You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
November 20, 2018, 09:50:33 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: 2nd amendment discussion + taking tweets to task (Split from news thread)  (Read 345 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online headshot

I reckon America in all this turmoil because of its two-party system. If you're a republican, you have to defend the alt right nutters and if you're democratic you have to defend the crazy anti-vaccers. If politics wasn't such a money game in the US, if equal air time was given to all parties with a genuine people might be able to come to some middle ground.

That being said, I believe this type of toxic politics only adds to the gun situation. That democratic politician is clearly an imbecile to say what they did - especially considering his party wants to curb access to guns to save lives- but again we see this two-party system where democrats panic when even one of their politicians say something stupid because apparently that person shares ALL the values that every single Democrat has.

Also, if people insist on continuing to buy guns, then at least vet who can get them, or limit where they can be openly fired. People say gun control policies don't work all the time. Of course they don't always work. But they help fight the problem and they can be made more effective over time.

Offline Deamonbane

  • “If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!” ~ Demon Killer
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Location: Taking very enthusiastic walks through the woods.
  • Gender: Male
  • Oh, I don't get angry. I have people for that.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Also, the gun grabs in Australia and the UK did absolutely nothing to curb homicide rates, which has risen and fallen as if it completely ignored the gun bans. Homicide by firearms went down, sure. But other means filled that void instantly. So unless you think that someone who died by gunshot is somehow more dead then someone who died by a knife wound, then the gun bans indeed did nothing.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

Quote
In fact, the most recent government report on crime trends in Australia says, “Homicide in Australia has declined over the last 25 years. The current homicide incidence rate is the lowest on record in the past 25 years.”

Quote
The authors, however, noted that “no study has explained why gun deaths were falling, or why they might be expected to continue to fall.” That poses difficulty in trying to definitively determine the impact of the law, they write.

Offline Tolvo

Oooooh I like this one. There is a lot to unpack here. I'm probably not gunna quote point by point though because I'll be spending far too much time doing that.


If you know Hilary Clinton. You already know someone who supports the idea of a total firearm ban. DC vs Heller established that the second amendment means the right for individuals to own firearms. Disagreeing with that necessarily means you disagree with the right to own firearms. believing in the right to possess firearms and that the supreme court was mistaken in DC vs Heller is to believe in two mutually contradictory beliefs.

Also, the gun grabs in Australia and the UK did absolutely nothing to curb homicide rates, which has risen and fallen as if it completely ignored the gun bans. Homicide by firearms went down, sure. But other means filled that void instantly. So unless you think that someone who died by gunshot is somehow more dead then someone who died by a knife wound, then the gun bans indeed did nothing.

Beyond that, do you know how rare mass shootings are? Especially compared to gun violence not involving semi-automatic rifles? You have roughly the same chance of dying from a lightning strike as dying from a mass shooting. And as far as non-mass shooting firearms deaths go, firearm homicides have decreased in the US by 50% since 1993. The decrease in firearm homicides has been attributed to better policing, a better economy and environmental factors such as the removal of lead from gasoline. Not tighter gun laws.

Look. I do know that mass shootings are horrific, especially when the media actively promotes them. But like any other complex and nuanced issue, it's not smart to instantly react to it out fear every time something bad happens. That's not how good policy is made.

You can disagree with DC vs Heller and still be against broad bans. Keep in mind DC vs Heller also ruled against laws requiring certain types of guns such as shotguns to be unloaded when not in use or have trigger locks(Though from what I hear trigger locks are pretty useless).

As for your numbers on homicide rates and gun violence in the USA I'd like to see some sources. Because I'm finding things contradicting your numbers.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/1999-2016_Gun-related_deaths_USA.png

Mass shootings are a small percentage of gun related deaths in the USA, but they aren't happening infrequently, and it is not uncommon to be in a community effected by them. I say while dealing with the fear in my community currently of a mass shooting that just happened.

Offline Tilt

Oooooh I like this one. There is a lot to unpack here. I'm probably not gunna quote point by point though because I'll be spending far too much time doing that.


