Florida High School Shooting

[realibrad]

Forget the abstraction. Let's talk about reality. Do we actually have a serious problem with a lack of military readiness due to soldiers being overweight? I mean, like actually in the real world...

Yes, absolutely.

https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/downloads/unfit-to-serve.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4010088/

 

[Bird222]

Why do we have to put up with deaths? Guns are a net negative for personal safety and this is very well established in the empirical research. If the idea is that we have to have 30,000 people a year die in order to preserve a means of self defense that makes us overall less safe what sense does that make?

How many ways can it be said, freedom is messy and dangerous sometimes. That's just reality. Come up with a plan to eliminate all guns then maybe we can talk.

 

[woolfe9998]

Yes, absolutely.

https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/downloads/unfit-to-serve.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4010088/

Fair enough. What would you have us do? Let's take this analogy to its logical conclusion and see if it holds up.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

Why do you think it is that gun control discussions so often veer into these ludicrous analogies?

It's comparable to reading things flat Earth believers post. That's the best I can describe any of these analogies, be it cars, food, alcohol or whatever. They're just so convinced what they're saying actually makes sense.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep, again ignoring the abstraction. I really do think you are just unable to understand at this point.

Also, those are not ideas. Those are attributes.

Yes, that must be it.

 

[glenn1]

They are both equally ridiculous, just one effects one child and family the other effects everyone else.
Please note I am for mandatory vaccinations to all kids who are healthy enough to have them. Just like I am all for some level of gun control, this does not mean ban all guns. I think Trumps idea of 21+ for fun purchases is a good start.

Actually anti-vaxxers are causing infectious disease outbreaks which is exactly why I made the comparison. It's a lot easier to count casualties after a mass shooting but I'm guessing the death totals are now similar between mass shootings and anti-vaxxer fueled outbreaks. If the anti-vaxxer movement grows I'm thinking their casualty count will quite surpass that of mass shootings.

 

[bshole]

Actually anti-vaxxers are causing infectious disease outbreaks which is exactly why I made the comparison. It's a lot easier to count casualties after a mass shooting but I'm guessing the death totals are now similar between mass shootings and anti-vaxxer fueled outbreaks. If the anti-vaxxer movement grows I'm thinking their casualty count will quite surpass that of mass shootings.

If there is disease outbreak and you are vaccinated, you aren't really going to be affected... just the dumbshits and their kin will be.

Thankfully the anti-vaxxers have an enhanced chance of removing their dna from the gene pool via their stupidity. This is natural selection at work.

 

[glenn1]

This thread must have set some record for stupid analogies. When you ingest bad food you are only hurting yourself.

I mean come on, use your brain.

EDIT: Every gun thread always seems to bring out this sort of stupidity. 'If you want to restrict gun ownership why don't you want to restrict literally every other thing in the world that might cause people harm!?!' We then for some reason have to trudge through endless examples like cars, alcohol, bad food, vaccinations, etc, as if gun rights supporters can find a single inconsistency that somehow invalidates the argument for gun control.

It's so incredibly dumb and so incredibly tiresome.

You want the CDC to investigate guns as a "public health" concern because a few dozen people get killed annually by mass shootings, yet don't think obesity is a health concern?

Hell, if reducing mass shooting deaths was the primary and only goal the better way of doing that is to force reduced population density and limit large crowds wherever possible so there fewer targets for a mass shooter. Ship everyone in huge urban gravity wells of humanity like Manhattan and such out to Alaska or Nevada where they won't get shot. Problem solved and just about equal infringement on civil rights as complete gun bans.

 

[realibrad]

Fair enough. What would you have us do? Let's take this analogy to its logical conclusion and see if it holds up.

This will take a while, but the situation is where do we draw the line between individual freedoms and possible/actual harm to others.

I would find it a dumb argument to say that we should have unlimited freedoms to do whatever we want as there are clearly 3rd party costs. The extremes are quite easy though and its a weak position to take to use those as the justification.

So, ultimately we have to decide where the line is drawn in terms of cost benefit. To do that we must establish a rough understanding of the costs and benefits of something like guns. Then we have to do our best to quantify (if even possible) value to those things. The argument must be a balance and not just a removal of all harm because we live in a free society.

The details are going to be the hard part. I think we all agree less harm is better, but not at the cost of everything. You would greatly increase the chances of you having a long life if you never took anther car ride, yet we all know that would not be worth it.

