It’s not hard at all; it’s common sense.
How about longer periods, coupled with registration of firearms, coupled with product liability lawsuits, coupled with gun licensing, and other common sense measures that actually are implemented and working in other societies?
No, I actually did address his point – I’m sorry you seemed to miss it. A slippery slope argument is cute in a 6th grade debate class, but it’s a pretty weak form of argument otherwise. It’s like saying that because states regulate the length of a hunting knife, people might take away all sharp knives. He and gun rights cultists argue that there should be no compromise because the loss of an AR-15 is the end of gun rights in America, which is an absurd proposition. You don’t need an AR-15 to defend democracy or your personal safety for that matter.
I’m not focusing strictly on mass homicides, though they are definitely a prime example of the magnitude of the impact they have. I don’t need to clarify anything; it is you who needs to demonstrate that gun cultures are safe ones. The states with that are culturally inclined to support firearms rights (the Deep South) are among the most crime ridden and most violent in the US. I don’t argue that guns alone are the cause, but they are a factor and they are an instrument of choice, and I’m not really interested in having a Wiki battle with anyone over this. It is established fact, except for those who live in the parallel universe of the NRA.
And where on earth did you get the idea that Orland is a gun free zone? You mean the establishment was gun free? Oh you mean you’re surprised that lots of people actually aren’t interested in walking around with a 9 mm pistol in a bar full of hundreds of people who consume alcohol? Do you have any idea how many fist fights happen in bars and parking lots? You want to throw in guns to the mix?
Seriously, chief, I think we need a wormhole to communicate because we’re living in different parts of the galaxy. I know I’m being a bit of a douche about this but I’m honestly tired of saying all of the nice shit and pretending like I need to the other viewpoint a fair shake. We tried that, and we’re constantly watching tens of families bury their dead because all we do is pray, lower our flags to half staff, and curse the names of dead perpetrators. But God forbid if we try anything with more immediate impact than that. I think we need to ask ourselves what kind of society we’re trying to create here – one in which the average person fears for his personal safety to the point of needing military-style weaponry, or one in which people feel reasonably secure in walking out and enjoying a night out on the town?
You know, we are in the real world, not a High School debating club. And in this real world, Gun Control enthusiast have said that any control is just a first step towards banning most guns. You dont need a AR 15, but a handgun is useful and HCI wants to ban all handguns. So does the Brady group.
The NRA knows this full well, which is why it fights everything tooth and nail.
[QUOTE=asahi]
I know I’m being a bit of a douche about this but I’m honestly tired of saying all of the nice shit and pretending like I need to the other viewpoint a fair shake.
[/QUOTE]
And that is why you (and your side) fail…and why the Republicans are failing in the broader political scene.
No, you didn’t, and you didn’t do it again here. Let me refresh your memory.
(my bold)
So you have still failed to mention anything regarding a compromise. You can defeat this by simply pointing to a compromise, or by conceding that there have been no compromises offered.
You say you’re not focusing on mass homicides, but then immediately prior you mention a list of presumably mass homicides. But then again, I’m not sure because if you think simply saying "Texas, Colorado, South Carolina, Alabama, Virginia, or Florida " is sufficient for a reader to know what you’re talking about, well, it’s not. I can guess that by Virginia you are referring to Virgina Tech. By Florida you are talking about the most recent events in Orlando. The others, I’m not sure about. That’s what I’m asking for clarification on. You know, as a courtesy. It works better than foaming.
Cite? I think you’re wrong.
Yes, the establishment in Florida was a gun free zone. And no, while people are drinking I think it’s a bad idea for them to be armed. For people not drinking alcohol then the location is irrelevant in my view. Here’s an image of states where this is allowed (as of the 2010 NY Times articleI pulled it from). More states have recognized this ability since then. Oh look, here’s a thread about it from 2010 too.
Actually, champ, what we need would be you to support your assertions. The first being about compromise. Can you answer that question? The one posed in post #239, #252, #274, #277, and #280. **What compromises have been offered? **You know, the question you are avoiding.
Just to help you out since you seem to have an aversion to evidence, here is a listing of violent crime by state.
