American Politics: Fiscal Cliffhanger

[Neu California]

I do want society to be improved. The point I'm making is that passing sensible regulations on guns alone can have a massive impact.

If your side of the argument only ever cared for sensible regulations when necessary it might have more success with this rhetoric, but pushing draconian gun laws in places like Washington kinda shows that it's not about stopping murders or being sensible, it's just a culture war topic like any other. We now have some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation and do you know how many people were killed by rifles in this state last? 6. It was 4 the year before that and in general it can almost always be counted on one or two hands. Pushing harsh gun laws in an environment like this really does nothing except piss people off and encourage non-compliance, which seems to be what is happening thus far even in this very blue state.

If anything, your side is at least as bad, what with the pushback against any sensible, popular gun control legislation, like mandatory background checks on all firearms purchases (closing the gun show loophole) and going all oujt against gun control instead of trying to compromise.

And people constantly getting killed in mass shootings and other incidents, while the gun rights side says, "thoughts and prayers" and refuses to take any action whatsoever to at least reduce the likelihood of them happening., is driving people away from your side and towards seeing stronger gun control as a priority, as the link I posted earlier (the one with the poll) shows.

You think you can win this with the way you're arguing? You really can't.

[Kerwa]

You don’t even support enforcing the existing laws. You don’t get to call for more.

Seems like a fallacy. Specifically, tu quoque.

No. But you’re engaging in a fallacy fallacy.

The entire pro-gun control movement is displacement. People should go think about their real problems instead of throwing tantrums or getting vapors over a non-issue. No amount of gun control will fix the schools or make public transport usable. And that’s just it.

[American Legionaries]

Better a death cultist than an oppressive dystopian.

Nope, the Republicans are oppressive too. I don't see the Democrats embracing fascism.

Cool.

[American Legionaries]

If your side of the argument only ever cared for sensible regulations when necessary it might have more success with this rhetoric, but pushing draconian gun laws in places like Washington kinda shows that it's not about stopping murders or being sensible, it's just a culture war topic like any other. We now have some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation and do you know how many people were killed by rifles in this state last? 6. It was 4 the year before that and in general it can almost always be counted on one or two hands. Pushing harsh gun laws in an environment like this really does nothing except piss people off and encourage non-compliance, which seems to be what is happening thus far even in this very blue state.

If anything, your side is at least as bad, what with the pushback against any sensible, popular gun control legislation, like mandatory background checks on all firearms purchases (closing the gun show loophole) and going all oujt against gun control instead of trying to compromise.

And people constantly getting killed in mass shootings and other incidents, while the gun rights side says, "thoughts and prayers" and refuses to take any action whatsoever to at least reduce the likelihood of them happening., is driving people away from your side and towards seeing stronger gun control as a priority, as the link I posted earlier (the one with the poll) shows.

You think you can win this with the way you're arguing? You really can't.

Refusing to engage in compromise with untrustworthy villains doesn't make a person bad, it makes them intelligent.

[Jellian Federation]

But can’t we, even just a little?

No, we can't because magic isn't real.

Look,
You could easily say “put a tracker chip in everyone and watch the crime go down, think of all the lives it will save”
But the most basic measures, which a majority of Americans believe in, can save a tremendous amount of lives.

Not really, because by your own admission only about 45,000 people are killed with a gun every year. So, in some perfect scenario in which all the suicidal people without guns magically stop being suicidal, and where all the murderers without guns magically stopped being murderous, you could save about 45,000 people.

Per year, not just total.
In 10 years, that’s 450,000 people.
Mostly younger people.
People that could have had ideas, or had children.
People with hopes and dreams.
It’s one of the leading causes of death, and it’s one of the most preventable.

I think you are saying that even the most basic gun safety measures are not worth saving 4500 people per year.

Put this into perspective.

Why did we expend so much effort on 911 when 2977 people died.
Why did the country support curtailing freedoms in some big ways.

Guns are killing 15 911s every year.

For every death, think of the multitudes of family and friends and impacted.
“Only 45,000 deaths” does a huge disservice.


I don’t think you can quantify peoples lives.
I mean economically sure but in terms of how much to spend, how much to “suffer” to save lives, I don’t know that it can be quantified.
So then how can we determine what is reasonable to save even a fraction of 45000.

