Jump to content

Gun Control, Facts Vs Liberals


Donald Trump
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yet in your very next post to Kemal you seem confused about what happened.

 

My basic statement is that Hitler himself was not elected into office, as he was appointed by Hindenburg (what an accomplishment it is to pressure an old man [that didn't even want to run for presidency to begin with] into appointing your leader to a government seat, isn't it? Especially when said leader happens to command a mob of thugs that don't hesitate to utilize violence, as evidenced in the follow-up elections of 1933). I never denied the fact that his party was elected into government positions, or debated that the position that Hitler held before 1934 was illegal (of course, he being a Chancellor wasn't illegal). I was merely pointing out that he himself wasn't elected into a position. You two seem to be getting that mixed up. I fail to understand why you are trying to defend Hitler's rise to power as democratic, when in reality, the only election that they won fairly was in 1932 (It might be just me, but the usage of violence to dissuade/silence the opposition is not reaaaally an asset utilized in true democracies).

 

As much as I want to continue, I don't want to derail the conversation further from the actual topic of this thread, which is gun control. We can continue via PM's (whether you want to type down your response here or just jump into PM's is up to you).

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My basic statement is that Hitler himself was not elected into office, as he was appointed by Hindenburg (what an accomplishment it is to pressure an old man [that didn't even want to run for presidency to begin with] into appointing your leader to a government seat, isn't it? Especially when said leader happens to command a mob of thugs that don't hesitate to utilize violence, as evidenced in the follow-up elections of 1933). I never denied the fact that his party was elected into government positions, or debated that the position that Hitler held before 1934 was illegal (of course, he being a Chancellor wasn't illegal). I was merely pointing out that he himself wasn't elected into a position. You two seem to be getting that mixed up. I fail to understand why you are trying to defend Hitler's rise to power as democratic, when in reality, the only election that they won fairly was in 1932 (It might be just me, but the usage of violence to dissuade/silence the opposition is not reaaaally an asset utilized in true democracies).

 

As much as I want to continue, I don't want to derail the conversation further from the actual topic of this thread, which is gun control. We can continue via PM's (whether you want to type down your response here or just jump into PM's is up to you).

 

mmmm, I have no real interest in a PM war.

 

As long as the community realizes that when you vote for a party in a parliamentary system and that party is led by an individual you are voting for that individual.

 

To make it simple: Hitler 100% was elected.

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rahl is asking you whether you know what a parliamentary system means. In a parliamentary system, people vote for the members of the parliament, who then choose the head of the executive. This is what democracy means in parliamentary democracies.

 

To claim that parliamentary democracies are not democracies because the head of the executive is not directly elected is laughable.

  • Upvote 2
77oKn5K.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

 

The "Ermaechtigungsgesetz" was passed in both Reichstag and Reichsrat which is what gave Hitler the powers he had. It was passed by a majority in both "the house" and "the senate" if you will. His appointment as the Chancellor was just a formality.

Edited by Kemal Ergenekon
77oKn5K.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

This post was good at first until liberals ran their mouths without realizing real facts and real evidence supporting this claim. In the United States its been know for countless times that gun control doesnt work. Although I think everyone should know how to properly use a firearm although I dont think they should make it mandatory for such lessons only optional. Background checks and IQ checks could help greatly.

Goomy: *Hot Goomy is 5 miles away from you and looking to have some fun*

Guilo: O.O Click bait is sooooooo tempting

Aoi Toori: Well its Goomy, who wouldn't?

 

If Dillon A McCann is Ted Cruz then doesn't that make him the zodiac killer? Rip zodiac #EndofZodiac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This post was good at first until liberals ran their mouths without realizing real facts and real evidence supporting this claim. In the United States its been know for countless times that gun control doesnt work. Although I think everyone should know how to properly use a firearm although I dont think they should make it mandatory for such lessons only optional. Background checks and IQ checks could help greatly.

So hateful brah.

 

Total liberal here.

Yeah, I voted Hillary.

I own guns.  I'm against anyone who says "we should ban all guns".  I'm against anyone who says "if we just ban some guns, we'll cut down on crime a lot!"  I'm against anyone who says "an assault weapons man just makes sense to stop the killings"

 

The statistics show its cheap handguns that are the real problem with street crime.  I really haven't seen gun control proposals out there to address that.  I'd be open to considering them though.  I'd be open to supporting someone who wanted to address that.

