have died from alcohol related driving deaths. What would the outrage be if 532 people died from due to a mass shooting? I won't even go into smoking, hunger, homelessness, or a multitude of other things that we see as acceptable deaths in this country at the because of unnecessary things. When I see people here fight so vehemently for a change in one area, but ignore other areas that are equally or more deadly, I can't help but think they are bandwagon activists. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Matthias said:

Where do you stand on heart disease and regulating food content?

 

1 minute ago, Matthias said:

Where do you stand on money spent on terrorism and immigration enforcement?

I'm sitting right now. 

Not sure what you mean? I'd be happy to have a discussion, if you want to expand on your posts. There is a wide range of things under those 4 items. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, KCitons said:

You started out great, but then lost me with the focus on the extreme. 

I have plenty of discussions on varying topics from DACA, to gun control, to protesting (guns or during the Anthem), to DUI laws. All of which I am led to believe shouldn't be compared to each other unless it fits the narrative of one side. The position of SP is only on one subject. But, he's not alone in his stance on that argument, whether it's on this board or in society in general. As shallow at this may sound, the movement on gun control is really the topic of the moment. And before everyone jumps in and attacks me for that comment, it's because of the horrors of school shootings that have brought it to the forefront of attention. People show genuine concern for our children to be a safe at schools. I know it's a standard argument to say, what about the innocent people of Chicago that are killed every day? Nobody in this forum is rallying for that cause, no walkouts, no shoes left at the Capitol Building in Springfield. If 5 people die this weekend in Chicago, nobody cares. If five people die in a school shooting on Monday, a thread is created within an hour and the outrage begins. Another comparison is that 28 people die every day from alcohol related driving. It's been 19 days since a mass shooting, that's 532 people that have died from alcohol related driving deaths. What would the outrage be if 532 people died from due to a mass shooting? I won't even go into smoking, hunger, homelessness, or a multitude of other things that we see as acceptable deaths in this country at the because of unnecessary things. When I see people here fight so vehemently for a change in one area, but ignore other areas that are equally or more deadly, I can't help but think they are bandwagon activists. 

 

The POV you brought up as your example was one of the extremes.  That was my point.

I am willing to discuss any of these topics on their own merits, but I see ZERO point in comparing them since they have virtually nothing to do with each other and the circumstances are completely different.  Now if you'd like to talk about why people care more about school shootings and less about people killing each other in Chicago, there's probably some discussion to be had about each incident but not comparatively speaking.  If you really don't understand why the reactions are different I'm not sure I can explain it to you other than to say a lot of us see a difference between an adult going into a school and shooting the place up and adults killing each other in the streets of Chicago.  Personally, I think the policies and laws there have been the worst contributor to the violence in Chicago, but that's a different topic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, The Commish said:

The POV you brought up as your example was one of the extremes.  That was my point.

I am willing to discuss any of these topics on their own merits, but I see ZERO point in comparing them since they have virtually nothing to do with each other and the circumstances are completely different.  Now if you'd like to talk about why people care more about school shootings and less about people killing each other in Chicago, there's probably some discussion to be had about each incident but not comparatively speaking.  If you really don't understand why the reactions are different I'm not sure I can explain it to you other than to say a lot of us see a difference between an adult going into a school and shooting the place up and adults killing each other in the streets of Chicago.  Personally, I think the policies and laws there have been the worst contributor to the violence in Chicago, but that's a different topic. 

I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about with the bolded. I don't want to respond unless I am clear. 

As far as the rest of the post, I think they are tied together. You can't say that you value a life when it comes to one thing and then ignore it when it comes to another. I understand the frustration when it comes to a school shooting when innocent kids are involved. But, what about the innocent kids that die every week in Chicago?  Or kids that are killed by drunk drivers? It's still kids dying from a preventable occurrence. What's the reason for stricter gun laws? To prevent deaths from mass shootings. (because, after all, this isn't about fixing all shootings). What's the reason for stricter dui laws? To prevent deaths from alcohol related auto accidents. It looks like we've found an acceptable level (at least in this forum) for the number of deaths by drunk drivers. Now it's time to find the acceptable level of gun deaths by school shootings. A number that nobody seems to be able to give. Every time I ask, I get an facetious answer like "when kids can go to school without being afraid of being shot".  On a St Patrick's day Saturday, am I or my kids afforded the same level of protection from being hurt from a drunk driver? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about with the bolded. I don't want to respond unless I am clear. 

As far as the rest of the post, I think they are tied together. You can't say that you value a life when it comes to one thing and then ignore it when it comes to another. I understand the frustration when it comes to a school shooting when innocent kids are involved. But, what about the innocent kids that die every week in Chicago?  Or kids that are killed by drunk drivers? It's still kids dying from a preventable occurrence. What's the reason for stricter gun laws? To prevent deaths from mass shootings. (because, after all, this isn't about fixing all shootings). What's the reason for stricter dui laws? To prevent deaths from alcohol related auto accidents. It looks like we've found an acceptable level (at least in this forum) for the number of deaths by drunk drivers. Now it's time to find the acceptable level of gun deaths by school shootings. A number that nobody seems to be able to give. Every time I ask, I get an facetious answer like "when kids can go to school without being afraid of being shot".  On a St Patrick's day Saturday, am I or my kids afforded the same level of protection from being hurt from a drunk driver? 

