Not true. As you can see there, it can be a valid argument.
I qualified what makes something slipper slope versus not... that there is some kind of limit. You haven't set a principle that would limit your position.
In fact, you're very clearly aware that you either can't or that actually admitting what it is would be rhetorical suicide. I can't think of any other reason why you would refuse to cite your principle.
You either don't have one or you do have one and are ashamed to cite it.
Either way, you just got BTFO on this issue. You came in here with your pretensions and instantly I saw through you bullshit. Look, have your opinions. It is a free country and you're entitled to believe what you like. But you're not entitled to my respect or to be given intellectual and moral credibility you don't deserve.
You've got an opinion. It is a dumb opinion that you can't support. I have righteously mocked it. You can't defend it.
Good Game.
Unless you want to cite that principle you either don't have or are afraid to cite?
Probably not... in which case... again, you have no argument.
You're proving my point and don't even realize it.
Everything out side of your political safe space just so happens to be fake news.
Hell of a coincidence. And so thick is the cognitive dissonance that you don't see it. You can't.
And before you say "nuh uh"... consider that IF you were suffering form cognitive dissonance here, you would NOT be able to see it. You would conclude just as you are now... that that is so.
Actually back up and process things again. Take a double take. Go through some examples empirically.
No one is better at fooling you than you are... and you've succeeded in fooling yourself.
Its everywhere, sport. Sorry to say. You've got no purity in your safe space.
Thought you were English. If you are, and I know about it... in Los Angeles... and you don't know about it in England... perhaps consider not lecturing people about how things work... on planet Earth... tell me more about Mars. Maybe you know something about that. Because if I know about the knife thing in London and you don't... and you're English... and I'm not... and you're telling me how things work elsewhere... You just might not have any credibility there.
Brah, if you want to pretend that the knife ban in London isn't a reflection of a concept that won't admit failure, then fine. You won't admit failure. Contradiction of the obvious is not however a strong rebuttal.
As to guys killing people with guns, heroin exists in London... it was brought into the country illegally. There exists a black market where in people can buy and sell heroin. Naturally guns are in that mix as well.
So you didn't stop black market guns.
In the US, most of the inner city street murder is committed with black market guns.
We have very different types of murder that exist in very different conditions.
The mass murders you see in the US that are in the media are statistically average for a country of our size. Canada and germany either have very similiar numbers or their numbers are higher.
For Ireland to have the same statistics as the US FIVE "5" Irish children would have be killed over the last 60 years to reach US statistics. The numbers are statistically very low but you think they're high because you've been duped by sensationalist media. We can go over the math. I know you don't like citations or math or evidence. I've seen that from our previous discussions where "I" cite evidence and you just cling to a narrative you can't support.
As to US murders EXCLUDING inner city gang and drug violence, the US is actually very peaceful and is comparable to pretty much any first world country on that basis. Our homocide figures in the US are UNCHANGED "MINUS" inner city drug and gang violence from the 1950s. We're fucking mayberry outside of the urban blight zones.
And you say "but the urban blight is part of the US"... Fine, then offer a policy to address that context. Because bump stocks are fucking irrelevant to gang bangers.
No, because it isn't YOUR principle. You're really just saying that there are forces out there that RESTRAIN your interests and the ultimate law is the product of your will countered by others.
Look, you have a legit slippery slope here, chum. A slippery slope is when you propose something that doesn't have a limit. It can just go on and on and on and on. A principle would possibly limit it and give everyone some peace of mind that after you get X you won't immediately go asking for X+1, then X+2, and so on.
And again, your balancing concept would be accepted by no one that knew anything about philosophy or law as a principle. Absolutely pathetic.
I'm only being a little strong with you because you attempted to high hat. You're not due that. You're some some smuck like everyone else... me in included in case you're confused and think I'm condescending to you here.
You have basically no argument. You're saying you want something because you want it. You're not saying why. You're not offering a guiding principle that directs your position. You're not limiting your scope.
Its an awful argument. Really really bad.
If you want to actually fix your shit so we can have a discussion, cool... if not then we're done.
Well, let us say that a small news source breaks a case and they're the only source. How do you know if they're legit or fabricated it 30 minutes after they posted it?