1 Alaska 635.8
2 Nevada 635.6
3 Tennessee 608.4
4 New Mexico 597.4
5 Florida 540.5
6 Louisiana 514.7
7 South Carolina 497.7
8 Delaware 489.1
9 Arkansas 480.1
10 Maryland 446.1
Among the top 10, how many are in the “deep south”? Louisiana, South Carolina, Arkansas yes. Florida is kind of a wobbler. But I think your focus is not so much the deep south, but that of those states culturally inclined to support firearms rights. Let’s look at the 10 states with the lowest rate of violent crime:
41 Minnesota 229.1
42 Rhode Island 219.2
43 Utah 215.6
44 Idaho 212.2
45 Kentucky 211.6
46 Virginia 196.2
47 New Hampshire 196.1
48 Wyoming 195.5
49 Maine 127.8
50 Vermont 99.3
Vermont, Maine, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and Virginia in the top 5 and I’d say all of those are culturally inclined to support firearm rights. Vermont being the first state with constitutional carry. Maine, Wyoming, Idaho are also on the list and are also constitutional carry. New Hampshire, home to the Free State Project is also quite friendly. The only state that isn’t inclined to support firearm rights on that list is probably Rhode Island. Then again, with 40 states in the union being shall issue or constitutional carry, most places are inclined to support firearm rights. If you really want to see what correlates with violent crime, I think you’ll have more luck with poverty.
That being said, do you have a cite for this claim?
OMFG!!! WTF is wrong with you dude? YOU injected the phrase “radical Islamists”
In post 260, you say: “Seriously, the idea that you can prevent a disgruntled war vet from purchasing processed animal shit and not regulate three or four radical Islamists from purchasing AKs or AR-15s is, well, a steaming pile of NRA shit. And you know it. So stifle it.”
So when you say it, its OK. But when i say it I’ma fucking Sean Hannity parrot?
I suggest you look up slippery slope fallacy.
Is there a special interest lobby that wants to outlaw farms?
What?!?!?! YOU are one non sequitor after another aren’t you?
We were talking about how one side giving in to only SOME of the demands of the other side with nothing coming from the other side is not really a compromise.
Restricting AR-15s is not undemocratic, its just retarded.
WTF does that have to do with the second amendment?
Its hard to keep track of everyone’s political leanings but there are a few debates where you simply cannot assume someone’s general political leaning based on their position in that debate. Guns are one of them. I am a pro gun Democrat. I keep voting Democrat despite all the retarded anti-gun stuff coming from the Democrats because there are bigger issues that consistently push my vote away from Republicans.
(post shortened)
Oh Wow, yes. Obama’s problem, one of them anyway, is his inability (steadfast refusal?) to call a spade a spade. Even when it’s so painfully obvious. It was Obama who said he doesn’t quibble with labels at the very same time Obama is quibbling about labeling radical Islamic terrorism as radical Islamic terrorism.
It seem to me that the Obama administrations goal has been to ban firearms and to illegally assist in the illegal distribution of illegally purchased weapons which were send to Mexican drug cartels. Obama/Holder didn’t quibble about notifying the Mexican government that the illegal weapons trafficked via Fast And Furious was taking place. They simply chose not to do so. Even though Obama/Holder chose not to notify the Mexican government they still expected the Mexican government to track the weapons. :rolleyes:
No, no its not. The Assault weapons ban is about the most retarded gun control idea that the gun control lobby has ever come up with. It has no measurable effect on gun death, it makes Democrats lose elections and makes gun control folks look retarded.
I don’t have a problem with anything you are suggesting here other than the lawsuits (I assume you mean allowing people to sue gun manufacturer for the criminal acts committed by criminals with their product, we don’t do that with any other product) and the notion that any of this is common sense. Very few things this controversial are simple. If you ever find yourself thinking that something controversial in politics is simple then you probably know almost nothing about the issue and you listen almost exclusively to one side of the debate.
The only problem you have is that you can’t get the votes for that sort of shit because noone believes that you will stop at these things, you are offering NOTHING in return for these concessions and you don’t have the political power to pass them.
Are there people out there who want to ban guns outright? Probably so, but it’s not that simple, is it? We have registered communists in this country, but I don’t see this country becoming communist in my life time. Slippery slope arguments are elementary debate tactics in which people stretch the limits of what is likely or possible.
So I have to give up my 2nd Amendment rights just because I’ve had a few beers? Next you’ll be calling for breathalyzers at voting booths! 
Do you know what a straw man argument is?
I don’t entirely disagree with this statement. I think it’s an attempt to score a symbolic victory, but in the absence of deeper, more systematic reforms, I don’t see this as being something that will prevent mass casualties. The problem is, conservatives don’t want meaningful reforms, like registration, licensing, and things that actually could work.
Is that what I said? Am I proposing that I cut off everyone’s arms because bar patrons get into fisticuffs?
I’m pointing out the obvious…alcohol and guns are a bad mix. Hell, even the NRA agrees with me on that one.
Yes, and I’m not making it. Next.
No cites, its just established fact? You know we’re in great debates, right?
Tens of families? Tens of families bury their dead gunshot victims EVERY DAY!!!
People aren’t clutching their guns because they fear mass shootings. They fear all the other gun murders that are 100 times more common.
Did you mean to quote me?
He doesn’t need a cite, its just established fact, remember?
You know that slippery slope arguments are not always a fallacy right?? Only slippery slope fallacies are fallacies.