If you know Hilary Clinton. You already know someone who supports the idea of a total firearm ban. DC vs Heller established that the second amendment means the right for individuals to own firearms. Disagreeing with that necessarily means you disagree with the right to own firearms. believing in the right to possess firearms and that the supreme court was mistaken in DC vs Heller is to believe in two mutually contradictory beliefs.

Also, the gun grabs in Australia and the UK did absolutely nothing to curb homicide rates, which has risen and fallen as if it completely ignored the gun bans. Homicide by firearms went down, sure. But other means filled that void instantly. So unless you think that someone who died by gunshot is somehow more dead then someone who died by a knife wound, then the gun bans indeed did nothing.

Beyond that, do you know how rare mass shootings are? Especially compared to gun violence not involving semi-automatic rifles? You have roughly the same chance of dying from a lightning strike as dying from a mass shooting. And as far as non-mass shooting firearms deaths go, firearm homicides have decreased in the US by 50% since 1993. The decrease in firearm homicides has been attributed to better policing, a better economy and environmental factors such as the removal of lead from gasoline. Not tighter gun laws.

Look. I do know that mass shootings are horrific, especially when the media actively promotes them. But like any other complex and nuanced issue, it's not smart to instantly react to it out fear every time something bad happens. That's not how good policy is made.

Firstly, no. It doesn't. You are defining how someone else feels on an issue, and in doing so you are bound to be wrong. The problem with that court case wasn't that it protected the rights of hunters and people who want a bedside pistol (Preferably unloaded), but that it failed to define what either of the above meant. By conflating, 'That ruling is a problem because it allows lobbyists room to dance around the law and act as though a pistol and an AR 15 have the same level of danger and there's no current legal distinction' with, 'I believe the only people who should own guns should be well-regulated militia members' is a gross misrepresentation.

Secondly, I have a problem with that conjecture because it is only partly true. Violence in Great Britain has gone up and down, but homicide rates in Australia have been on a sharp decline. There was a recent report out of Australia about their homicide rates over the past 25 years, and they are down. WAY down. Guns were banned in 1996, and the homicide rate didn't IMMEDIATELY diminish, but it started sharply dropping in about 2002 and hasn't risen since. It's now down 22% since guns were banned.

Thirdly, there have been 307 mass shootings this year. Not all of them have been incredibly massive, but that is hardly rare. When there is a mass shooting almost every single day in a year, it's pretty hard to step back and say that it's not worth being concerned about. I also find the general attitude of, 'We can't overreact every time something bad happens' to be very dismissive of how dangerous these mass shootings are. Or of how common shootings are in general. When nearly a 50,000 people die to gun violence a year, it is extremely disrespectful to treat that like the other side is overreacting. I'd provide a number to exactly how many people die to mass shootings, but I just can't find that number.

And the problem is, the other side doesn't want anything done. This isn't a matter of one side wants to ban all guns forever and the other side wants simple and safe gun policy. It's that one side wants simple and safe gun policy and the other side wants us to shut up about it. Anytime any legislation is put forward on the most uncontroversial of topics, the far right explodes. They support no policy. And I don't see how doing nothing is smarter and better policy than doing something. We can't even discuss what good gun policy is, without the NRA shouting about Hillary Clinton wanting to personally tear hunting rifles out of the hands of honest Americans. Which just isn't true.

Offline Tolvo

Finding good numbers on mass shooting deaths is kind of tricky because for the current year more will keep happening and each year they can fluctuate very wildly in scope, deaths, targets, etc. Especially when there are different kinds of mass shootings and all the different definitions of what is considered a mass shooting.

I actually always wonder how much gun control could help with lessening fatal suicide attempts. Given how other forms of suicide are much less likely to be fatal. It's a really depressing thing to consider, as since mental health is usually unrelated to gun homicides but is related to gun suicides.

Offline IcelandicTopic starter

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/


I dunno what the purpose of you posting that is. That article helps my point that homicide rates have not risen or fallen dramatically. If you measure that decline since 2003 by per year per 100,000 inhabitants, that's less then a one person difference.