Well,
The first thing I think of is the low hanging fruit.
Something like requiring safe storage of guns, that doesn’t sound like it can restrict freedom much, it might cost some amount and if that’s the case then the government should help pay for gun safes.
But I know that it would have an immediate impact.

Multiple shooters took guns from unsecured parental guns.
Same goes for suicides.

The other is broad support.
A majority of Americans seem to believe in some level of restrictions.

[Neu California]

Not the full article, just the most important part, but they do survive legal scrutiny.

For now they do, but especially nowadays I'm not sure precedent means much of anything in the legal sphere. I could fully see a scenario where the justices decide to axe them if enough pressure was applied from the GOP.

The GOP that's losing ground on the gun control issue with its youngest supporters (again see my previous post with a poll)? The GOP that only wins voters over 50? Yeah, color me skeptical.

[Washington Resistance Army]

If anything, your side is at least as bad, what with the pushback against any sensible, popular gun control legislation, like mandatory background checks on all firearms purchases (closing the gun show loophole) and going all oujt against gun control instead of trying to compromise.

The funny part is if you go back in my posting history I actually supported pretty much all of these things and was very big on compromise and actual common-sense stuff while still being pro-gun. I just eventually wizened up to the fact that the common-sense stuff was a smokescreen and the gun control side would never stop pushing for more, and I was proven right within a few years. Despite having the full array of common-sense restrictions the WA Dems keep coming back each year with more and more stuff they want to regulate and ban, because they don't believe in gun rights as a concept and just want to get rid of them.

You think you can win this with the way you're arguing? You really can't.

I already won, I have a 3D printer. That's what makes this whole thing so farcical, the gun control side lost 10 years ago. If rebels in the fucking jungles of Myanmar can print and use guns so can anyone in the US.

[Neu California]

If anything, your side is at least as bad, what with the pushback against any sensible, popular gun control legislation, like mandatory background checks on all firearms purchases (closing the gun show loophole) and going all oujt against gun control instead of trying to compromise.

And people constantly getting killed in mass shootings and other incidents, while the gun rights side says, "thoughts and prayers" and refuses to take any action whatsoever to at least reduce the likelihood of them happening., is driving people away from your side and towards seeing stronger gun control as a priority, as the link I posted earlier (the one with the poll) shows.

You think you can win this with the way you're arguing? You really can't.

Refusing to engage in compromise with untrustworthy villains doesn't make a person bad, it makes them intelligent.

Okay, so we're right not to negotiate with the GOP, then? After all, anyone who massively undermines women's right to medical care (abortion ruling), constantly attacks and tries to deny the existence of those different than them (their constant attacks on LGBT), and willingness to sand by as children get shot without raising a finger to try to stop such atrocities is definitely an untrustworthy villain in my book.

[American Legionaries]

No, we can't because magic isn't real.



Not really, because by your own admission only about 45,000 people are killed with a gun every year. So, in some perfect scenario in which all the suicidal people without guns magically stop being suicidal, and where all the murderers without guns magically stopped being murderous, you could save about 45,000 people.

Per year, not just total.
In 10 years, that’s 450,000 people.
Mostly younger people.
People that could have had ideas, or had children.
People with hopes and dreams.
It’s one of the leading causes of death, and it’s one of the most preventable.

I think you are saying that even the most basic gun safety measures are not worth saving 4500 people per year.

Put this into perspective.

Why did we expend so much effort on 911 when 2977 people died.
Why did the country support curtailing freedoms in some big ways.

Guns are killing 1.5 911s every year.

For every death, think of the multitudes of family and friends and impacted.
“Only 45,000 deaths” does a huge disservice.


I don’t think you can quantify peoples lives.
I mean economically sure but in terms of how much to spend, how much to “suffer” to save lives, I don’t know that it can be quantified.
So then how can we determine what is reasonable to save even a fraction of 45000.

Well,
The first thing I think of is the low hanging fruit.
Something like requiring safe storage of guns, that doesn’t sound like it can restrict freedom much, it might cost some amount and if that’s the case then the government should help pay for gun safes.
But I know that it would have an immediate impact.

Multiple shooters took guns from unsecured parental guns.
Same goes for suicides.

The other is broad support.
A majority of Americans seem to believe in some level of restrictions.

I can do relatively simple arithmetic, people supported harsh restrictions after 9/11 because they're assholes, and we absolutely can quantify people's lives, as previously mentioned we make assessments on what amount of risk we find acceptable every day of our lives.

