Gun Control III - the Gunnening

[Telconi]

Put robots in charge, grow all humans in funky little pods filled with some sort of bio-soup. Have the robots harvest the thermal energy of the people, and in the meantime design a virtual world in which the humans live in a state of perpetual hallucination, believing this computer generated world to be the real one.

How about something REAL.

There is nothing real. You're not going to eliminate mass murder outside of fiction.

[Grinning Dragon]

Then what does, what?
A law that keeps you safe? There isn't one.

That's a lousy excuse.

And I meant how do you prevent mass gun violence and spree shootings?

Not an excuse, just a fact of life.
Program people to be 3 laws safe, until then there isn't anything anyone can do to prevent tragedies, you cannot legislate your way to a moral utopia.

[East Ustya]

How about something REAL.

There is nothing real. You're not going to eliminate mass murder outside of fiction.

So just accept it and do nothing?

[Grinning Dragon]

There is nothing real. You're not going to eliminate mass murder outside of fiction.

So just accept it and do nothing?

Punishing those who perpetrate atrocities is doing nothing?

[East Ustya]

That's a lousy excuse.

And I meant how do you prevent mass gun violence and spree shootings?

Not an excuse, just a fact of life.
Program people to be 3 laws safe, until then there isn't anything anyone can do to prevent tragedies, you cannot legislate your way to a moral utopia.

Life is what you make of it, wedonnot have mass shooting where I live.

[Telconi]

There is nothing real. You're not going to eliminate mass murder outside of fiction.

So just accept it and do nothing?

We've made practical advances, there is a point of diminishing returns in which the cost benefit no longer comes out positive.

[Grinning Dragon]

Not an excuse, just a fact of life.
Program people to be 3 laws safe, until then there isn't anything anyone can do to prevent tragedies, you cannot legislate your way to a moral utopia.

Life is what you make of it, we do not have mass shooting where I live.

Congratulations I guess. What of your other crimes against people.

[Estanglia]

There is nothing real. You're not going to eliminate mass murder outside of fiction.

So just accept it and do nothing?

You can reduce mass shootings, but more than likely you won't be able to eliminate them.

At least, not in the USA.

[East Ustya]

So just accept it and do nothing?

We've made practical advances, there is a point of diminishing returns in which the cost benefit no longer comes out positive.

What practical advances?

[Telconi]

We've made practical advances, there is a point of diminishing returns in which the cost benefit no longer comes out positive.

What practical advances?

Well murder is illegal. We put people who do it in prison. We have programs which help alleviate social ills which contribute to murder, we have a nifty little three digit telephone number that directs the caller to emergency personnel who can respond quickly to crimes in progress.

[East Ustya]

What practical advances?

Well murder is illegal. We put people who do it in prison. We have programs which help alleviate social ills which contribute to murder, we have a nifty little three digit telephone number that directs the caller to emergency personnel who can respond quickly to crimes in progress.

Very funny, but I am serious.

I mean other things, .

Practical safety measures.

[Telconi]

Well murder is illegal. We put people who do it in prison. We have programs which help alleviate social ills which contribute to murder, we have a nifty little three digit telephone number that directs the caller to emergency personnel who can respond quickly to crimes in progress.

Very funny, but I am serious.

I mean other things, .

Practical safety measures.

I'm pretty sure those are all practical safety measures.

[Diopolis]

Almost every single one of those is designed to inconvenience law abiding gun owners and not do anything else at all.

You mean to tell me that people who want to harm others write laws designed to harm others? You really think people would just do that? Be assholes in government?

A few of those make a certain kind of sense, assuming a limited body of knowledge about guns. Most of them are just there to be dickish.
And I know- Democrats aren’t usually very nice to red voters under their governance. But a lot of people don’t know that.

[Kernen]

Well murder is illegal. We put people who do it in prison. We have programs which help alleviate social ills which contribute to murder, we have a nifty little three digit telephone number that directs the caller to emergency personnel who can respond quickly to crimes in progress.

Very funny, but I am serious.

I mean other things, .

Practical safety measures.

You understand the inherent injustice implicit in regulating potential future action, right?

[Pax Nerdvana]

Very funny, but I am serious.

I mean other things, .

Practical safety measures.

You understand the inherent injustice implicit in regulating potential future action, right?

Exactly. Essentially what they're proposing is "guilty until proven innocent".

[Ors Might]

Wow so all your arguments about activism was bullshit. If you’re not willing to stand up to the party, to save the world, then you’re just as guilty as anybody else.

I am standing up to them but arguments go only so far if they don't agree with you.
I am one person you know. One person can only do so much.

Realizing that I'm hoping to get GOP people to understand to stop voting on the basis of guns as if I can't change the party despite efforts, then we need a Plan B.

Convincing enough people in a political party to drop an issue is impossible, but convincing enough people under numerous political ideologies to drop an issue is doable?