So, even if I were to be VERY generous and say that the post-2003 decline was all the result of the gun ban. That (almost) saves a whopping one person per year per 100,000.

You can disagree with DC vs Heller and still be against broad bans. Keep in mind DC vs Heller also ruled against laws requiring certain types of guns such as shotguns to be unloaded when not in use or have trigger locks(Though from what I hear trigger locks are pretty useless).

As for your numbers on homicide rates and gun violence in the USA I'd like to see some sources. Because I'm finding things contradicting your numbers.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/1999-2016_Gun-related_deaths_USA.png

Mass shootings are a small percentage of gun related deaths in the USA, but they aren't happening infrequently, and it is not uncommon to be in a community effected by them. I say while dealing with the fear in my community currently of a mass shooting that just happened.

My response above was to Daemonbane, but it fits for what you said as well. Your first link helps prove my point, with the homicide rate only going down by almost one person per 100,000 on average.

The second link is measuring gun homicides by overall population. Of course it had risen, as did our population. But if you look at it once again through per-capita (let's say, per 100,000 people), that statistic changes drastically.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?utm_term=.7889a6067bd3



Firstly, no. It doesn't. You are defining how someone else feels on an issue, and in doing so you are bound to be wrong. The problem with that court case wasn't that it protected the rights of hunters and people who want a bedside pistol (Preferably unloaded), but that it failed to define what either of the above meant. By conflating, 'That ruling is a problem because it allows lobbyists room to dance around the law and act as though a pistol and an AR 15 have the same level of danger and there's no current legal distinction' with, 'I believe the only people who should own guns should be well-regulated militia members' is a gross misrepresentation.

The rulling established that people had a right to firearms. In the same way people have the right to free speech, neither are absolute. It was simply an outline. And I'm not defining how people are feeling on it. Disagreeing with DC vs Heller and agreeing with the right to bare arms is logically impossible. It's like a square-circle.

Secondly, I have a problem with that conjecture because it is only partly true. Violence in Great Britain has gone up and down, but homicide rates in Australia have been on a sharp decline. There was a recent report out of Australia about their homicide rates over the past 25 years, and they are down. WAY down. Guns were banned in 1996, and the homicide rate didn't IMMEDIATELY diminish, but it started sharply dropping in about 2002 and hasn't risen since. It's now down 22% since guns were banned.

Per 100,000 people, the homicide rate dropped so far by an amazing almost one person per year. It's a modest drop and I talk about that more in this post responding to other people.

And the problem is, the other side doesn't want anything done. This isn't a matter of one side wants to ban all guns forever and the other side wants simple and safe gun policy. It's that one side wants simple and safe gun policy and the other side wants us to shut up about it. Anytime any legislation is put forward on the most uncontroversial of topics, the far right explodes. They support no policy. And I don't see how doing nothing is smarter and better policy than doing something. We can't even discuss what good gun policy is, without the NRA shouting about Hillary Clinton wanting to personally tear hunting rifles out of the hands of honest Americans. Which just isn't true.

We were able to pass some fairly decent laws in the 90s regarding gun control, but the difference was that the democrats in power respected the basic right to bare arms while doing so. The left now simply does not. The policies they offer on this matter are now often blatantly unconstitutional and need to be challenged at every single turn.

Offline Deamonbane

  • “If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!” ~ Demon Killer
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Location: Taking very enthusiastic walks through the woods.
  • Gender: Male
  • Oh, I don't get angry. I have people for that.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Quote
In fact, the most recent government report on crime trends in Australia says, “Homicide in Australia has declined over the last 25 years. The current homicide incidence rate is the lowest on record in the past 25 years.”

Did you read the link?

Offline IcelandicTopic starter

Did you read the link?

Yes. And I cross-referenced it with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade#2000s

It's very easy to say that homicide is at it's lowest rate in however many years, and have it sound amazing. But without going into detail, that difference could mean the world. 