Show me one person who would be opposed to harsher DWI laws or more DWI stops?  The only ones complaining are the ones doing the drinking and the driving 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Righetti said:

Show me one person who would be opposed to harsher DWI laws or more DWI stops?  The only ones complaining are the ones doing the drinking and the driving 

Start here

And you are right. Only the ones complaining are the ones drinking and driving. By comparison, are those that oppose gun bans gun owners? The difference is those gun owners have followed the rules and have never hurt anyone. All gun owners (or guns) are seen as a potential threat to life. Are drunk drivers (or alcohol) viewed the same way? If so, why ban guns and not alcohol?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2018 at 8:18 AM, roadkill1292 said:

One of these days we're gonna have to discuss why conservatives are so lousy at protesting. 

Serious answer.  Most people like me have a visceral dislike of protests.  Whenever I see a photo of people marching in the streets with sign and giant puppets and what-have-you, I have an immediate, negative reaction.  This is true regardless of what the protest is even about.  I'm pro-life, but I would not be caught dead a pro-life march, for example.  (The DACA-related protests would be another good example, and one where my views are more closely aligned with most people posting here). 

I'm not sure entirely sure why this is.  I'm inclined to say that people who are conservative by temperament really don't like the disorder of crowds, but who really knows.  

Edited by IvanKaramazov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Serious answer.  Most people like me have a visceral dislike of protests.  Whenever I see a photo of people marching in the streets with sign and giant puppets and what-have-you, I have an immediate, negative reaction.  This is true regardless of what the protest is even about.  I'm pro-life, but I would not be caught dead a pro-life march, for example. 

I'm not sure entirely sure why this is.  I'm inclined to say that people who are conservative by temperament really don't like the disorder of crowds, but who really knows.  

I think politics means more to liberals.  It is their reason for being.  They want to politicize basically everything, where conservatives might care about the one-off issue here or there that would be worth protesting about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me, I support everyone's right to come together and to protest or to petition their government. That said, I agree with I.K. that I do not like crowds.  We have all seen examples of mob mentality taking over crowds, so I personally tend to avoid them and I find other ways to have a political voice.

The above may be why I have tremendous respect for leaders like MLK.  It takes great discipline, great will, great charism and great leadership to organize peaceful gatherings. 

 

I do recognize, of course, that peaceful gatherings are still the norm in spite of the far greater coverage a violent or disruptive gathering might get.  I try not to let my perspective get skewed by fear-mongering, but being human the spectacular examples may outweigh the routine in my belief of what is representative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Matthias said:

Drunk driving drunk driving drunk driving driving drunk driving drunk driving

I see. You're just being rational about it. Because things which kill more people should get a stronger priority. And if someone doesn't agree with that, then they're just being ideological.

There's about 30,000 people per year who die in traffic accidents. About 10,000 of those involve a drunk driver. In the last 50-70 years, we have gone from having virtually no enforced drunk driving laws, to allowing .12 BAC. To .10. To .08. With active enforcement and stronger penalties. And to drive, you need a license from the state, renewed regularly. And you must register your car and maintain it in working condition. And there has been a huge number of advanced by auto manufacturers in the past 30 years to make them safer in the case of a crash. Since 1982, drunk driving fatalities have decreased 50%. For people under 21, it has decreased 80%.

45,000 Americans die every year due to suicide. When they use a gun, they succeed over 90% of the time. When they don't, it is less than 10%. Suicide with guns kills more people than drunk driving. In the last 50-70 years, we have had virtually no major gun legislation. We've banned machine guns and instituted a background check which is routinely ignored. There is no tracking of guns and over the last 40 years, they have become more and more dangerous and more and more widespread.

Yes. It's really drunk driving which is completely ignored by the American public. And this is before we get to cancer and heart disease. And when cities such as NYC try to fight heart disease by banning trans fats or extremely large servings of junk food, conservatives fight it. When we pass nation-wide health care that people can't be turned away due to pre-existing conditions, it's the #1 conservative goal to destroy it. Meanwhile, we spend massive and massive amounts of money fighting terrorism, which accounts for virtually 0 deaths.

Don't come in here with bull#### about how the objection to gun regulation is a larger concern over other types of deaths and a sensible approach to government expenditures. Because you simply cannot back it up. Because you're wrong. You aren't concerned about rationality. You're concerned with deflecting away from a rational gun debate. And probably only know cherry-picked facts which you have picked up from a conservative echo chamber.

Again, you attack conservatives. You can't get past politics in defining people. If a person has the same stance as you on DACA, healthcare, and any number of other issues, but is against gun regulations, do you classify them as conservative? 

I've asked and never received an answer to a simple question. What is the acceptable number of mass shootings? Let's start with a goal. Instead of just changing things with the hopes that it makes things better. That's whataboutism. We've seen it with the war on drugs already. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Matthias said:

I have no idea. If you say that you're not, your obviously wrong accusation that all I'm doing is attacking conservatives is even more laughably wrong.