Sure, you can do investigations that will figure things out eventually... but we're talking about facebook here... they're going to look at it for between 30 seconds and 5 minutes and make a decision.
Oh I am aware, the "fake news" meme started as a means to discredit and no platform alternative media.
that was then flipped around and used on CNN etc as they were if anything more vulnerable to claims of making intentional misstatements regarding events.
That lead to a general food fight with everyone calling everyone fake news.
Facebook doesn't care about fake news. They're just trying to placate fussy users that want control of their space.
And I agree with the users that want control. Not because I think they should be able to control other people but because I think they should be able to control their own corner of the internet.
The big problem with social media is that everyone is put largely in the same room when it comes to facebook and twitter.
This is socially unworkable because humans are not merely defined by who we hang out with but by who we do not hang out with.
On a friday night, the bikers go to the biker bar and the college kids go to the college bar, and the whatever else go to their respective social hangouts.
On face book, you have this suggestion that everyone be in the same space. Same problem with Youtube. You have people reviewing sex toys on the same site where people are sharing jam making recipes and children's programming is happening and bible studies are being recorded and etc etc etc. You need some dividers on that thing. And that is what has to happen with facebook etc. It needs to have different spaces where different rules apply.
If people take that behavior outside of their own space then smack them down. If other people intrude into their space then smack down the people intruding.
There is no one size fits all solution to human society. So stop trying to make one. Make lots of different solutions and just embrace the chaos.
That's not a principle but is rather a specific regulation.
What is the underlying reason you're doing that.
I'm going to post a link here to help you... this is not intended with any condescension but rather to clarify what I meant by "principle": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
""As a juridic law Main article: Principle of legality
It represents a set of values that inspire the written norms that organize the life of a society submitting to the powers of an authority, generally the State. The law establishes a legal obligation, in a coercive way; it therefore acts as principle conditioning of the action that limits the liberty of the individuals. See, for examples, the territorial principle, homestead principle, and precautionary principle.""
I'm not looking for the number of bullets. I'm looking for the principle that informs and inspires that regulation.
As to drugs, I agree. You can't ban a product that people want. This also pertains to guns as well as most of the criminals as I pointed out get their guns the same way they get the drugs. If you can't stop the drugs then you can't stop the guns.
What is more the rise of 3d printed metal parts is going to render the concept of controlling goods by controlling licensing and manufacture irrelevant. Anti gun laws are going to not only start collapsing in the US but they're going to also collapse in China, Europe, etc. You can't stop it. Doubtless you'll disagree... I'm happy to let time and tide settle that argument.
As to no gang violence in europe... sure, which is why knives aren't banned in London, eh?
Bro... work on your lines of bullshit. This sort of thing only fools the fools.
242 school shootings in the US since 1959 with a population of 325 million... our numbers are lower than canada and germany.
I can crunch the numbers different ways.
If you go to FBI and DoJ statistics then you see that US crime stats are actually very low EXCLUDING what the DoJ calls "Urban drug and gang violence"...
Outside of the big cities US crime stats are very low... in US suburbs the crime rate is very low... in urban areas where there are no gangs the crime rate is very low.
It isn't helpful to just get a national number that removes all the detail and then presume to know you have answers to complex questions.
You deleted the complexity when you averaged the numbers and washed out all the complexity from the stats.
I live in a city that has about 600 murders per year. In my part of town which has roughly 30~40 thousand people in it, we have had zero murders in the last 10 years. Not one.
Now you go to the bad part of town and there's a murder there practically every day. The city collectively ignores it because its street thugs killing other street thugs... like... 90 percent of it. The murders mostly go unsolved... the police are not especially welcome or obliged any cooperation in that part of town... and so what are you going to do?
Do you honestly think that a bump stock ban is going to do anything to that situation? Of course not. Most of the people using guns over there don't even buy their guns from registered gun dealers. they don't get their guns registered... they're already illegal guns.
What is more, a lot of the people that commit mass shootings with guns were supposed to have their gun buying privs pulled because of psychological or criminal behavior. A lot of the reason why that doesn't happen is due to various government organizations not filing paper work, not doing a proper background check, or deciding they don't want to cause someone trouble.