[Ors Might]

Convincing enough people in a political party to drop an issue is impossible, but convincing enough people under numerous political ideologies to drop an issue is doable?

A party is ingrained on the particular issue. It is harder to change because it is more entrenched in it's views through elected officials. Changing Voter's minds who are anti-gun control and believe in Climate Change is more doable, however suburbanites are very pro-gun control and the party is consisted of them, so it is more difficult to change their minds.

There's a reason parties often die before they give up on a certain political issue...

How do you intend to get people that are anti gun control to give up that issue to support actions against climate change when you can’t get pro gun control individuals to give up gun control for the sake of combatting climate change? Many people that are anti gun control are vehemently so.

But climate control isn’t really part of the thread topic.

[Telconi]

Convincing enough people in a political party to drop an issue is impossible, but convincing enough people under numerous political ideologies to drop an issue is doable?

A party is ingrained on the particular issue. It is harder to change because it is more entrenched in it's views through elected officials. Changing Voter's minds who are anti-gun control and believe in Climate Change is more doable, however suburbanites are very pro-gun control and the party is consisted of them, so it is more difficult to change their minds.

There's a reason parties often die before they give up on a certain political issue...

Generally speaking people against gun control are more particularly motivated on the topic than people for it. I have yet to see a person who is a Democrat only because they hate gun rights, I have met many a person who's a Republican only because they support gun rights.

[Ors Might]

A party is ingrained on the particular issue. It is harder to change because it is more entrenched in it's views through elected officials. Changing Voter's minds who are anti-gun control and believe in Climate Change is more doable, however suburbanites are very pro-gun control and the party is consisted of them, so it is more difficult to change their minds.

There's a reason parties often die before they give up on a certain political issue...

Generally speaking people against gun control are more particularly motivated on the topic than people for it. I have yet to see a person who is a Democrat only because they hate gun rights, I have met many a person who's a Republican only because they support gun rights.

Guilty as charged.

[East Ustya]

You understand the inherent injustice implicit in regulating potential future action, right?

Exactly. Essentially what they're proposing is "guilty until proven innocent".

How about you DON'T jump to conclusions ok?

Please ask before you assume I mean A or B.....

I mean what about a Gun license?

You have a drivers license, so why not?

[Ors Might]

Exactly. Essentially what they're proposing is "guilty until proven innocent".

How about you DON'T jump to conclusions ok?

Please ask before you assume I mean A or B.....

I mean what about a Gun license?

You have a drivers license, so why not?

You don’t need a drivers license to buy a car.

Generally speaking people against gun control are more particularly motivated on the topic than people for it. I have yet to see a person who is a Democrat only because they hate gun rights, I have met many a person who's a Republican only because they support gun rights.

I do want to raise that point at the next Committee meeting. With luck I'll be able to moderate our stance.

If I don't though, it would force me to try another track.

How do you intend to get people that are anti gun control to give up that issue to support actions against climate change when you can’t get pro gun control individuals to give up gun control for the sake of combatting climate change? Many people that are anti gun control are vehemently so.

But climate control isn’t really part of the thread topic.

True. My reason for bringing it up here is that often anti-gun control people know climate change exit but would rather die defending guns than voting for ideological opponents to save everyone.
I get your gun control position I really do I just don't think it's worth the whole world/billions of people/irreversible damage, when you guys can fight for gun rights another day. Temporary damage yes but short term pain long-term gain.

If gun control isn’t worth risking so many lives, then the Democrats are just as guilty, no? They’re the ones forcing there to be a conflict of interests.

[East Ustya]

How about you DON'T jump to conclusions ok?

Please ask before you assume I mean A or B.....

I mean what about a Gun license?

You have a drivers license, so why not?

You don’t need a drivers license to buy a car.

If gun control isn’t worth risking so many lives, then the Democrats are just as guilty, no? They’re the ones forcing there to be a conflict of interests.[/quote]
You do need one too drive though, so I think that would make things much more safe.

[Telconi]

Exactly. Essentially what they're proposing is "guilty until proven innocent".

How about you DON'T jump to conclusions ok?

Please ask before you assume I mean A or B.....

I mean what about a Gun license?

You have a drivers license, so why not?

Because driving an automobile isn't a human right, nor is it an activity that a great number in society want to eliminate.

[Ors Might]

You don’t need a drivers license to buy a car.

If gun control isn’t worth risking so many lives, then the Democrats are just as guilty, no? They’re the ones forcing there to be a conflict of interests.

You do need one too drive though, so I think that would make things much more safe. [/quote]
Only on public roads. You don’t need any licensing at all to drive on your own land.

[Telconi]

You don’t need a drivers license to buy a car.

If gun control isn’t worth risking so many lives, then the Democrats are just as guilty, no? They’re the ones forcing there to be a conflict of interests.

You do need one too drive though, so I think that would make things much more safe. [/quote]

No, actually you don't.