At this point, the argument is either you can never infringe on my benefit because I value that more and/or I disagree with the value of your cost, or, we need to take away the cost because we don't value the benefit like you do. That is a deeply flawed place to start.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Actually anti-vaxxers are causing infectious disease outbreaks which is exactly why I made the comparison. It's a lot easier to count casualties after a mass shooting but I'm guessing the death totals are now similar between mass shootings and anti-vaxxer fueled outbreaks. If the anti-vaxxer movement grows I'm thinking their casualty count will quite surpass that of mass shootings.

And that is why I am all for enforcing vaccinations, just like stricter gun laws
You should create a thread about it that way people will be able to find it instead of digging thru a school shooting thread.

 

[realibrad]

Yes, that must be it.

Yes, that is literally our positions. Both of us are saying that. The difference is that I put forth my logic and conclusions and you have not.

 

[snoopy7548]

I feel like a society cannot be healthy and prosperous, nor move forward and grow, without addressing its obsessive fetish for objects which their intended purpose/reason for existence is to kill living things.

 

[glenn1]

If you there is disease outbreak and you are vaccinated, you aren't really going to be affected... just the dumbshits and their kin will be.

Thankfully the anti-vaxxers have an enhanced chance of removing their dna from the gene pool via their stupidity. This is natural selection at work.

You won't be affected unless you're old, a baby, taking chemotherapy, allergic to the immunization or any of its components, immune-system compromised, or any other number of things. Or just happen to catch a different strain of the flu or smallpox or whatever, because it's not like viruses don't mutate or anything.

Yeah I get it people like fskimospy tend to be more afraid of big bad men with scary looking guns he wouldn't personally use, but he should be just as scared of microbes because they don't look cute and cuddly like these plushies. Or any other number of dangerous things and activities which could/do kill other people but he doesn't want to ban, everything from fast cars to unpasteurized milk. We accept risk of things in the U.S. because we want to consider ourselves "free" people, he and others don't seem to want to share that vision.

And that is why I am all for enforcing vaccinations, just like stricter gun laws
You should create a thread about it that way people will be able to find it instead of digging thru a school shooting thread.

I don't think I'd like living in your world where you get to dictate what risks others accept because you're scared of them. I prefer freedom with ample exceptions for everything from guns to vaccinations because I value choice over fear.

 

[fskimospy]

You want the CDC to investigate guns as a "public health" concern because a few dozen people get killed annually by mass shootings, yet don't think obesity is a health concern?

What on earth are you babbling about? On no planet did I ever say or insinuate that’s obesity wasn’t a public health concern. Discussing obesity is simply not relevant in a thread about gun control and a shooting. Or should we be discussing bath mats in showers too before we can discuss guns?

Also, 30,000 people are killed by guns a year, which is why it’s a public health concern.

Hell, if reducing mass shooting deaths was the primary and only goal the better way of doing that is to force reduced population density and limit large crowds wherever possible so there fewer targets for a mass shooter. Ship everyone in huge urban gravity wells of humanity like Manhattan and such out to Alaska or Nevada where they won't get shot. Problem solved and just about equal infringement on civil rights as complete gun bans.

As is said with every other one of these dumb analogies like say, cars, limiting deaths is never the exclusive goal and every policy is a cost/benefit analysis. Dense population centers are an absolutely gigantic net positive for the country and they drive our economy and enable the suburbs to exist. As has been mentioned many times, gun ownership confers little benefit outside of personal amusement but has significant costs. That’s why we keep Manhattan and more heavily regulate guns. Common sense, no?

I can’t believe this had to be said.

 

[bshole]

What on earth are you babbling about? On no planet did I ever say or insinuate that’s obesity wasn’t a public health concern. Discussing obesity is simply not relevant in a thread about gun control and a shooting. Or should we be discussing bath mats in showers too before we can discuss guns?

Also, 30,000 people are killed by guns a year, which is why it’s a public health concern.



As is said with every other one of these dumb analogies like say, cars, limiting deaths is never the exclusive goal and every policy is a cost/benefit analysis. Dense population centers are an absolutely gigantic net positive for the country and they drive our economy and enable the suburbs to exist. As has been mentioned many times, gun ownership confers little benefit outside of personal amusement but has significant costs. That’s why we keep Manhattan and more heavily regulate guns. Common sense, no?

I can’t believe this had to be said.

That is not exactly True. Hunters using privately owned guns are the primary wildlife management tool in America today.

 

[realibrad]

That is not exactly True. Hunters using privately owned guns are the primary wildlife management tool in America today.

Get that shit outta heeeeaaaa.

Super complex. I expect that someone might try and say "you want to kill wildlife to protect your land so we get to kill kids". So expect that.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Discussing obesity is simply not relevant in a thread about gun control and a shooting. Or should we be discussing bath mats in showers too before we can discuss guns?

