I want to argue with a liberal please!

[Indus]

Ladies and Gents, our first hurt feelings. Welcome, and thanks! Feel free to continue to flame and name call, or you can also feel free to find a different thread to pollute.

Lmao liberals may flame and name call but conservaterrorists are murderers hell bent on killing their own countrymen and creating an ethnic state.

Why don't you just push your sissy in chief to divide the country? we can be happy in our different countries.. we sure as hell aren't one.. I live in the temperate zone and you live in the nazi twilight zone.

 

[jackstar7]

I don't believe for a second that you're to dense to read the hypothetical nature of that sentence. This entire thread is based on respect and consideration for an opposing idea. That "you" you're referencing was pointed at a fictitious character which represents a person who intends to do harm to me. It does not reference my opposition, or anyone who has a different view from me. C'mon man.

It wouldn't be hard to word it better. But you didn't. If you think it's just a casual conversation and you're being loose with your language, then okay, carry on.

Also, for this type of thing, you might consider the reddit area: Change My View.

They have excellent rules and participants.

 

[Indus]

 

[Indus]

 

[Indus]

 

[Indus]

 

[Indus]

 

[Indus]

 

[jackstar7]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e3T3VHmEkg

Can you please not post blind links? Either post the video's name or some kind of description. I'm curious what you're posting, but have no desire to click blind links.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

As has been shown on here many times the empirical research indicates that gun ownership is associated with an increased risk of being the victim of homicide and suicide. This means for the average person owning a gun makes them LESS safe, not more. That should obviate your concern about the potential victims during a gun draw-down, no?

I would like to attempt to counter this with an adjustment of concept.

I would posit that a society with choice increases the risk of being a victim of homicide and suicide, the methods used being an irrelevant portion of it. If it wasn't guns, it would be something else (whatever's next down on the list) that some would be crusading for, and only be removing choice from the equation do we reach a completely safe society. I'm imagining that most don't want that, so where is the balance point? Are we at it already, or are guns being gone the last bit that needs to go? I'm fairly certain that at a bare minimum, manually driving vehicles will be illegal within, say, 25 years or so, just due to the risk associated.

 

[Indus]

 

[Indus]

want more proof?

Or are you blind and still see no proof of racism in Republicans?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm an ideological agnostic so I am not going to ask you questions of policy, but I will ask a few things.

Are Conservatives in favor of the rule of law? Does that apply to all?
Are Conservatives in favor of upholding the Constitution, not just the Second?
Do Conservatives believe that elected leaders are or should be protected from the law?

We'll go from there.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I'm imagining that most don't want that, so where is the balance point? Are we at it already, or are guns being gone the last bit that needs to go?

The slippery slope argument is not a good argument here. We obviously already accept that there is a balance point. We don't allow all sorts of weapons already. We are not arguing to ban everything that could possible be used to kill someone, we are arguing that guns, and a specific subset of guns at that, are too dangerous for society.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The slippery slope argument is not a good argument here. We obviously already accept that there is a balance point. We don't allow all sorts of weapons already. We are not arguing to ban everything that could possible be used to kill someone, we are arguing that guns, and a specific subset of guns at that, are too dangerous for society.

And how does one define 'too dangerous'? Yes, dead kids are fucking horrific, I doubt anyone will ever argue that point, but does our loss of choice outweigh that or not? It's not a popular opinion and won't win me any friends, but I don't personally think it is. Freedom of choice is one of the few things we have, regardless of the level of oppression of those above us. I personally feel that to continue to sacrifice that is to sacrifice everything, one bit at a time.

 

[yllus]

No argument here that more guns = more gun violence. The argument is that less guns do NOT equal less gun violence. Criminals don't abide by the law

Meta-analysis of dozens of studies on the effects of gun control legislation likely prove that it works. A well-regarded 2016 study in the academic journal Epidemiologic Reviews found that "evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively."

I like shooting guns; I've gone to a shooting range fairly regularly and have even fired a AK-47 and AR-15 on full auto while in Vegas. But you folks have a problem. An outright ban isn't necessary; just put reasonable restrictions on ownership and mandate things like trigger locks, storing ammo and guns separately and some other things that any reasonable person would be on board with.

 

[Snarf Snarf]

Understood, and I wish more people would want to do this.

But you listed a bunch of subjects, and my point is that "liberals" (or any group) shouldn't be expected to be lock-step on all those issues.

Example: A gun-loving hunter who hates what is being done to the environment and who wants welfare reform (because he knows people scamming the system) as well as increased spending for addiction treatment (because his sister got hooked on prescription drugs). What the hell is he? A Liberal? Conservative?

A human. The dehumanization of opposition is routinely part of a process to reduce resistance against a particular set of ideals or agenda. I agree completely with the idea that peaceful discourse needs to become a regular thing in this country if we have any intention of preventing the fall of the republic. A thread like this gives me some hope that we can reach across the aisle and have actual conversations with opposing views without degrading into insults. Of course the usual suspects haven't made their way into this thread yet so here's to hoping...

 

[IJTSSG]

I would like to attempt to counter this with an adjustment of concept.

I would posit that a society with choice increases the risk of being a victim of homicide and suicide, the methods used being an irrelevant portion of it. If it wasn't guns, it would be something else (whatever's next down on the list) that some would be crusading for, and only be removing choice from the equation do we reach a completely safe society. I'm imagining that most don't want that, so where is the balance point? Are we at it already, or are guns being gone the last bit that needs to go? I'm fairly certain that at a bare minimum, manually driving vehicles will be illegal within, say, 25 years or so, just due to the risk associated.