Offline Tolvo

Uh Icelandic your own links disagree with you. As does this. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

I can't read the Washington Post one though due to it requiring a sub.

But from what I can find in the USA per capita it is also increasing though slowly. And your wikipedia list also mentions that healthcare is a major factor because more people are surviving being shot.

Offline IcelandicTopic starter

Uh Icelandic your own links disagree with you. As does this. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

I can't read the Washington Post one though due to it requiring a sub.

But from what I can find in the USA per capita it is also increasing though slowly. And your wikipedia list also mentions that healthcare is a major factor because more people are surviving being shot.

Which link and in what way? And my wikipedia list does not even mention healthcare. What are you even talking about?

Also, 'mortality' can mean both homicide and suicide. Just last post you were talking about homicide alone. (Also for the Washington Post article, open it up in Incognito and thank me later ;) )

Offline Yvellakitsune



So perhaps the license law could apply to the likes of open and concealed carry, since carrying you are carrying a firearm somewhere where improper use or care could result in injury to the public.

In short, you can own a weapon and use it on your property or in a location where the open use of it is permitted like a shooting range (though those locations have the right to ask for you to be certified first), but to be able to carry a firearm in public requires safety certifications of both the weapon and the owner.


The reason why even just driving in the USA may seem confusing is that driving laws are up to the state level of government.  Where I live, minors can get a driving permit at 14 but it is limited to school, work, and farming.  Next state over, they cant start driving until 16.  Different states have different insurance requirements too. 

With firearms, states do have some ability to influence gun laws like concealed carry, open carry, hunting is also primarily done at the state level.  The main issue with the right to bear arms is mainly at the federal level and with sales because that starts to get into interstate commerce.  California and New York have stricter laws than other states.  Even at the city level cities can have some sway in it.  The problem again is that some of these state and city laws start to trample the individual right.  So a state cannot make laws specifically to make it difficult own a firearm.  They can't make the laws to have an effect like a poll tax that limits people's ability to vote.  But they can put limits on carrying, hunting and even type/capability of the firearm to some degree.   

Something twisted with this is that in general, the people who want to subject people to background checks for the right to bear arms oppose ID checks for voting, and vice versa, the people who want ID checks on voting in general oppose background checks on firearms. 

Another reason for the distrust on the pro-Second Amendment side is that a lot of people, to include people in this forum, say they only want to limit certain types of firearms like "assault rifles" or just want background checks.  And they very well may believe that.  But there are others that want the Australia type confiscation too.  The reason why many don't want to compromise is that the people that only want certain limits disappear when the next wave tries to go further.  They don't stand up and say, "wait, wait, we only agreed on 'assault rifles.'"  They just stay silent if they don't join in.  So for the pro-Second Amendment people, the fight doesn't end with the compromise.  When the 1993 Assault Rifle Ban happened, the next movement wanted all pistols banned in the 1990's because of gang violence killing primarily teenagers.  The people who only wanted the Assault Rifle Ban didn't oppose them.  So that's why the pro-Second Amendment people don't want to give an inch.  The people who are willing to compromise are generally not willing to oppose the people further left of them.


I have met people who want total bans and confiscations.  I have even met people who claimed it was "common sense" to ban all veterans from owning firearms because of the POTENTIAL of PTSD and because we were "trained to kill."  People have said that to my face. They obviously don't represent what most people think, but people in the middle don't oppose them either.  Like Headshot said, "I reckon America in all this turmoil because of its two-party system. If you're a republican, you have to defend the alt right nutters and if you're democratic you have to defend the crazy anti-vaccers."  Its not just money, it's votes only going to 1 of 2 sides also.   

Offline Tolvo

Your wikipedia link says it right at the top.

The Washington Post article seems like just a lot of speculation without anything to really show. Especially the issue of more police when these stats don't include violence done by the police.

It is still weird this illusion that the further left someone is the more they want gun control, when again, gun control is more of a center position. Also the anti-vaccination movement is more popular among people who are pretty well off which typically the further left people are not.

