FourAceDeal's possibly less than adequate first post.

[Jack]

Oh, and

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/4-laws-that-could-stem-the-rising-threat-of-mass-shootings/

Things could happen on a state level, but don't expect any new national laws under a republican rule.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

It amazes me that someone like Scrap, who frequently praises rational thinkers like Richard Dawkins in other matters defying logic, can't see past this one.

This is perhaps the best example of unintended comedy posted on I2 to date.

... and I'm comparing it to shit posted by Randy.

[odeon]

Scrap has a point; FAD does come across as more interested in lashing out with sarcastic mockery in gun discussion, and sometimes ignores thoughtful posts which confront the reality of the situation here, even when those insights agree with his point of view on some level. Though that seems his style, so that's okay; scrap has his own style too. Do like FAD, so hope he returns and shares more of it.

The problem with the "reality of the situation" argument is that the argument itself is a problem because it's used as an excuse. The simple fact is that you (the generic you) need to change or people will continue to die. It amazes me that someone like Scrap, who frequently praises rational thinkers like Richard Dawkins in other matters defying logic, can't see past this one.

Yes, but keep saying, the public support is there, but not only it just doesn't happen but the government fails to enforce the laws already on the books. Really don't think it's the general you that needs to change. The general you are the majority, and the majority support stricter gun regulation, the majority of households don't even have a gun and even among those who do, the general you among them aren't a danger. The lack of care-to found in the ruling fringe is as dangerous as the murderous fringe, and the general you can't do a thing about it.

If the public support is there, then why are you electing officials that aren't delivering?

[odeon]

This is perhaps the best example of unintended comedy posted on I2 to date.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

[odeon]

This rifle is so deadly and so easy to use that no civilian should be able to get their hands on one.

I urge you all to read the entire blog post.

[Jack]

Scrap has a point; FAD does come across as more interested in lashing out with sarcastic mockery in gun discussion, and sometimes ignores thoughtful posts which confront the reality of the situation here, even when those insights agree with his point of view on some level. Though that seems his style, so that's okay; scrap has his own style too. Do like FAD, so hope he returns and shares more of it.

The problem with the "reality of the situation" argument is that the argument itself is a problem because it's used as an excuse. The simple fact is that you (the generic you) need to change or people will continue to die. It amazes me that someone like Scrap, who frequently praises rational thinkers like Richard Dawkins in other matters defying logic, can't see past this one.

Yes, but keep saying, the public support is there, but not only it just doesn't happen but the government fails to enforce the laws already on the books. Really don't think it's the general you that needs to change. The general you are the majority, and the majority support stricter gun regulation, the majority of households don't even have a gun and even among those who do, the general you among them aren't a danger. The lack of care-to found in the ruling fringe is as dangerous as the murderous fringe, and the general you can't do a thing about it.

If the public support is there, then why are you electing officials that aren't delivering?

The question should be why don't they deliver. Gun control is one of the top expectations when electing democrats. Lack of delivery is probably why the US pendulums so consistently between democrat and republican. Party preference is a matter of prioritizing sociological need vs economic need. Both are important and a lot of people don't really view one as more important than the other, and that creates a lot of centrist voters. so when one party fails to meet expectations then the other party gets a chance.

[odeon]

OK. So they regard the kids as expendable, then? Who cares if there is another school shooting as long as we have our guns?

Honestly, the rest of the world is mostly dumbstruck.

[Jack]

OK. So they regard the kids as expendable, then? Who cares if there is another school shooting as long as we have our guns?

Probably; though maybe more about money and influence than actual guns. Theories on the sociopathy of political leaders may have some merit.

Honestly, the rest of the world is mostly dumbstruck.

Have the impression the general public here are upset as well.

['andersom']

Scrap has a point; FAD does come across as more interested in lashing out with sarcastic mockery in gun discussion, and sometimes ignores thoughtful posts which confront the reality of the situation here, even when those insights agree with his point of view on some level. Though that seems his style, so that's okay; scrap has his own style too. Do like FAD, so hope he returns and shares more of it.