More than once, I have posted links to peer reviewed studies that show:
1. Good guys with guns stop a greater number of crimes than the number of gun deaths.
2. Armed victims of violent crimes suffer significantly less injury than armed victims.

I'm not arguing any of the data that's also being presented from peer reviewed studies. What I will argue is the prevailing wisdom around here that there's no upside to being armed. I will also argue against this silly notion that an inanimate object is the issue and not the person wielding the tool.

 

[nakedfrog]

And how does one define 'too dangerous'? Yes, dead kids are fucking horrific, I doubt anyone will ever argue that point, but does our loss of choice outweigh that or not? It's not a popular opinion and won't win me any friends, but I don't personally think it is. Freedom of choice is one of the few things we have, regardless of the level of oppression of those above us. I personally feel that to continue to sacrifice that is to sacrifice everything, one bit at a time.

I don't know, how DO we define that?
It's unknown if it will stay in place, but we currently have plans to make backup cameras on cars standard.

In a 2010 report, the DOT's NHTSA said that each year 210 people die and 15,000 are injured in light-vehicle backup incidents, with about 31% of the deaths among kids under age 5 and 26% adults over 70.

NHTSA estimates that 58 to 69 lives will be saved each year (not including injuries prevented) once the entire on-road vehicle fleet has rear-view systems, which it believes will be by about 2054.

Presumably that level of deaths was regarded as "too dangerous" to not take action on, based on the fact that action was taken. Even if we exclude mass shootings, there's a bit of a difference in numbers here.

From 2012 to 2014, on average, 1,297 children died annually from a gun-related injury in the US, according to the study, published in the journal Pediatrics on Monday.

Obviously adults are killed in some of these incidents, that was just the easiest data to come across. I'm not arguing in favor of a ban, I'm arguing in favor of doing something.

 

[fskimospy]

I would like to attempt to counter this with an adjustment of concept.

I would posit that a society with choice increases the risk of being a victim of homicide and suicide, the methods used being an irrelevant portion of it. If it wasn't guns, it would be something else (whatever's next down on the list) that some would be crusading for, and only be removing choice from the equation do we reach a completely safe society. I'm imagining that most don't want that, so where is the balance point? Are we at it already, or are guns being gone the last bit that needs to go? I'm fairly certain that at a bare minimum, manually driving vehicles will be illegal within, say, 25 years or so, just due to the risk associated.

The balance point is where we evaluate the benefits that choice brings to society vs. the costs. Guns have little to no benefit outside of entertainment and carry with them large costs. If the costs to gun ownership were borne solely by the owners that would also mean a lot more to me but they aren't. I can't in good conscience support that.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I don't know, how DO we define that?
It's unknown if it will stay in place, but we currently have plans to make backup cameras on cars standard.

Presumably that level of deaths was regarded as "too dangerous" to not take action on, based on the fact that action was taken. Even if we exclude mass shootings, there's a bit of a difference in numbers here.

Obviously adults are killed in some of these incidents, that was just the easiest data to come across. I'm not arguing in favor of a ban, I'm arguing in favor of doing something.

And you'll note that backup cameras do not impede freedom in any way, unless there's some very severe twisting of the word freedom (freedom to not see stuff behind your car...?). I've got no issues with something like that, at all.

The balance point is where we evaluate the benefits that choice brings to society vs. the costs. Guns have little to no benefit outside of entertainment and carry with them large costs. If the costs to gun ownership were borne solely by the owners that would also mean a lot more to me but they aren't. I can't in good conscience support that.

I'd like to point out, there are some citizens who actually rely on firearms for their livelihood, though that's a fair minority. It's just not entirely accurate to say that they have little to no benefit outside entertainment in some parts of the US.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd like to point out, there are some citizens who actually rely on firearms for their livelihood, though that's a fair minority. It's just not entirely accurate to say that they have little to no benefit outside entertainment in some parts of the US.

I agree that there's a small number of people who get quite a lot of real, practical utility out of firearm ownership. To me that could be solved through some sort of exception though.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I agree that there's a small number of people who get quite a lot of real, practical utility out of firearm ownership. To me that could be solved through some sort of exception though.

And that may be the solution, a severe restriction, something along the lines of an ATF 'Class 4' or something, but with the understanding that an individual should still have the right to obtain a firearm, assuming they meet the requirements (which I expect wouldn't be too bad, since existing classes aren't too onerous really). But those restrictions need to be clear, and not obtuse.

 

[nakedfrog]

And you'll note that backup cameras do not impede freedom in any way, unless there's some very severe twisting of the word freedom (freedom to not see stuff behind your car...?). I've got no issues with something like that, at all.

It was just an example.

 

[SMOGZINN]

And how does one define 'too dangerous'? Yes, dead kids are fucking horrific, I doubt anyone will ever argue that point, but does our loss of choice outweigh that or not? It's not a popular opinion and won't win me any friends, but I don't personally think it is. Freedom of choice is one of the few things we have, regardless of the level of oppression of those above us. I personally feel that to continue to sacrifice that is to sacrifice everything, one bit at a time.

I think it does. The tiny amount of choice we lose by limiting guns is insignificant compared to the choices we lose by allowing them. Does owning firearms, especially ones that allow for large amounts of damage quickly, create enough benefit to outweigh the harm? There is a point where allowing one choice has limits the ability for others to make choices. I think firearms does that to an unacceptable degree. Ask the people at Pulse Nightclub, or the kids that now have to have clear backpacks, or anyone that goes to any event where they have to submit to a search.