Online RedPhoenix

I reckon America in all this turmoil because of its two-party system. If you're a republican, you have to defend the alt right nutters and if you're democratic you have to defend the crazy anti-vaccers.

...what?

the alt-right is rejected by many right wing politicians and the anti-vaccers are claimed by nobody.

Offline Skynet

We were able to pass some fairly decent laws in the 90s regarding gun control, but the difference was that the democrats in power respected the basic right to bare arms while doing so. The left now simply does not. The policies they offer on this matter are now often blatantly unconstitutional and need to be challenged at every single turn.

It is still weird this illusion that the further left someone is the more they want gun control, when again, gun control is more of a center position. Also the anti-vaccination movement is more popular among people who are pretty well off which typically the further left people are not.

I think this is a case that many Americans have a different definition of leftist thought than much of the world.  Framing left vs. right as "More government intervention vs less government intervention."

Even in the US context this is a fallacious definition, as Republicans are incredibly Big Government when it comes to social issues, foreign policy, law enforcement, etc.

Most anarchists and non-tanky Communists want zero gun control so the working class can more easily overthrow the ruling class.

As for the Democrats, they haven't been left-wing as even most Republicans view the term. Clinton helped draft NAFTA and said he wanted workfare, not welfare. Or Obama's troop surge for Afghanistan. Or Hillary Clinton soliciting funds from Goldman-Sachs. Or how the Democrats ousted Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist to the left of Hillary and Obama.

If the Democrats were actually leftist they wouldn't solicit funds from billionaires, not even "Cultural Marxist" bogeyman George Soros who actually funded anti-Communist groups in the Soviet Union in favor of liberal democracy.

Offline Tilt

Yes. And I cross-referenced it with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade#2000s

It's very easy to say that homicide is at it's lowest rate in however many years, and have it sound amazing. But without going into detail, that difference could mean the world.

I'm sorry, normally I don't have that much of a problem with people getting information off of Wikipedia, but in this case that is ridiculous. I cited a recent research paper documenting homicide rates, and your response is that you would rather listen to WIKIPEDIA? Come on. Let's be real here. The article I cited was designed to compare homicides in a way that Wikipedia does not. Those aren't equatable.

The rulling established that people had a right to firearms. In the same way people have the right to free speech, neither are absolute. It was simply an outline. And I'm not defining how people are feeling on it. Disagreeing with DC vs Heller and agreeing with the right to bare arms is logically impossible. It's like a square-circle.

Secondly, that is a twisted view of DC vs Heller. Partly because, as another user pointed out it didn't JUST apply to redefining what the second amendment meant, it also allowed for vague and broad rulings about how guns can be handled. And to be clear, you can believe that the second amendment does not apply to recreational use of firearms, hunting, or self-defense, and still not want a complete ban on guns. DC vs Heller was not a case of whether or not people should own guns, it's whether or not the second amendment applies to how guns are used today.

It's very possible for something to not be constitutionally protected, not yet not be taken away. Cars aren't constitutionally protected, but no one is banning them. It's just because cars aren't deemed as a constitutional right, we're able to apply easy and simple legislation to ensure people know how to use them safely, and can quickly identify those who don't. People who break the rules can get their license taken away. None of which is very possible with how we treat guns now, because we treat getting a gun license as a violation of constitutional rights.


Per 100,000 people, the homicide rate dropped so far by an amazing almost one person per year. It's a modest drop and I talk about that more in this post responding to other people.

Thirdly, I am noticing a trend in your behavior, where you are diminishing the value of life. 307 mass shootings a year is rare. 50,000 deaths a year to firearms isn't worth overreacting to. Dozens of lives saved isn't worth the effort.

We were able to pass some fairly decent laws in the 90s regarding gun control, but the difference was that the democrats in power respected the basic right to bare arms while doing so. The left now simply does not. The policies they offer on this matter are now often blatantly unconstitutional and need to be challenged at every single turn.