So the laws were already passed that pertain to the mass shootings... the mass shootings are statistically pretty rare and not higher than other first world countries.... and the only issue the US has is with the street gangs in urban areas selling drugs.
If your solution doesn't pertain directly to that context then you're wasting everyone's time.
US crime stats are actually very low EXCLUDING "urban drug and gang violence"... which is a problem.
However, bump stocks are not really an issue in drive bys etc. What is more, criminal gangs frequently use illegal guns in any case... so I wonder if your concern is urban drug and gang violence, why don't you suggest a law that will impact that issue?
Hammering law abiding citizens with more regulations that criminals will just ignore is not helpful.
If you can't ban heroin because clearly heroin addicts still get high every day... explain how you're going to keep criminals from getting guns?
But look at them banning knives in London. You're on a slippery slope here, bub. Where does it stop? Because it clearly and demonstrably and provably does not stop at knives.
So where to next? When is it enough?
Set a principle you're following so I can follow it to its logical conclusion. I really doubt you can offer one you'd be comfortable standing behind. And absent a principle you don't have a principle which means this is an unprincipled position. It is a serious serious problem if you don't have a principle.
So... work one out... throw it out there... and we'll see if it stands up.
since 1959, the US has had 242 deaths due to mass killings at schools.
US population is about about 325 million
School fatalities per million is about.745... per million per year you have about.0126 people.
I can examine canada or germany... by the same metric taking population into account... Canada is about 0.0267 dead children per million per year. You can see that is a much higher number than the US number.
Germany clocks in at.0149 for west germany and.0122 for post unification germany.
Again, this is the mass shootings and not the street thugs killing each other over places to sell drugs. Often there is a dishonest conflation and change in what is being discussed to increase the power of a rhetorical argument. But it has no integrity and is generally ignorant of the deeper facts of the matter.
I have spreadsheets... I've crunched the numbers. If you think I made an error then show you have crunched the numbers yourself unlike that guy that just chimed in and said that people are lying but didn't offer any sources of calculations.
Its very easy to say "X is wrong". I'm doing quite a bit more than that. I'm offering up where I got my information from, I explained my methodology, and I offered my conclusions.
If you do not rise to the level of even this rudimentary effort, then please have the humility to concede you didn't look into it as deeply as myself. It is very annoying to have people that spent no time or attention on something contradicting things that are actually pretty well grounded.
As to public perception, that is obviously more a factor of the media.
If the public peace is your objective, then you would probably do better to attack the First Amendment rather than the Second.
Naturally, the "first" is not as rhetorically vulnerable so I suspect you won't do that.
Regardless, if you look at the statistics, you'll see that the gun deaths in the US from these mass shootings is LOWER than the same statistic in Canada and about the same as Germany.
I can go through the numbers with you but it basically boils down to this... The US has a very large national population and these deaths are relatively rare.
They're so rare that in the last 60 years it would take FIVE... that is "5" Irish students in Ireland getting killed to hit the US statistic. I've got an excel spread sheet on this and everything. When the Florida mass shootings happened I did some research for "fun" and crunched all the numbers. I have graphs and everything.
As to judicial this and that, let us keep in mind we're talking about a constitutional amendment here. Its not like just "any" law. It is obliged to the same protections that the First Amendment has for example or the third or the fourth etc. So be careful erroding the foundations of that protection because you erode them all.
That said, if you want to change it, we do have a process for that. We have changed the US constitution many times over the years and we can still do it. We most recently changed it in 1992... 27th amendment I believe.
So why not do that?
I would suspect because the issue is actually controversial and you may not have the votes. That being the case, what is your "moral" or "ethical" authority in a democratic republic if you don't have the votes?
Just saying. If you want to change it... then change it. Get the votes. If you don't have the votes... then the issue is that you don't have the votes. Simple as that.
You can say "well, the stuff that isn't true"... well, how do you know what is and isn't true?
Its going to basically boil down to "because X told me it was true and they wouldn't lie." Or "X, Y, and Z all agree so it can't be a lie."
problem is that X will sometimes be wrong whether they're intentionally wrong or not. And thus "X says its true" does not equal truth.