 

But with so many guns in the country, if you banned them all today, it would take 50 years to get rid of most of them.  And you'd also make criminals out of otherwise honest people who don't want to give up their weapons.  So that's obviously pure foolishness.

 

Is there room to expand background checks?  Is there room to allow cross referencing mental health databases with gun purchases?  Is there a way to require a basic gun safety class requirement(kinda skeptical here)?  How about allowing pediatricians to ask parents if they have guns at home and are they secured(GOP blocks pediatricians from talking about guns)?  What about strict civil liability for crimes committed with a gun you own, unless its reported stolen before its used in a crime?  How about if the NRA stops opposing "smart gun" technology that only allows the owner to fire it?

 

I mean, there's lots of "smart" things to do to mitigate the harm done by firearms.  But conservatives oppose them ALL because of the slippery slope logical fallacy.  And then there are the handful of actual "gun grabbers", probably no more then 5% of the Democractic party(made up statistic), who actually think no one except police and military should have guns.  Those people probably scare conservatives enough so they want to stop pediatricians from talking to new parents about locking up their guns.  They stop them from wanting to keep terrorists from buying AR-15's.  And that has to stop.  

 

We need to look at any given proposal in a vacuum.  "Is this proposal sensible?  Does it achieve important government interests?  Does it do it in the least restrictive way possible?(Note:  That logic is actually an important test for constitutional law) " Rather then "Does this embolden liberals to go further?  Does this get us one step closer to a full ban?"

Duke of House Greyjoy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there room to allow cross referencing mental health databases with gun purchases?

How about allowing pediatricians to ask parents if they have guns at home and are they secured(GOP blocks pediatricians from talking about guns)?

 

How about if the NRA stops opposing "smart gun" technology that only allows the owner to fire it?

HIPAA regulations prevent people’s medical records from being accessed by the government due to privacy concerns. This prohibition is something the left-wing ACLU supports. The fact that both conservatives and liberals are wary points to the fact that changes to privacy laws are complex and controversial. Any rational person agrees that the mentally ill should not be able to legally purchase firearms. But just try to share that data with the FBI and see how many attorneys come out of the woodwork. 

 

  • Upvote 1

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HIPAA regulations prevent people’s medical records from being accessed by the government due to privacy concerns. This prohibition is something the left-wing ACLU supports. The fact that both conservatives and liberals are wary points to the fact that changes to privacy laws are complex and controversial. Any rational person agrees that the mentally ill should not be able to legally purchase firearms. But just try to share that data with the FBI and see how many attorneys come out of the woodwork. 

Good point wisdomtree.  And there's always the argument "if you share mental health data it will discourage people from getting mental health care.  They'll fester alone before they blow up instead of seeking help."

 

How could you make a database that could only be used for gun purchases?  I mean, if I was an employer, I'd want to check that list for new hires.  What if I was a day care provider, shouldn't the people taking care of kids not be nuts?  So, such a database would inevitably spill out there.

 

Asking people to get a mental health sign off before getting a gun seems too restrictive to me.  You shouldn't have to prove your fitness to exercise a right.

 

So what other ideas are there to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (or to liberalsplainit, "those suffering from mental illness")

  • Upvote 1

Duke of House Greyjoy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post was good at first until liberals ran their mouths without realizing real facts and real evidence supporting this claim. In the United States its been know for countless times that gun control doesnt work. Although I think everyone should know how to properly use a firearm although I dont think they should make it mandatory for such lessons only optional. Background checks and IQ checks could help greatly.

And then the word liberal got thrown about by people too low to actual debate against them. Pot calling the kettle black and all that.

d0r0WcS.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point wisdomtree.  And there's always the argument "if you share mental health data it will discourage people from getting mental health care.  They'll fester alone before they blow up instead of seeking help."

 

How could you make a database that could only be used for gun purchases?  I mean, if I was an employer, I'd want to check that list for new hires.  What if I was a day care provider, shouldn't the people taking care of kids not be nuts?  So, such a database would inevitably spill out there.

 

Asking people to get a mental health sign off before getting a gun seems too restrictive to me.  You shouldn't have to prove your fitness to exercise a right.

 

So what other ideas are there to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (or to liberalsplainit, "those suffering from mental illness")

Wow, I just saw it didn't save my reply. 