Fourthly, I am going to have to disagree with you that the problem is how the left approaches gun control. Because time and again, there is a mass shooting, the left says, 'We need to talk about this' and the right goes, 'Shut the fuck up, let's just mourn for once!' which continues until the next the next shooting, rinse and repeat. I can't even remember the last time the Republican party actually supported, much less drafted, any form of gun control legislation.

If the problem is that the Left makes bad gun control policy, then the right should step up and show us how it's done. How they would implement gun control which actually works.

Instead, the Right has been loosening gun control. In the wake of some of the worst acts of mass violence this country has ever seen, the right has made it legal to conceal carry across state lines, refused to hold hearings to even discuss gun control, failed to criminalize bump stocks, and proposed a bill that would slash funding to background check systems.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Lots to read through while I was gone for the day...but can I just take a moment to highlight how much I appreciate that we've been able to continue a rational, polite discussion and exchange of opposing viewpoints on this issue for four pages and change? E by its core nature tends to self-populate towards the left side of the political spectrum, which makes political debates difficult in general and more so when the rare right-leaning member comes in feeling outnumbered and un-listened to. People are citing sources and backing their opinions, and I haven't seen a single person accuse another of committing a fallacy of some kind. I can't imagine this will last forever, but it's nice as a change of pace and I just felt it should be pointed out.

Offline Tolvo

I do wonder what everyone in the thread thinks would actually solve a lot of these issues. For instance what levels of gun control. Because it has been mentioned that people are afraid of certain concepts, like full confiscation. I just wonder where everyone does stand on solutions in totality.

Personally I'm not against full confiscation, though I don't think that'd really be easy in the USA and that actually doing that would be very hard. In general I see gun control as more of a bandage, that a lot of these problems stem from our culture and systems. How poverty, toxic masculinity, gun culture, are in the USA. That gun control at various levels could help lessen numbers of deaths, from suicide or homicide, but that it also is not a long term solution unless we really work on improving our society.

Offline IcelandicTopic starter

I do wonder what everyone in the thread thinks would actually solve a lot of these issues. For instance what levels of gun control. Because it has been mentioned that people are afraid of certain concepts, like full confiscation. I just wonder where everyone does stand on solutions in totality.

Good question. I think considering there are other places in the world with relatively high gun ownership rates, but not equivalent gun crime, and when those nations (mainly looking at European ones here) also have very good healthcare systems, the answer is clear.

I support some form of universal healthcare, preferably a Scandinavian version of one as they seem to be able to actually do it right. And fully fund mental health services. Especially for young men who need it most in the country.


Offline IcelandicTopic starter

Your wikipedia link says it right at the top.

The Washington Post article seems like just a lot of speculation without anything to really show. Especially the issue of more police when these stats don't include violence done by the police.

It is still weird this illusion that the further left someone is the more they want gun control, when again, gun control is more of a center position. Also the anti-vaccination movement is more popular among people who are pretty well off which typically the further left people are not.

Oh, and I missed your earlier response.

I did notice the mention on the top of the Wikipedia article. And to be fair if medical care for gunshot wounds has gotten better, then that does not help argue that lack of guns had caused the (very minor) homicide rate decline in Australia. In fact it might even make the gun confiscation argument even worse. So uh... Thanks! :D
 
Also the Washington Post article gives plenty of sources, and surely you can't say that gun homicide went down because of less guns in America?

I'm sorry, normally I don't have that much of a problem with people getting information off of Wikipedia, but in this case that is ridiculous. I cited a recent research paper documenting homicide rates, and your response is that you would rather listen to WIKIPEDIA? Come on. Let's be real here. The article I cited was designed to compare homicides in a way that Wikipedia does not. Those aren't equatable.

You know Wikipedia cites sources as well, right?...

If the problem is that the Left makes bad gun control policy, then the right should step up and show us how it's done. How they would implement gun control which actually works.

I'm not really gunna respond to the other points made because I would just be repeating myself. But I'm curious as to why not just enforce our current gun laws first? The Parkland shooting would never have happened if the government enforced their own laws in the first place.