X, Y, and Z agreeing doesn't help either because often information will only have one or two sources. And if you eliminated all news that didn't have lots of sources the news would basically say almost nothing every day. And that would simply cause any news feed that did that to be ignored in favor of more responsive and topical news. What is more, like the first problem... whilst it might be unlikely that X, Y, and Z could be wrong... they can be still. Sometimes lots of people are wrong. And strictly speaking when someone is wrong... if "untrue = fake news"... then "wrong = untrue = fake news"...
Boiling it all down, the fake news argument is a consequence of increasingly politicized and biased press on ALL sides. Coverage is biased. And it is frequently overtly biased. Given publications will sell themselves to readers in fact on being "the most progressive" or "the most conservative" or whatever.
That doesn't mean that partisan press is real or unreal or true or untrue. But it does speak to an increasing intolerance for media other than what you are consuming. And it is totally understandable that when someone is exposed to media that is 180 degrees off their political echo chamber... whatever that is... they woudl see that as "fake news." They'd see it as biased and not trust it.
Totally understandable... at first glance. However, here is where some basic integrity comes to the rescue. "IF" you hear something that you think is fake news... just check it out. It may or may not be fake. And don't just go to your political echo chamber to find out if THEY think it is right or wrong. Play devil's advocate with the position. Honestly vet it.
Typically when there are disagreements on these issues people are just reacting badly to opposition media that isn't saying anything that isn't verified by a lot of sources. And in the few cases otherwise it is often still true but not widely reported. In a very small number of cases, you're dealing with real crap. But by and large its just hostile presentation or obscure information.
I've talked to some former marines about that, and they say you can approximate a bump stock with "a belt"... as in the one that you hold your pants up with...
Ban it if you want... it just won't matter. If you boil down the statistics on the mass shootings you'll find that the US actually has normal to LOW numbers of mass shooting deaths.
True, our overall homicide figures are fairly high but they also correlate very strongly with inner city drug and gang violence which is unlikely to become less deadly because you ban legal guns. Keep in mind, the street gangs frequently use blackmarket guns already, the drug was has made very clear that hte government can't stop heroin much less guns, and the Cartels which are increasingly dominating this market are going to be heavily armed regardless... and even if they only had knives, they'd just cut people into pieces slowly.
I'm sure this is all on deaf ears... they're banning knives in London now... because this line of logic fails and then people just come up with a new thing to ban that won't have any material consequence on outcomes.
The consumer finance industry is absurdly rife with pervasive data transparency contrary to the knowledge and wishes of the people that generate the data.
Finance industry in general is pretty bad with this... they're trying to do the same thing to medical data... just enter everything into a big database somewhere that you opted to share your data through in some giant EULA or whatever and if you say no then you're basically treated like you're Amish.
Its everywhere.
Its the state of things at the moment. If you think your data isn't out there then you're confused.
The best we can do is fill in false information where practical and use anonymizing tech. But that doesn't make you invisible to the government or the banks... and they share with everyone and know more information about you then most people would guess.
absent collective buy in, any specific social construct doesn't exist...
That is obvious. You're reinforcing racial divisions. It is stupid if that isn't want you want to do. Either admit that is your objective or stop being stupid.
You missed the consequences of arguing that your mind and mentality is causally related to your race.
I'll also point out that you're basically in David Duke territory as regards arguments. And what is more... there is no science to back up this position that would stand up to inquiry.
Perhaps you should troll some "race realist" forums and find some material.
Its funny watching the PC crowd unwittingly argue the races are mentally different via their genetics.
And no, you can't argue that it is merely experiential because your test is entirely on the basis of skin color. Someone with a stereotypical "black" background... would be treated by the likes of you as "white" if they had light skin whilst someone with a stereotypical "anything else" background but had dark skin would be treated as "black".
Your standard of who and what people are would be recognizable to the antebellum south during chattel slavery.
Where as I am acknowledging people's individuality and treating them not as races but as people with unique personal backgrounds.
Regardless of your asinine opinions, the market has no interest in supporting your silly position. The movie going consumer shows no racial bias regarding the producer, director, or writer.
So even if you weren't completely and odiously wrong... no one cares and it would be irrelevant anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Slippery slope is valid if the slope is slippery.