[American Legionaries]

Refusing to engage in compromise with untrustworthy villains doesn't make a person bad, it makes them intelligent.

Okay, so we're right not to negotiate with the GOP, then? After all, anyone who massively undermines women's right to medical care (abortion ruling), constantly attacks and tries to deny the existence of those different than them (their constant attacks on LGBT), and willingness to sand by as children get shot without raising a finger to try to stop such atrocities is definitely an untrustworthy villain in my book.

If I say you're not right, are you going to abandon all your beliefs?

[Neu California]

If anything, your side is at least as bad, what with the pushback against any sensible, popular gun control legislation, like mandatory background checks on all firearms purchases (closing the gun show loophole) and going all oujt against gun control instead of trying to compromise.

The funny part is if you go back in my posting history I actually supported pretty much all of these things and was very big on compromise and actual common-sense stuff while still being pro-gun. I just eventually wizened up to the fact that the common-sense stuff was a smokescreen and the gun control side would never stop pushing for more, and I was proven right within a few years. Despite having the full array of common-sense restrictions the WA Dems keep coming back each year with more and more stuff they want to regulate and ban, because they don't believe in gun rights as a concept and just want to get rid of them.

"Wised up? More like deluded yourself into believing.

You think you can win this with the way you're arguing? You really can't.

I already won, I have a 3D printer. That's what makes this whole thing so farcical, the gun control side lost 10 years ago. If rebels in the fucking jungles of Myanmar can print and use guns so can anyone in the US.

I was obviously talking about the PR battle, there, as were you. Stop moving the goalposts.

And with the way your side talks about 3D printed guns, you'd think they were everywhere. I have seen zero evidence of that being the case.

[Neu California]

Okay, so we're right not to negotiate with the GOP, then? After all, anyone who massively undermines women's right to medical care (abortion ruling), constantly attacks and tries to deny the existence of those different than them (their constant attacks on LGBT), and willingness to sand by as children get shot without raising a finger to try to stop such atrocities is definitely an untrustworthy villain in my book.

If I say you're not right, are you going to abandon all your beliefs?

What does this even mean?

[American Legionaries]

If I say you're not right, are you going to abandon all your beliefs?

What does this even mean?

You asked if you were right to not negotiate with the GOP.

If I say you're not, will anything change?

[American Legionaries]

The funny part is if you go back in my posting history I actually supported pretty much all of these things and was very big on compromise and actual common-sense stuff while still being pro-gun. I just eventually wizened up to the fact that the common-sense stuff was a smokescreen and the gun control side would never stop pushing for more, and I was proven right within a few years. Despite having the full array of common-sense restrictions the WA Dems keep coming back each year with more and more stuff they want to regulate and ban, because they don't believe in gun rights as a concept and just want to get rid of them.

"Wised up? More like deluded yourself into believing.

Yes, the laws that I am forced to comply with on a regular basis aren't real, and actually just delusions...

[The Orson Empire]

If anything, your side is at least as bad, what with the pushback against any sensible, popular gun control legislation, like mandatory background checks on all firearms purchases (closing the gun show loophole) and going all oujt against gun control instead of trying to compromise.

And people constantly getting killed in mass shootings and other incidents, while the gun rights side says, "thoughts and prayers" and refuses to take any action whatsoever to at least reduce the likelihood of them happening., is driving people away from your side and towards seeing stronger gun control as a priority, as the link I posted earlier (the one with the poll) shows.

You think you can win this with the way you're arguing? You really can't.

Refusing to engage in compromise with untrustworthy villains doesn't make a person bad, it makes them intelligent.

Oh, so we're untrustworthy villains now? The people who want to pass legislation to save lives, who aren't willing to stand by as innocent children get gunned down in the streets, the people who will do more than say "thoughts and prayers" after these tragedies?

[Jellian Federation]

"Wised up? More like deluded yourself into believing.

Yes, the laws that I am forced to comply with on a regular basis aren't real, and actually just delusions...

45,000 people is a massive amount of lives that could be saved. Simply dismissing this statistic is callous.

The right of people to live without fear of being gunned down in public is more important than your "right" to build an arsenal in your basement.

Nope.

These are some extreme views.