Discussing the weight of freedoms vs the weight of lives lost is relevant in the context of this discussion. To 2A advocates (again, one's that aren't outright insane/after another agenda) this is a constitutional freedom/right of life discussion, not a 'must keep guns' discussion. Excluding other systems by which we permit freedoms in spite of suffering while discussing limiting firearms isn't going to get you anywhere with 2A advocates.

 

[bshole]

Get that shit outta heeeeaaaa.

Super complex. I expect that someone might try and say "you want to kill wildlife to protect your land so we get to kill kids". So expect that.

Well that is what the Wisconsin DNR says. I would expect them to know better than me, it is their job after all.

 

[fskimospy]

Discussing the weight of freedoms vs the weight of lives lost is relevant in the context of this discussion. To 2A advocates (again, one's that aren't outright insane/after another agenda) this is a constitutional freedom/right of life discussion, not a 'must keep guns' discussion. Excluding other systems by which we permit freedoms in spite of suffering while discussing limiting firearms isn't going to get you anywhere with 2A advocates.

I’m well aware of the point, it is just useless for discussion. The line between freedom and cost exists for functionally every aspect of human existence. Again, after we are done discussing obesity, let’s discuss bath mats. Then we can move on to jaywalking, lead abatement, and sidewalk shoveling. Since the standard for all of these is the same (does the benefit exceed the cost?) we just end up discussing the minutae of how much non-slip bath mats cost instead of gun control.

This is why every discussion about the costs and benefits of gun rights and gun ownership devolves into discussing literally anything other than gun rights and gun ownership and this doesn’t happen for other topics. I strongly suspect it’s brcause gun rights people can’t defend them on the merits and look for distractions.

Otherwise I look forward to using this same train of logic in the future. Want to talk about tax policy? Wrong, we’re talking about guns! After all, it’s all just about freedoms and costs. Want to discuss the right for religious people to refuse service? Wrong, GUNS.

 

[kage69]

What part of 'last 10-odd years' did you not understand? I qualified my statement. Nice deflection on your part though, sparky.

I can't tell if you are playing dumb, or if you are this dumb, so I will indulge you with a response in case it's the latter.

The confusion here is clearly all yours. Your qualifier was what I was addressing. No idea what you mean by deflecting - I am directly addressing your pathetic attempt to marginalize the death toll created by domestic right wing terror. Your arbitrary time frame has no real value - none. It's like walking into a discussion about malaria and saying 'Well I've only heard of a handful of deaths in the last ten years, so malaria really isn't a problem.'

But hey, clap yourself on the back for viewing the issue through an arbitrary lens, clouding context and facts for the discussion. I'd prefer you educate yourself and get smarter, but whatever.

 

[realibrad]

I’m well aware of the point, it is just useless for discussion. The line between freedom and cost exists for functionally every aspect of human existence. Again, after we are done discussing obesity, let’s discuss bath mats. Then we can move on to jaywalking, lead abatement, and sidewalk shoveling. Since the standard for all of these is the same (does the benefit exceed the cost?) we just end up discussing the minutae of how much non-slip bath mats cost instead of gun control.

This is why every discussion about the costs and benefits of gun rights and gun ownership devolves into discussing literally anything other than gun rights and gun ownership and this doesn’t happen for other topics. I strongly suspect it’s brcause gun rights people can’t defend them on the merits and look for distractions.

Otherwise I look forward to using this same train of logic in the future. Want to talk about tax policy? Wrong, we’re talking about guns! After all, it’s all just about freedoms and costs. Want to discuss the right for religious people to refuse service? Wrong, GUNS.

Well, if you were to make the argument at the abstraction level, then all the other examples would fall into place. Using analogies to exemplify the underlying principles is quite productive unless you have someone that does not understand and or unwilling.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I’m well aware of the point, it is just useless for discussion. The line between freedom and cost exists for functionally every aspect of human existence. Again, after we are done discussing obesity, let’s discuss bath mats. Then we can move on to jaywalking, lead abatement, and sidewalk shoveling. Since the standard for all of these is the same (does the benefit exceed the cost?) we just end up discussing the minutae of how much non-slip bath mats cost instead of gun control.

This is why every discussion about the costs and benefits of gun rights and gun ownership devolves into discussing literally anything other than gun rights and gun ownership and this doesn’t happen for other topics. I strongly suspect it’s brcause gun rights people can’t defend them on the merits and look for distractions.