Since you're not defining a limit and a guiding principle that would constraining your ambitions, your position is a slippery slope.
You are explicitly avoiding setting a limit.
If we limit the mag capacity etc you're just going to stop and oppose any further restrictions?
If not, then you're conceding the slippery slope right there.
... it is better... if you're doing an article or a book or something that is supposed to be pretty polished then "do that"... but otherwise... meh.
So your options are "sit in jail".
Feel empowered.
https://youtu.be/lb8fWUUXeKM?t...
Slippery slope is always fallacious, eh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Not true. As you can see there, it can be a valid argument.
I qualified what makes something slipper slope versus not... that there is some kind of limit. You haven't set a principle that would limit your position.
In fact, you're very clearly aware that you either can't or that actually admitting what it is would be rhetorical suicide. I can't think of any other reason why you would refuse to cite your principle.
You either don't have one or you do have one and are ashamed to cite it.
Either way, you just got BTFO on this issue. You came in here with your pretensions and instantly I saw through you bullshit. Look, have your opinions. It is a free country and you're entitled to believe what you like. But you're not entitled to my respect or to be given intellectual and moral credibility you don't deserve.
You've got an opinion. It is a dumb opinion that you can't support. I have righteously mocked it. You can't defend it.
Good Game.
Unless you want to cite that principle you either don't have or are afraid to cite?
Probably not... in which case... again, you have no argument.
You're proving my point and don't even realize it.
Everything out side of your political safe space just so happens to be fake news.
Hell of a coincidence. And so thick is the cognitive dissonance that you don't see it. You can't.
And before you say "nuh uh"... consider that IF you were suffering form cognitive dissonance here, you would NOT be able to see it. You would conclude just as you are now... that that is so.
Actually back up and process things again. Take a double take. Go through some examples empirically.
No one is better at fooling you than you are... and you've succeeded in fooling yourself.
Its everywhere, sport. Sorry to say. You've got no purity in your safe space.
Thought you were English. If you are, and I know about it... in Los Angeles... and you don't know about it in England... perhaps consider not lecturing people about how things work... on planet Earth... tell me more about Mars. Maybe you know something about that. Because if I know about the knife thing in London and you don't... and you're English... and I'm not... and you're telling me how things work elsewhere... You just might not have any credibility there.
https://twitter.com/MayorofLon...
What do you want on this... You are english, yes? If not, tell me where you're from and I'll find relevant links for there. Its not like its hard.
You will kneel before the awesome power of google.
Brah, if you want to pretend that the knife ban in London isn't a reflection of a concept that won't admit failure, then fine. You won't admit failure. Contradiction of the obvious is not however a strong rebuttal.
As to guys killing people with guns, heroin exists in London... it was brought into the country illegally. There exists a black market where in people can buy and sell heroin. Naturally guns are in that mix as well.
So you didn't stop black market guns.
In the US, most of the inner city street murder is committed with black market guns.
We have very different types of murder that exist in very different conditions.
The mass murders you see in the US that are in the media are statistically average for a country of our size. Canada and germany either have very similiar numbers or their numbers are higher.
For Ireland to have the same statistics as the US FIVE "5" Irish children would have be killed over the last 60 years to reach US statistics. The numbers are statistically very low but you think they're high because you've been duped by sensationalist media. We can go over the math. I know you don't like citations or math or evidence. I've seen that from our previous discussions where "I" cite evidence and you just cling to a narrative you can't support.
As to US murders EXCLUDING inner city gang and drug violence, the US is actually very peaceful and is comparable to pretty much any first world country on that basis. Our homocide figures in the US are UNCHANGED "MINUS" inner city drug and gang violence from the 1950s. We're fucking mayberry outside of the urban blight zones.
And you say "but the urban blight is part of the US"... Fine, then offer a policy to address that context. Because bump stocks are fucking irrelevant to gang bangers.
No, because it isn't YOUR principle. You're really just saying that there are forces out there that RESTRAIN your interests and the ultimate law is the product of your will countered by others.
Look, you have a legit slippery slope here, chum. A slippery slope is when you propose something that doesn't have a limit. It can just go on and on and on and on. A principle would possibly limit it and give everyone some peace of mind that after you get X you won't immediately go asking for X+1, then X+2, and so on.