[American Legionaries]

Refusing to engage in compromise with untrustworthy villains doesn't make a person bad, it makes them intelligent.

Oh, so we're untrustworthy villains now? The people who want to pass legislation to save lives, who aren't willing to stand by as innocent children get gunned down in the streets, the people who will do more than say "thoughts and prayers" after these tragedies?

Yes, those untrustworthy villains. And given that what they do is crimes against the human rights of millions, doing nothing would be better, actually.

[American Legionaries]

Yes, the laws that I am forced to comply with on a regular basis aren't real, and actually just delusions...

Nope.

These are some extreme views.

Wait, the belief that enacted laws exist is extreme?

[Neu California]

What does this even mean?

You asked if you were right to not negotiate with the GOP.

If I say you're not, will anything change?

I turn that question around to you in regards to gun control advocates, noting that if you don't come to the table, things may get far beyond what you're willing to accept. People are tired of seeing mass shootings and nothing being done to stop them. It's better to negotiate now, rather than bitch when they make legislation without you, and politicians will be feeling the pressure. Voters want stricter gun control and that desire moves up in their priorities every time there's a mass shotting (and slowly declines when there hasn't been one for a while). If the once a week trend continues through 2024, I would expect some really harsh new laws to come to the fore.

[Neu California]

"Wised up? More like deluded yourself into believing.

Yes, the laws that I am forced to comply with on a regular basis aren't real, and actually just delusions...

Hint: you're not being oppressed by gun laws.

[The Orson Empire]

Oh, so we're untrustworthy villains now? The people who want to pass legislation to save lives, who aren't willing to stand by as innocent children get gunned down in the streets, the people who will do more than say "thoughts and prayers" after these tragedies?

Yes, those untrustworthy villains. And given that what they do is crimes against the human rights of millions, doing nothing would be better, actually.

Once again, building an arsenal in your basement is not a human right.

[Neu California]

These are some extreme views.

Wait, the belief that enacted laws exist is extreme?

No the belief that said laws are extreme is extreme, specifically, way outside the overton window.

[American Legionaries]

You asked if you were right to not negotiate with the GOP.

If I say you're not, will anything change?

I turn that question around to you in regards to gun control advocates, noting that if you don't come to the table, things may get far beyond what you're willing to accept. People are tired of seeing mass shootings and nothing being done to stop them. It's better to negotiate now, rather than bitch when they make legislation without you, and politicians will be feeling the pressure. Voters want stricter gun control and that desire moves up in their priorities every time there's a mass shotting (and slowly declines when there hasn't been one for a while). If the once a week trend continues through 2024, I would expect some really harsh new laws to come to the fore.

Things are currently far beyond what I'm willing to accept. So what do I lose by refusing to negotiate again?

[Jellian Federation]

These are some extreme views.

Wait, the belief that enacted laws exist is extreme?

The belief that they are simply words in the air and carry no weight is extreme.


That’s the disavowal of government itself.
The rule of law.
The power that came from the people.

Complete anarchy.

I turn that question around to you in regards to gun control advocates, noting that if you don't come to the table, things may get far beyond what you're willing to accept. People are tired of seeing mass shootings and nothing being done to stop them. It's better to negotiate now, rather than bitch when they make legislation without you, and politicians will be feeling the pressure. Voters want stricter gun control and that desire moves up in their priorities every time there's a mass shotting (and slowly declines when there hasn't been one for a while). If the once a week trend continues through 2024, I would expect some really harsh new laws to come to the fore.

Things are currently far beyond what I'm willing to accept. So what do I lose by refusing to negotiate again?

You loose your voice at the table.
In our democracy, if you abstain you don’t exist,

[Neu California]

I turn that question around to you in regards to gun control advocates, noting that if you don't come to the table, things may get far beyond what you're willing to accept. People are tired of seeing mass shootings and nothing being done to stop them. It's better to negotiate now, rather than bitch when they make legislation without you, and politicians will be feeling the pressure. Voters want stricter gun control and that desire moves up in their priorities every time there's a mass shotting (and slowly declines when there hasn't been one for a while). If the once a week trend continues through 2024, I would expect some really harsh new laws to come to the fore.

Things are currently far beyond what I'm willing to accept. So what do I lose by refusing to negotiate again?

Your right to complain.

If you refuse to come to the table, and an agreement is hashed out without you, you don't have any real room to complain.