Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

But you do have time to spout emotionalist rhetoric? And when have you ever argued a point here at all? I'm still waiting for you to figure that out.


And that kind of insult will get you to the point where you can't post here at all.


And again you just don't get it. I am just as hardcore on this issue as you are, maybe more so. The problem isn't which way someone leans, but your childish habit of coming in with a headline in big bold letterw, stating your opinion and then refusing to actually discuss it. After all this time you still have not learned what I've told you so many times before: It's not what you say, it's how you say it. You continue to say it as if your opinion is the only one that counts.

The sooner you'll learn that the sooner you might actually get some credibility and respect around here.

I have discussed the point in the OP and my responses.This is exploitation of a woman who is most likely in such grief and a private citizen has no place given a presidential address.Of course others took the topic into other things but that i the point, this is another scumbag move on part of dear leader.My rhetoric is not emotional, it's just laying out the truth.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Why not ?

That all depends on what is called 'violent crime'. The violent crime definition for UK police is different to that of the US police.

In the US, violent crime is reported as "murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault."
In the UK, violent crime is reported as “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses”

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Oberon

That all depends on what is called 'violent crime'. The violent crime definition for UK police is different to that of the US police.

In the US, violent crime is reported as "murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault."
In the UK, violent crime is reported as “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses”

So you don't classify murder as a violent crime? And you guys call us barbaric!

and Honestly, what your saying there is so similar, i think your splitting hairs.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

So you don't classify murder as a violent crime? And you guys call us barbaric!

Honestly, those are so similar, i think your splitting hairs.

The point is though, that the figures are misleading because there are more crimes that are classified as 'violent crimes' in the UK that go classified as something else in the US.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Oberon

The point is though, that the figures are misleading because there are more crimes that are classified as 'violent crimes' in the UK that go classified as something else in the US.

How i'm interpretting this is you actually have MORE then what was cited because you have those violent crime stats in addition to........ whatever else, while we just lump them all into one category.


Backtracking a moment, and putting most everything else aside, I think the guy in that video makes an undeniable point about large metro areas. That is where most of the crime occurs, and we do have more large metro's.

Where I live, crime is so rare, i have inlaw's that rarely lock their doors. The nickname of this area is "happy valley" because everyone here lives in a bubble so to speak, because nothing bad - never, or rarely happens here. (wheres I grew up in SoCal, and am not as oblivious to crime or bad people. I always lock my doors, and put stop sticks in the windows. Others, not so much.)

Again, that brings me to gun crime being a local problem, that should be handled by local law agencies. Which.. leads me to posting (again?).

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Her emotional effect is exactly why she's been chosen to give the address. Politics is ALL about emotion and whilst logic and reasoning are held up to be higher forms of thought but some, emotions are the reason we care enough about something to say something or do something. That is initelf entirely logical. The choice of speaker is also entirely logical and well reasoned because of the emotional response it is expected to promote. The bigger question is whether it will have enough emotional power to change peoples opinions or not.


So your emotions were engaged to get you off your backside and become politically active.


But politics is all about emotional reactions and quite a lot of law and legislature is based on those emotions. The two cannot be separated. The birth of your country and its consittution was based almot entirely on the emotional responses of the Founding Fathers. Were they not, you would still be flying a flag with a Union Jack in the corner.

Really, you are incorrect here. The emotions you refer to(ill just call them that for discussions sake) were not irrational ones though.After a long series of abuses, the founders made a sound, rational and logical choice to fight for liberty, to free their nation from oppression, which is a natural instinct more than an emotion.

Emotions over a tragedy like Newtown while justified, are not the same and people should not allow them to influence public policy.The emotions this woman is feeling is to give up our rights in order to prevent another tragedy? Well time and time again it's proven this will not help.Only people driven by an irrational, illogical force such as grief would do so.Much like 9/11, so many are ready to surrender their rights in the name of "safety" while not thinking clearly.Really, it is akin to someone shooting a lover when upset, caught in the heat of the moment.Of course people closest to it are affected the most and the longest, which disqualifies them from offering an objective opinion, at least for a while.

People like Obama could care less, well I will be nice, he cares but sees an opportunity here to advance his agenda, knowing that many of the sheep will just fall in line, as they have a few times before.Obama is many things but I have never said he is dumb.Although if one is a marxist, there is a certain lack of intellect but that is another story.Bottom line, this is exploitation of people who are for the time being, unstable(somewhat) and in no way qualified to make judgements on public policy. Issues like this require rational, well thought out decision making.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I digress.

I agree that the government is trying to play on heart strings. I said as much earlier.

While emotions do run high in politics, i feel they have no place there.