 

To sum up my lost reply, I think we should keep the current system. On a 4473 (Question 11f), it asks if  you have been forcefully committed to a mental institution. It's all public record and will appear on a background check. This encourages people to seek help, while preventing further infringement and the problems you have stated. I also think people should be more open about any problems in their lives and try to encourage troubled people to get help. Currently, there is more or less a witch hunt for shooters. I can't find the article anymore, but one site had a list of signs of a shooter. One was "listening to music." We as a society need to get away from this madness and actually try to help people who may be going through hard times. 

  • Upvote 1

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I just saw it didn't save my reply. 

 

To sum up my lost reply, I think we should keep the current system. On a 4473 (Question 11f), it asks if  you have been forcefully committed to a mental institution. It's all public record and will appear on a background check. This encourages people to seek help, while preventing further infringement and the problems you have stated. I also think people should be more open about any problems in their lives and try to encourage troubled people to get help. Currently, there is more or less a witch hunt for shooters. I can't find the article anymore, but one site had a list of signs of a shooter. One was "listening to music." We as a society need to get away from this madness and actually try to help people who may be going through hard times. 

And also apply statistical reasoning to the threat guns present.  

 

33k people die a year by guns.  That's a !@#$ing tragedy.

480k people die a year due to tobacco, including 41k from second hand smole.  All so a few corporations can get rich.  That's worse then a tragedy.

 

Terrorism in the USA killed 47 in 2015 by the way.

 

Maybe take a few dozen billion from the fight on terror and spend it on smoking cessation(free nicorette?) or gun violence prevention?

Duke of House Greyjoy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And also apply statistical reasoning to the threat guns present.  

 

33k people die a year by guns.  That's a !@#$ tragedy.

480k people die a year due to tobacco, including 41k from second hand smole.  All so a few corporations can get rich.  That's worse then a tragedy.

 

Terrorism in the USA killed 47 in 2015 by the way.

 

Maybe take a few dozen billion from the fight on terror and spend it on smoking cessation(free nicorette?) or gun violence prevention?

Why not fighting cancer? You're 49 times more likely to die from cancer than being shot by someone else. (Took suicides out of the deaths.) 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Why not fighting cancer? You're 49 times more likely to die from cancer than being shot by someone else. (Took suicides out of the deaths.) 

 

Did you get that stat from the CDC?

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a liberal and agree gun control doesn't really work. By gun control, I'm assuming you mean like background checks, limiting the sale of guns, bullets, blah blah.

 

Now what I think would work is having every gun registered like you have to do with a car. Also, if a kid shoots up his school, hold the parents accountable for making their guns accessible to their child, and for not giving two shits about their child's mental health.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you get that stat from the CDC?

This was almost a month ago. It was either CDC or NIH. Can't remember. 

 

Now what I think would work is having every gun registered like you have to do with a car. 

About registering cars, those registries have been misused on occasion. Government registries have a rather disturbing history of being used against their citizens. For example, at least 74 law enforcers were suspected of misusing the D.A.V.I.D. car registration in Florida in 2012, a nearly 400 percent increase from 2011, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Officers were pulling down photographs and private information of people, sometimes for purposes of revenge. 

 

Also, then people will know who has the guns, and then they (or the government) can do things like publish the names and addresses of the gun-owning people. Not only is this a type of modern, “Scarlet Letter†public shaming, it also tells criminals exactly where the guns are they want to steal.

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was almost a month ago. It was either CDC or NIH. Can't remember. 

 

That was a trick question. CDC can't do any gun related research, and NIH is famous for being restricted (via funding and other legislative hoops) and producing a sad fraction of gun research that isn't near the scope and level of the nation. 

 

Gun deaths are on par with sepsis. Unlike sepsis, it only has 0.7% of its research. NIH only has 6 grants for gun-related research. There have been only 1700 publications over the last two decades. To give you an idea how small the size of the scientific literature on guns is, they are second-last in publication size to falls. !@#$ing FALLS. I didn't even know you could do research on falls. 

 

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2595514

 

Many people argue that both conservatives and liberals can't really say anything about guns and their effects on people simply because there isn't enough research. Ergo, this entire debate using statistics should be taken with a grain of salt. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a trick question.