And again, your balancing concept would be accepted by no one that knew anything about philosophy or law as a principle. Absolutely pathetic.
I'm only being a little strong with you because you attempted to high hat. You're not due that. You're some some smuck like everyone else... me in included in case you're confused and think I'm condescending to you here.
You have basically no argument. You're saying you want something because you want it. You're not saying why. You're not offering a guiding principle that directs your position. You're not limiting your scope.
Its an awful argument. Really really bad.
If you want to actually fix your shit so we can have a discussion, cool... if not then we're done.
As I suspected, you don't actually have a principle.
It should bother you that you don't have one and it should bother you more that I knew it immediately the instant you said anything.
Here you'll be tempted to show bravado... save it... its childish. Your position is shallow and based on nothing.
I won't ask for a principle again from you... I don't think you're able.
Gotcha... more tits less talk. I'll work on it.
Well, let us say that a small news source breaks a case and they're the only source. How do you know if they're legit or fabricated it 30 minutes after they posted it?
Sure, you can do investigations that will figure things out eventually... but we're talking about facebook here... they're going to look at it for between 30 seconds and 5 minutes and make a decision.
Oh I am aware, the "fake news" meme started as a means to discredit and no platform alternative media.
that was then flipped around and used on CNN etc as they were if anything more vulnerable to claims of making intentional misstatements regarding events.
That lead to a general food fight with everyone calling everyone fake news.
Facebook doesn't care about fake news. They're just trying to placate fussy users that want control of their space.
And I agree with the users that want control. Not because I think they should be able to control other people but because I think they should be able to control their own corner of the internet.
The big problem with social media is that everyone is put largely in the same room when it comes to facebook and twitter.
This is socially unworkable because humans are not merely defined by who we hang out with but by who we do not hang out with.
On a friday night, the bikers go to the biker bar and the college kids go to the college bar, and the whatever else go to their respective social hangouts.
On face book, you have this suggestion that everyone be in the same space. Same problem with Youtube. You have people reviewing sex toys on the same site where people are sharing jam making recipes and children's programming is happening and bible studies are being recorded and etc etc etc. You need some dividers on that thing. And that is what has to happen with facebook etc. It needs to have different spaces where different rules apply.
If people take that behavior outside of their own space then smack them down. If other people intrude into their space then smack down the people intruding.
There is no one size fits all solution to human society. So stop trying to make one. Make lots of different solutions and just embrace the chaos.
That's not a principle but is rather a specific regulation.
What is the underlying reason you're doing that.
I'm going to post a link here to help you... this is not intended with any condescension but rather to clarify what I meant by "principle":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
""As a juridic law
Main article: Principle of legality
It represents a set of values that inspire the written norms that organize the life of a society submitting to the powers of an authority, generally the State. The law establishes a legal obligation, in a coercive way; it therefore acts as principle conditioning of the action that limits the liberty of the individuals. See, for examples, the territorial principle, homestead principle, and precautionary principle.""
I'm not looking for the number of bullets. I'm looking for the principle that informs and inspires that regulation.
As to drugs, I agree. You can't ban a product that people want. This also pertains to guns as well as most of the criminals as I pointed out get their guns the same way they get the drugs. If you can't stop the drugs then you can't stop the guns.
What is more the rise of 3d printed metal parts is going to render the concept of controlling goods by controlling licensing and manufacture irrelevant. Anti gun laws are going to not only start collapsing in the US but they're going to also collapse in China, Europe, etc. You can't stop it. Doubtless you'll disagree... I'm happy to let time and tide settle that argument.
As to no gang violence in europe... sure, which is why knives aren't banned in London, eh?
Bro... work on your lines of bullshit. This sort of thing only fools the fools.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
242 school shootings in the US since 1959 with a population of 325 million... our numbers are lower than canada and germany.
I can crunch the numbers different ways.
If you go to FBI and DoJ statistics then you see that US crime stats are actually very low EXCLUDING what the DoJ calls "Urban drug and gang violence"...