Remarks about myself, or the founding fathers of my country I disagree with. For one, you really don't know me. For two, originally the founders tried to avoid war. Which i would call a sign of logic and reason.

I don't know you other than your persona on Subsim. Honestly, I've no desire to ever meet you either. That does not mean I cannot deduce some emotional responses, based on my own logic and reasoning.

I'm sure that you and the founding fathers use logic and reasoning, however, emotions drive the thinking that starts that process. With no emotional response, politics has no reason to exist.

Stating that one side or another in a debate is using emotion to the exclusion of logic and reasoning is disengenuous at best and unreasonable at worst.

The OP's statement that the mother's emotional responses are irrational is absurd, however that's Bubblehead for you.

There will always be emotion on both sides of any argument otherwise there is no argument.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Honestly, I've no desire to ever meet you either.

Feel the love!

You can hate my guts if you like. I don't mind.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Feel the love!

You can hate my guts if you like. I don't mind.

I don't care enough about you to hate you. Not enough emotional response.

[Ducimus]

Aww geez.

edit:

seriously though, it IS hard to get upset when whoever it is is an ocean away, and is part of a completely different country and culture.

[Méo]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I would say your skewing, no.. i'm sorry, not skewing, cherry picking the data to taste.

Well that's what you think, I just don't have the time to write/do a whole study on the matter.

----

The guy in your video seems to think that he is very clever and say that others have agenda.

But I could also say that he's biased. He offers absolutely no definition at all of what is considered to be a violent crime, which should be the base of a reasonable argumentation.
(Ex. an hold up with a knife is probably considered as a violent crime but is nothing compared to mass shootings.)
Edit: Oberon made my point.

Also, he says that crimes in the U.S. has decreased over time but forget to mention that crimes in other countries ALSO decreased.

The only thing I agree with him is at the end when he says that part of the solution is the economy (but that's a very complex problem to resolve).

----

To me all this is so, so simple. The more guns there will be, the more uses of guns there will be. And a background check on people with mental issues before selling them firearms seems to me fairly reasonable.

If I ever travel to your country to go to Disneyland with my kids, will I have to rent an AR-15

I kid of course...

[Ducimus]

Meo, your biased as well. Don't pretend your not.

Let's be honest, EVERYBODY in this thread is biased. If you didn't have a bias, you wouldn't be involving yourself.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Really, you are incorrect here. The emotions you refer to(ill just call them that for discussions sake) were not irrational ones though.After a long series of abuses, the founders made a sound, rational and logical choice to fight for liberty, to free their nation from oppression, which is a natural instinct more than an emotion.

I don't think I said either Ducimus or the Founding father's emotional responses were irrational. Merely that their emotions drove their behaviours. What they rationalise about their responses makes no difference to my point. Emotions and politics are intrinsically linked and are inseparable. When a politician says something about something you care about, you are more likely to have an emotional response that motivates you to do or say something about it.

Call it what you will, but natural instinct and emotion are one and the same thing. It is a what your pre-frontal cortex does that makes it so.

Emotions over a tragedy like Newtown while justified, are not the same and people should not allow them to influence public policy.The emotions this woman is feeling is to give up our rights in order to prevent another tragedy? Well time and time again it's proven this will not help.Only people driven by an irrational, illogical force such as grief would do so.Much like 9/11, so many are ready to surrender their rights in the name of "safety" while not thinking clearly.Really, it is akin to someone shooting a lover when upset, caught in the heat of the moment.Of course people closest to it are affected the most and the longest, which disqualifies them from offering an objective opinion, at least for a while.

Why is their grief irrational? Can a person experiencing grief not be rational? Why is their opinion any less valid that someone that was not directly affected?

People like Obama could care less, well I will be nice, he cares but sees an opportunity here to advance his agenda, knowing that many of the sheep will just fall in line, as they have a few times before.Obama is many things but I have never said he is dumb.Although if one is a marxist, there is a certain lack of intellect but that is another story.Bottom line, this is exploitation of people who are for the time being, unstable(somewhat) and in no way qualified to make judgements on public policy. Issues like this require rational, well thought out decision making.

Which is why it is being debated in that paragon of logic and rational thought, the US Senate and Congress.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Aww geez.

edit:

seriously though, it IS hard to get upset when whoever it is is an ocean away, and is part of a completely different country and culture.

And this is why I

[Méo]

@Ducimus

Maybe, but I don't think I pretend anything at all.

Btw, I respect some conservative like you or Steve (don't know exactly if you are, but seems so).

I'm just amazed to see some folks here being so extreme in their posts (I'm sure you know who I'm talking about).

Originally Posted by Ducimus

If you didn't have a bias, you wouldn't be involving yourself.

You're right now I remember why I stopped posting in GR.

Peace out