 

CDC can't do any gun related research, and NIH is famous for being restricted (via funding and other legislative hoops) and producing a sad fraction of gun research that isn't near the scope and level of the nation. 

 

Gun deaths are on par with sepsis. Unlike sepsis, it only has 0.7% of its research. NIH only has 6 grants for gun-related research. There have been only 1700 publications over the last two decades. To give you an idea how small the size of the scientific literature on guns is, they are second-last in publication size to falls. !@#$ FALLS. I didn't even know you could do research on falls. 

 

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2595514

 

Many people argue that both conservatives and liberals can't really say anything about guns and their effects on people simply because there isn't enough research. Ergo, this entire debate using statistics should be taken with a grain of salt. 

No, it wasn't. 

 

The following are examples of why the CDC research ban on guns was deemed justified: In 1989 a top CDC official announced, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.†Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted and disavowed any pre-existing agenda. But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly — and banned.†“Data on [assault weapons’] risks are not needed, because they have no redeeming social value.—Jerome Kassirer, M.D., former editor, New England Journal of Medicine, writing in vol. 326, no. 17, page 1161 (April 23, 1992).

 

It was shown that the CDC was only giving grants to pro gun-control people, making statements like "guns are a virus that need to be eradicated," or "assault weapons have no redeeming value, and therefore no data is needed to justify banning them". The CDC was even caught giving grants to gun-control groups to organize protests! If the FDA made the statement that marijuana was evil, and needed to be eradicated, wouldn't people want them to get a slap on the wrist as well? Any other government agency (and any private firm) has been free to study “gun-violence†in the last 20 years. All this “the CDC cannot do research†is now a political maneuver to try and make the NRA look bad.

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it wasn't. 

 

The following are examples of why the CDC research ban on guns was deemed justified: In 1989 a top CDC official announced, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.†Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted and disavowed any pre-existing agenda. But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly — and banned.†“Data on [assault weapons’] risks are not needed, because they have no redeeming social value.—Jerome Kassirer, M.D., former editor, New England Journal of Medicine, writing in vol. 326, no. 17, page 1161 (April 23, 1992).

 

It was shown that the CDC was only giving grants to pro gun-control people, making statements like "guns are a virus that need to be eradicated," or "assault weapons have no redeeming value, and therefore no data is needed to justify banning them". The CDC was even caught giving grants to gun-control groups to organize protests! If the FDA made the statement that marijuana was evil, and needed to be eradicated, wouldn't people want them to get a slap on the wrist as well? Any other government agency (and any private firm) has been free to study “gun-violence†in the last 20 years. All this “the CDC cannot do research†is now a political maneuver to try and make the NRA look bad.

 

But you are more or less making the same point as me. With the exception of the NIH, the last decade has seen comparatively little research on the subject. You can point fingers to the CDC (and other government organizations, regardless of which party's president was in power) saying they are biased, but research is like that. One conclusion of a scientific study is not fact. Multiple replicates from independent labs across various in time that result in the same conclusion is. With the exception of the CDC and the NIH, there are very few organizations that delve into gun research. 

 

Blackman also makes a subtle point: there are multiple layers to gun violence and settling the question of guns in America. First, whether or not guns kill people (which, to most people sounds ridiculous, but gun advocates would be more familiar with the term "guns dont kill people, people kill people."). i.e., does the presence of guns increase the homicide rate. Secondly, whether or not guns increase crime. Blackman (rightfully) points out - without detailing (a rather unusual mistake for someone peer reviewing a publication) - a complex myriad of things that affects violence (Economy, social status, ambient stressors... hell, some people even link pollution to violence). And thirdly, whether or not any gun-control measures (be it background checks, assault weapons bans, etc.) can change any of the two contentions previously mentioned. 

 

Regardless to say, the area needs more research. Stifling funding (because of bias, perceived or real, from the CDC) is in itself counterproductive. Instead, something that would help the lack of research in the area is to increase the quality of peer review by increasing funding for organizations outside of the federal infrastructure (to universities and other think tanks). What is pointless is to have the NRA influence congressional leaders to institute broad gag orders and then making the bold statement of saying gun control doesn't work. This, of course, goes for both sides. People who can say that gun control will definitively work is also kidding themselves when they can only point to the number of research publications barely rivaling to a small state school. I still stand by my statement, which is that due to the severe lack of research and publication in this area, take everything with a grain of salt. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.