Outside of the big cities US crime stats are very low... in US suburbs the crime rate is very low... in urban areas where there are no gangs the crime rate is very low.
It isn't helpful to just get a national number that removes all the detail and then presume to know you have answers to complex questions.
You deleted the complexity when you averaged the numbers and washed out all the complexity from the stats.
I live in a city that has about 600 murders per year. In my part of town which has roughly 30~40 thousand people in it, we have had zero murders in the last 10 years. Not one.
Now you go to the bad part of town and there's a murder there practically every day. The city collectively ignores it because its street thugs killing other street thugs... like... 90 percent of it. The murders mostly go unsolved... the police are not especially welcome or obliged any cooperation in that part of town... and so what are you going to do?
Do you honestly think that a bump stock ban is going to do anything to that situation? Of course not. Most of the people using guns over there don't even buy their guns from registered gun dealers. they don't get their guns registered... they're already illegal guns.
What is more, a lot of the people that commit mass shootings with guns were supposed to have their gun buying privs pulled because of psychological or criminal behavior. A lot of the reason why that doesn't happen is due to various government organizations not filing paper work, not doing a proper background check, or deciding they don't want to cause someone trouble.
So the laws were already passed that pertain to the mass shootings... the mass shootings are statistically pretty rare and not higher than other first world countries.... and the only issue the US has is with the street gangs in urban areas selling drugs.
If your solution doesn't pertain directly to that context then you're wasting everyone's time.
US crime stats are actually very low EXCLUDING "urban drug and gang violence"... which is a problem.
However, bump stocks are not really an issue in drive bys etc. What is more, criminal gangs frequently use illegal guns in any case... so I wonder if your concern is urban drug and gang violence, why don't you suggest a law that will impact that issue?
Hammering law abiding citizens with more regulations that criminals will just ignore is not helpful.
If you can't ban heroin because clearly heroin addicts still get high every day... explain how you're going to keep criminals from getting guns?
Look, ban the bump stocks. I really don't care.
But look at them banning knives in London. You're on a slippery slope here, bub. Where does it stop? Because it clearly and demonstrably and provably does not stop at knives.
So where to next? When is it enough?
Set a principle you're following so I can follow it to its logical conclusion. I really doubt you can offer one you'd be comfortable standing behind. And absent a principle you don't have a principle which means this is an unprincipled position. It is a serious serious problem if you don't have a principle.
So... work one out... throw it out there... and we'll see if it stands up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
since 1959, the US has had 242 deaths due to mass killings at schools.
US population is about about 325 million
School fatalities per million is about .745... per million per year you have about .0126 people.
I can examine canada or germany... by the same metric taking population into account... Canada is about 0.0267 dead children per million per year. You can see that is a much higher number than the US number.
Germany clocks in at .0149 for west germany and .0122 for post unification germany.
Again, this is the mass shootings and not the street thugs killing each other over places to sell drugs. Often there is a dishonest conflation and change in what is being discussed to increase the power of a rhetorical argument. But it has no integrity and is generally ignorant of the deeper facts of the matter.
I have spreadsheets... I've crunched the numbers. If you think I made an error then show you have crunched the numbers yourself unlike that guy that just chimed in and said that people are lying but didn't offer any sources of calculations.
Its very easy to say "X is wrong". I'm doing quite a bit more than that. I'm offering up where I got my information from, I explained my methodology, and I offered my conclusions.
If you do not rise to the level of even this rudimentary effort, then please have the humility to concede you didn't look into it as deeply as myself. It is very annoying to have people that spent no time or attention on something contradicting things that are actually pretty well grounded.
As to public perception, that is obviously more a factor of the media.
If the public peace is your objective, then you would probably do better to attack the First Amendment rather than the Second.
Naturally, the "first" is not as rhetorically vulnerable so I suspect you won't do that.
Regardless, if you look at the statistics, you'll see that the gun deaths in the US from these mass shootings is LOWER than the same statistic in Canada and about the same as Germany.
I can go through the numbers with you but it basically boils down to this... The US has a very large national population and these deaths are relatively rare.
They're so rare that in the last 60 years it would take FIVE... that is "5" Irish students in Ireland getting killed to hit the US statistic. I've got an excel spread sheet on this and everything. When the Florida mass shootings happened I did some research for "fun" and crunched all the numbers. I have graphs and everything.
