When? Where? If you are going to complain about people twisting words, you shouldn’t be such a hypocrite about it yourself.
Innocent people are going to be injured and killed by gun violence, you and your ilk do a very good job of ensuring that.
It was not wished at all that anyone be harmed by gun violence, it was just wished that you would actually know one of the people who inevitably will be harmed by gun violence.
That you pretend not to understand that makes you a pretty pathetic troll.
“If the war is a pointless and justified one” is a pretty big caveat though, right? While it is nice to imagine a world in which all wars are unjustified and could be avoided, that is not a reality. We have wars of defense and wars where we have an obligation to defend other countries, for example. We also have peacekeeping missions etc.
Again, by supporting comprehensive gun control? I can only conclude by this continued attack you do not think gun control works? Is that correct?
Again–you can say something over and over, that doesn’t make it true. Frankly maybe you just don’t understand that we trade lives for rights every single day, and that is why guns upset you. The rights that allow you to live your life today, are to some degree being traded for other lives all the time. If you aren’t willing to be honest about that, I would question either your critical thinking or your honesty, or both.
Again–there’s a wide range of things that we accept even when it kills people. If a relative of mine died in a school shooting, no, I would not suddenly support a complete gun ban. I would continue to support the comprehensive gun control that I have always supported.
“When? Where?” you ask.
Post #105 by Drsunflower1 in one of his responses. Here are his exact words…
“I hope the next gun death will be someone you know. Or by someone you know.”
Right. And the same way, if the option to do something exists but has a cost (for example, driving cars) we weigh the benefits of a motorized society versus the cost.
What people are criticizing you for is weighing something as spurious as guns above dealing with the #1 cause of death in the US.
And you bring up cars–we regulate those for safety. I am in favor of doing that for guns–we largely have limited to no real safety laws around guns now, at least none that are comprehensive and nationwide. We also don’t enforce many of the important gun laws on our books to begin with, which until that is improved is one area we should focus on because it requires no legislation to improve enforcement–felons for example buy legal firearms every day in the United States. This is because they regularly just fail to complete the background check on them. Additionally, felons possessing a gun is a Federal offense, it came out in something like 2015 that the vast majority of those crimes are “under prosecuted”, which is wildly stupid.
I don’t believe guns are even close to the #1 cause of death in the United States. Maybe I misunderstood what you’re saying.
Sure, why not just call me a liar for the umpteenth time. Oh, I forgot… You’re the only one who matters, and other people are just meaningless ciphers.
Agreed.
Agreed, this is a problem. Any illegal gun possession should be taken seriously. Especially heinous is the fact that, for a combination of reasons (and very possibly different reasons in different places), the police very often fail to disarm domestic abusers or people subject to restraining orders - even here in Ca:
That was my bad, I meant to say #1 cause of death IN CHILDREN in the US. My bad.
It is true that there’s always a tradeoff between lives and rights, but that tradeoff is especially, hugely, catastrophically unbalanced in the case of gun rights. As I remarked in a concurrent thread:
We are sacrificing tens of thousands of lives annually in service to maintaining a right that is far, far less meaningful and effective than most of its supporters wishfully believe. That’s the most frustrating part.
So who is it?
Again, not a gotcha. It’s an honest question. Who are these people that you’re okay with dying to preserve your 2A rights?
Are you serious?
You’re wrong. Period.
But then you followed it up with:
You moved the goal posts. You changed it from [paraphrased] “No one says a country lacks empathy because it sends soldiers off to war” to “We have wars of defense and wars where we have an obligation to defend other countries, for example. We also have peacekeeping missions etc.”
Well, you tried to move the goal posts. I’m quite certain you’re still incorrect that people feel a country lacks empathy in those types of war as well.
When you keep making the same arguments over and over, you’re going to hear the same rebuttals over and over.
And you’re actively pushing back against efforts to fix that. Maybe join the people trying to push towards a world of less violence.
Exactly what rights are being protected when someone shoots up a school or mall or movie theater?
When it comes to judging intellectual dishonesty, you have absolutely no standing here.
I saw that just the other day. Honestly, I assumed ‘guns are leading cause of death in children’ was an onion headline when I read it.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761
https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/journals/content/nejm/2022/nejm_2022.386.issue-20/nejmc2201761/20220518/images/img_xlarge/nejmc2201761_f1.jpeg
And where did he wish for there to be another gun death?
You are being disingenuous if you think that that is asking for the death of innocents.
Maybe try reading the exact words, rather than making them up.
It’s easy to say that you support comprehensive gun control, but when you consider gun rights to be higher importance than innocent life, it’s hard to see what it is that you would actually end up supporting.
And that’s a load of straw. No one said you would have to support a complete gun ban. Just like supporting gay rights doesn’t mean you have to be gay.
So long as it doesn’t interfere with what you consider to be your gun rights.
Another post, another false representation of what I have said.
And that’s fine–being okay or not being okay with where the balance is, is a matter of opinion. Opinions may disagree, and that’s also fine. But there’s a lot of people here who are asserting that even acknowledging that tradeoff makes one a monster totally devoid of empathy, that is simply nonsense.
There is not an objective measure of meaningful and effective, unfortunately. While I know this is one thing liberals hate–most policy disputes don’t have empirically correct answers, most involve differing preferences and choices being made. I have no issue with the fact some people weight things at differing levels, that is normal.
I have tremendous standing, in a 500+ post thread I’ve shown nothing but honesty and integrity in the face of people wishing death on innocent people, mass scale lying, coordinated trolling from well-known forum trolls, specious allegations of racism (there have been virtually no actual posts about race in this thread), not to mention several people who have just been spamming the thread with profanities for 5 days.
I’ve posted what I would support, what is obvious is you didn’t read it.
Nope, I’ve never said that. In fact it is illogical for you to say that. What I said is I wasn’t in favor of a complete ban. Any of my gun control proposals would involve a significant curtailment of my current rights.
I think most of us have read your acceptance speech for the Humanitarian of the Year Award by now. It’s really more that:
Again–by supporting gun control (which I do) ?
But you see, we simply don’t matter to someone who has no empathy towards others.
He’ll never, ever get it. It’s like trying to explain chess to a squirrel. There is simply no capacity there to understand that other people are anything other than background noise.
I acknowledge, and appreciate, your position on what regulations might be reasonable and could possibly be effective.
And am – again – utterly astounded at your inability to understand that what I am talking about was your words … that I quoted … right in post #635.
Again, it seems that you either cannot read them, will not read them, or are constitutionally incapable of understanding them.
It really is mind boggling.
While I was thinking Parcheesi to a prepubescent pangolin … I definitely take your point 
Yeah it’s called “I’m not tacitly accepting your bullshit points.” Sorry, I’m not obligated to accept bad takes.
And everyone else feels the exact same way about your bullshit points.