Offline Tolvo

I'm not sure if there is really a point to continuing. We seem to disagree on very basic facts and the reality and history presented in our sources. And I'm not sure what you are arguing anymore Icelandic, whether you believe gun violence in general or gun related homicides are impacted by people not owning guns or what anything really means to you. And it seems you really want to put words in other people's mouths.

Offline Tilt

You know Wikipedia cites sources as well, right?...

It's still a secondary source. The link I provided was to a direct comparison of gun-related deaths over the past twenty-five years.

Like I said, the problem isn't that I hate Wikipedia. I don't. But when it comes to topics as serious as this one, you should prioritize where you get your information.

I'm not really gunna respond to the other points made because I would just be repeating myself. But I'm curious as to why not just enforce our current gun laws first? The Parkland shooting would never have happened if the government enforced their own laws in the first place.

There's a LOT that I want to say to the first part of this point, especially after you spent multiple posts telling me what people like myself believe when they don't support DC vs Heller. Rather than debate the points that we actually make, you just seem more content to make up what we believe and then act shocked and offended at those imagined slights against gun ownership. It's very hard to have a sincere debate with someone who will just make something up and expect it to be taken as fact.

What I will say is that it is very frustrating that the far-right regularly cuts the ability for gun control to work, and then says that if people enforced current gun control that everything would be fine. Current gun control laws are like a tattered butterfly net that we're told to catch bullets with. When the bullets fly through, well that's proof that gun control doesn't work. It's a completely circular argument. It also ignores all the shootings where the shooter got their guns legally and there's nothing that modern gun control could have done to prevent it (Want to say the Las Vegas shooting fits that criteria).

The entire problem is that current gun control doesn't work. They aren't properly enforced, and even if they were they wouldn't prevent many of the mass shootings that we see almost every single day. We need a better system because this one isn't working.

Now if the far-right has any ideas it would like to share, I am all ears. Propose some solutions. Draft some legislation. Make the hard calls. But until your side of the isle makes some teensy attempt to stand against the epidemic of gun violence, it doesn't have any right to take the moral highground. As much as you would like to bash the left, at least we're making an effort.

I am going to agree with Tolvo. There's really no point in arguing with someone who puts words in my mouth.

Offline Tolvo

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/11/20/chicago-shooting-nra-blasted-telling-docs-stay-their-lane/2064406002/

Also in relation to the NRA, keep in mind that recently the NRA told doctors to stay in their lane and that gun violence was not their problem or territory. Because a lot of doctors wanted more research to be done on gun violence, something the NRA is fiercely against. Cue a shooting in a hospital soon after.

Offline Tilt

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/11/20/chicago-shooting-nra-blasted-telling-docs-stay-their-lane/2064406002/

Also in relation to the NRA, keep in mind that recently the NRA told doctors to stay in their lane and that gun violence was not their problem or territory. Because a lot of doctors wanted more research to be done on gun violence, something the NRA is fiercely against. Cue a shooting in a hospital soon after.

This one really infuriates me because it's so clearly a ploy to redefine who gets to be an expert on complex issues. Not trained researchers, not doctors who save lives, but just... Gun owners. Gun owners are the experts on gun violence and everyone else should defer to them.

It shouldn't need to be said that this is a conflict of interest.

Offline Oniya

With regards to Wikipedia, I find it very useful to use it as a way to find sources - then I take the added step of going to the source (usually hyperlinked in the footnotes) and read it in the primary form.  It takes out that one level of 'filter' caused by the interpretation of whoever added that particular source to the article.

Then, when I'm making my contribution to the discussion, I link to the primary source instead of the Wikipedia article.  ^_^

Offline Tilt

With regards to Wikipedia, I find it very useful to use it as a way to find sources - then I take the added step of going to the source (usually hyperlinked in the footnotes) and read it in the primary form.  It takes out that one level of 'filter' caused by the interpretation of whoever added that particular source to the article.

Then, when I'm making my contribution to the discussion, I link to the primary source instead of the Wikipedia article.  ^_^

Yeah, that's a good way to do it. Otherwise, I don't even know which reference he's talking about. Some articles have dozens of references and not all are created equal.