Otherwise I look forward to using this same train of logic in the future. Want to talk about tax policy? Wrong, we’re talking about guns! After all, it’s all just about freedoms and costs. Want to discuss the right for religious people to refuse service? Wrong, GUNS.

I do understand your point, and I see it in a lot of cases as well. There's far too much deflection from the gun advocate crowd (especially from those with 'skin in the game' as it were). However, you also have to look at it from the 2A side of the aisle. Every time anything negative hits the presses involving firearms, there's a wave of callouts for restriction of firearms from everyone that seemingly doesn't own, rely, or give two whits about firearms. In addition, it seems as though every measure possible is taken to completely ignore the potential erosion of personal rights, as well as a complete disregard for anything even vaguely comparable that's completely ignored (see: alcohol). It looks extremely hypocritical.

Hell, outside of a handful of organizations, the only time anyone even brings up guns is when something bad happens. That makes it inherently reactionary, which means if you just ignore the callouts for a week, everyone forgets until the next tragedy. This tells 2A advocates that people don't actually, really care about this. People care 'cuz kids are getting killed (understandable). Representatives care because the people are up in arms about it (if they really cared, they'd be working on legislation all the time, until it's passed or they retire). The fact that all the voices go silent after a week or two tells you nobody *really* cares enough to actually warrant giving up personal liberties over, so why do it?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

If there is disease outbreak and you are vaccinated, you aren't really going to be affected... just the dumbshits and their kin will be.

Thankfully the anti-vaxxers have an enhanced chance of removing their dna from the gene pool via their stupidity. This is natural selection at work.

Actually all vaccines aren't 100% effective if you get exposed to the disease. If some idiot is a carrier and exposes multiple people then even some people that have been vaccinated can get it. Especially if they were vaccinated decades ago. Usually their case is less severe, but still possible.

 

[fskimospy]

I do understand your point, and I see it in a lot of cases as well. There's far too much deflection from the gun advocate crowd (especially from those with 'skin in the game' as it were). However, you also have to look at it from the 2A side of the aisle. Every time anything negative hits the presses involving firearms, there's a wave of callouts for restriction of firearms from everyone that seemingly doesn't own, rely, or give two whits about firearms.

Well in all fairness you don't need to own a firearm to be shot by one. (although it does make it more likely!) This issue affects everyone whether they own a gun or not. It would be nice if people would attempt to discuss the merits of gun rights instead of demanding to know why we don't just demolish densely populated cities instead.

In addition, it seems as though every measure possible is taken to completely ignore the potential erosion of personal rights, as well as a complete disregard for anything even vaguely comparable that's completely ignored (see: alcohol). It looks extremely hypocritical.

I think it would be very difficult to look at a substance we once banned in its entirety until it backfired on us and now heavily tax and regulate and conclude it is something we as a society 'completely ignore'. It's one of those harmful substances we tried as a society to address and failed. I don't think that's a good reason to give up on other things though.

Hell, outside of a handful of organizations, the only time anyone even brings up guns is when something bad happens. That makes it inherently reactionary, which means if you just ignore the callouts for a week, everyone forgets until the next tragedy. This tells 2A advocates that people don't actually, really care about this. People care 'cuz kids are getting killed (understandable). Representatives care because the people are up in arms about it (if they really cared, they'd be working on legislation all the time, until it's passed or they retire). The fact that all the voices go silent after a week or two tells you nobody *really* cares enough to actually warrant giving up personal liberties over, so why do it?

I think this is a misreading of the issue here. People definitely care about gun control but you're right that for most people this isn't their primary thing. For a relatively small group of gun rights supporters though, this is the ONLY thing. They are organized, well funded, and very active. This is why gun control measures that routinely poll in the 80's and 90's for support go nowhere. I'm sure that plenty of people care about gun control more than they care about other things that we routinely give up personal liberties for, but those other liberties don't have a fanatical support base like gun rights do.

Regardless, I know you're a gun rights supporter and I want to thank you for engaging reasonably and in good faith on this issue. It's refreshing!

 

[kage69]

I don't think I'd like living in your world where you get to dictate what risks others accept because you're scared of them. I prefer freedom with ample exceptions for everything from guns to vaccinations because I value choice over fear.

Funny how conservatives value choice over fear, except when it comes to women's reproductive rights.

Seems like once again, the feels, the religious sensitivities of conservatives, apparently are more important than the lives of their fellow citizens. So what we're often talking preventable diseases like measles, so what kids are being gunned down with assault rifles in school - the "pro-life" crowd must be accommodated no matter what. Anything less is socialism, tyranny, something something...