Ok, then let's take me out of the equation. What factors do you use to identify someone as conservative or liberal? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, KCitons said:

I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about with the bolded. I don't want to respond unless I am clear. 

As far as the rest of the post, I think they are tied together. You can't say that you value a life when it comes to one thing and then ignore it when it comes to another. I understand the frustration when it comes to a school shooting when innocent kids are involved. But, what about the innocent kids that die every week in Chicago?  Or kids that are killed by drunk drivers? It's still kids dying from a preventable occurrence. What's the reason for stricter gun laws? To prevent deaths from mass shootings. (because, after all, this isn't about fixing all shootings). What's the reason for stricter dui laws? To prevent deaths from alcohol related auto accidents. It looks like we've found an acceptable level (at least in this forum) for the number of deaths by drunk drivers. Now it's time to find the acceptable level of gun deaths by school shootings. A number that nobody seems to be able to give. Every time I ask, I get an facetious answer like "when kids can go to school without being afraid of being shot".  On a St Patrick's day Saturday, am I or my kids afforded the same level of protection from being hurt from a drunk driver? 

They are tied together only in the fact that people die in both scenarios.  That's it.  The circumstances are completely different as well as most of the environment variable that go into them.  Oh, and none of this is 100% preventable.  #### happens.  I acknowledge that.  Laws don't stop bad people from doing bad things.  That's not what they are here for.  Laws are here in hopes that we can bend behavior in a way that will benefit society.  You won't get a serious answer from me on "acceptable level of gun deaths by school shooting" because I don't take that as a serious question.  It's not the right question at all IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Commish said:

They are tied together only in the fact that people die in both scenarios.  That's it.  The circumstances are completely different as well as most of the environment variable that go into them.  Oh, and none of this is 100% preventable.  #### happens.  I acknowledge that.  Laws don't stop bad people from doing bad things.  That's not what they are here for.  Laws are here in hopes that we can bend behavior in a way that will benefit society.  You won't get a serious answer from me on "acceptable level of gun deaths by school shooting" because I don't take that as a serious question.  It's not the right question at all IMO.

Then how do you pass laws if you don't know the end goal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Matthias said:

Tomato tomahto.

Showing that an argument is specious, wrong, and only offered at a time when it will not promote the claimed aim, is to address it.

Agreed.  I was addressing style of delivery rather than substance of argument.    I mentioned it because style of delivery correlates, I believe, to receptiveness by those to whom it is delivered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Matthias said:

I don't really care how they self-identify. I care about how willing they are to talk logic and facts.

Then why do you use the term conservative? You chose that instead of just saying people.

And I didn't ask how they self-identify. I asked how you identify them.

Edited by KCitons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Matthias said:

Way to try to deflect from your defeated argument. Why don't you spend your energy looking through your own posts, in this thread, of ridiculously overbroad and mischaracterizing posts of people, their positions, and liberals generally. Instead of trying to pretend in a solemn way that this is an issue you care about.

I don't hide from my posts. I accept that I've called out people for their views. I don't create aliases and start over after I've established my stance. I answer questions whenever asked, now that the tables have turned, I'm not afforded the same. What are you afraid of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As has been pointed out repeatedly, Mathias once again laid out the pretty clear reasons why the argument for “what about drunk driving deaths?” is actually a clear case for increased gun regulations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Matthias said:

It's irritating to hear the same specious arguments, delivered as if novel, followed by pleas of being victims and denigrated for some unrelated reason. It's like me shooting someone and then saying the criminal prosecution is because I grew up in the Midwest. It's silly the first time you hear it. It's aggravating the 100th time you hear the 100th person say it. You lose your patience to endure it.

I understand.  As I stated I often fall short of my goals, and for precisely the reasons you mention.  

 

I should apologize.  Though my post addressed you I was really posting to remind myself to do better.  No criticism meant.  I hope none taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Matthias said:

Your argument about caring about rational expenditure of dollars to save lives is proved to be absurd. That's what I said. That's what I stand by. You can get yourself lathered up over trying to make distracting and irrelevant arguments as much as you like. I've addressed your substance. You can try to pretend to care about something pointless. Have fun.

I'm not lathered up. I think you may be. You've said you are irritated by my comments. Why do you care what I think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

As has been pointed out repeatedly, Mathias once again laid out the pretty clear reasons why the argument for “what about drunk driving deaths?” is actually a clear case for increased gun regulations. 

Sure it is. But we don't necessarily have goals when it comes to drunk drivers. People keep saying we need to follow Australia's path when it comes to gun regulation, and they point out that Australia hasn't had a mass shooting in decades. If that's something we want to emulate, then the goal is zero mass shootings. People don't want to discuss that because they know the result won't be the same. They don't want to put a number of acceptable mass shootings, because then it's easy to determine if new laws failed. My comparison is that we could ban alcohol and see if alcohol related deaths go to zero. Do I believe it will? No. People will distill their own booze and it will still happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...