The problem with the "reality of the situation" argument is that the argument itself is a problem because it's used as an excuse. The simple fact is that you (the generic you) need to change or people will continue to die. It amazes me that someone like Scrap, who frequently praises rational thinkers like Richard Dawkins in other matters defying logic, can't see past this one.

Yes, but keep saying, the public support is there, but not only it just doesn't happen but the government fails to enforce the laws already on the books. Really don't think it's the general you that needs to change. The general you are the majority, and the majority support stricter gun regulation, the majority of households don't even have a gun and even among those who do, the general you among them aren't a danger. The lack of care-to found in the ruling fringe is as dangerous as the murderous fringe, and the general you can't do a thing about it.

This is one of the saddest descriptions of how democracy can work.

[odeon]

In the words of the idiot-in-chief: sad.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

The problem with the "reality of the situation" argument is that the argument itself is a problem because it's used as an excuse.

This is the shit that passes for logic in the mind of odeot. Politics has been described as the art of the possible and what odeot proposes is impossible on so many levels.

First of all, a repeal of the 2nd amendment isn't going to happen, period. Second, because it isn't going to be repealed, sweeping bans of entire categories of firearms are going to face legal challenges that will tie up the courts for decades.

Of course if you tried such sweeping gun bans all that would happen is a surge in sales of targeted weapons followed by a surge in Militia membership. You might even get Militia leaders elected as mayors, sheriffs, governors, etc..

 

The simple fact is that you (the generic you) need to change or people will continue to die.

People are going to die no matter what. The murder rate in both England and Australia didn't change much after their gun bans, only the murder weapon changed. The fact that the murder stats that odeot posted only showed gun murders and not overall murders says that he probably knows this but would rather stick to his narrative.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

I must have missed those. No doubt they were awesome.

Can you answer the questions that I have posed to gun control advocates?

Neither 4AD nor odeon have given plausible answers.  They just throw red-herring arguments.

All I saw was well-supported arguments that shot down your nonsense in flames.

It is self-evident that you are too far down the rabbit hole to be reached. But I found their arguments interesting. And I found yours amusing.

 

Let's see you counter my arguments instead of just lazily making snarky comments.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

This rifle is so deadly and so easy to use that no civilian should be able to get their hands on one.

I urge you all to read the entire blog post.

No, I'm going to take a page from your playbook and force you to spoonfeed it to me. 

[Yuri Bezmenov]

OK. So they regard the kids as expendable, then? Who cares if there is another school shooting as long as we have our guns?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

This is another example of the shit that odeot passes off as logical arguments.

The reality is more complicated than the binary world of the odeot.

School shootings are a cultural phenomenon and were very rare prior to 1998 despite the fact that "assault weapons" had been available to the public since the early 1970's.

[odeon]

The problem with the "reality of the situation" argument is that the argument itself is a problem because it's used as an excuse.

This is the shit that passes for logic in the mind of odeot. Politics has been described as the art of the possible and what odeot proposes is impossible on so many levels.

First of all, a repeal of the 2nd amendment isn't going to happen, period. Second, because it isn't going to be repealed, sweeping bans of entire categories of firearms are going to face legal challenges that will tie up the courts for decades.

Of course if you tried such sweeping gun bans all that would happen is a surge in sales of targeted weapons followed by a surge in Militia membership. You might even get Militia leaders elected as mayors, sheriffs, governors, etc..

 

The simple fact is that you (the generic you) need to change or people will continue to die.

People are going to die no matter what. The murder rate in both England and Australia didn't change much after their gun bans, only the murder weapon changed. The fact that the murder stats that odeot posted only showed gun murders and not overall murders says that he probably knows this but would rather stick to his narrative.

You do realise that your constitution was meant - indeed designed - to be updated, right?

Oh, and

Last year a Reuters analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showed that in 1996, Australia had had 311 murders, of which 98 involved guns. In 2014, when the population had increased from about 18 million to 23 million, 238 people were murdered, 35 by guns.

In other words, the likelihood of being murdered by gunshot fell by 72 per cent in that period, from 0.54 to 0.15 per 100,000 people, Reuters said.

Next.