As to judicial this and that, let us keep in mind we're talking about a constitutional amendment here. Its not like just "any" law. It is obliged to the same protections that the First Amendment has for example or the third or the fourth etc. So be careful erroding the foundations of that protection because you erode them all.
That said, if you want to change it, we do have a process for that. We have changed the US constitution many times over the years and we can still do it. We most recently changed it in 1992... 27th amendment I believe.
So why not do that?
I would suspect because the issue is actually controversial and you may not have the votes. That being the case, what is your "moral" or "ethical" authority in a democratic republic if you don't have the votes?
Just saying. If you want to change it... then change it. Get the votes. If you don't have the votes... then the issue is that you don't have the votes. Simple as that.
you know, we've had some polite conversations on here, APK.
Maybe you remember my screen name? Maybe not.
Anyway, the video I posted speaks for itself on this issue.
peace.
You can say "well, the stuff that isn't true"... well, how do you know what is and isn't true?
Its going to basically boil down to "because X told me it was true and they wouldn't lie." Or "X, Y, and Z all agree so it can't be a lie."
problem is that X will sometimes be wrong whether they're intentionally wrong or not. And thus "X says its true" does not equal truth.
X, Y, and Z agreeing doesn't help either because often information will only have one or two sources. And if you eliminated all news that didn't have lots of sources the news would basically say almost nothing every day. And that would simply cause any news feed that did that to be ignored in favor of more responsive and topical news. What is more, like the first problem... whilst it might be unlikely that X, Y, and Z could be wrong... they can be still. Sometimes lots of people are wrong. And strictly speaking when someone is wrong... if "untrue = fake news"... then "wrong = untrue = fake news"...
Boiling it all down, the fake news argument is a consequence of increasingly politicized and biased press on ALL sides. Coverage is biased. And it is frequently overtly biased. Given publications will sell themselves to readers in fact on being "the most progressive" or "the most conservative" or whatever.
That doesn't mean that partisan press is real or unreal or true or untrue. But it does speak to an increasing intolerance for media other than what you are consuming. And it is totally understandable that when someone is exposed to media that is 180 degrees off their political echo chamber... whatever that is... they woudl see that as "fake news." They'd see it as biased and not trust it.
Totally understandable... at first glance. However, here is where some basic integrity comes to the rescue. "IF" you hear something that you think is fake news... just check it out. It may or may not be fake. And don't just go to your political echo chamber to find out if THEY think it is right or wrong. Play devil's advocate with the position. Honestly vet it.
Typically when there are disagreements on these issues people are just reacting badly to opposition media that isn't saying anything that isn't verified by a lot of sources. And in the few cases otherwise it is often still true but not widely reported. In a very small number of cases, you're dealing with real crap. But by and large its just hostile presentation or obscure information.
I've talked to some former marines about that, and they say you can approximate a bump stock with "a belt"... as in the one that you hold your pants up with...
Ban it if you want... it just won't matter. If you boil down the statistics on the mass shootings you'll find that the US actually has normal to LOW numbers of mass shooting deaths.
True, our overall homicide figures are fairly high but they also correlate very strongly with inner city drug and gang violence which is unlikely to become less deadly because you ban legal guns. Keep in mind, the street gangs frequently use blackmarket guns already, the drug was has made very clear that hte government can't stop heroin much less guns, and the Cartels which are increasingly dominating this market are going to be heavily armed regardless... and even if they only had knives, they'd just cut people into pieces slowly.
And again... you can approximate a bump stock with a belt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I'm sure this is all on deaf ears... they're banning knives in London now... because this line of logic fails and then people just come up with a new thing to ban that won't have any material consequence on outcomes.
The consumer finance industry is absurdly rife with pervasive data transparency contrary to the knowledge and wishes of the people that generate the data.
Finance industry in general is pretty bad with this... they're trying to do the same thing to medical data... just enter everything into a big database somewhere that you opted to share your data through in some giant EULA or whatever and if you say no then you're basically treated like you're Amish.
Its everywhere.
Its the state of things at the moment. If you think your data isn't out there then you're confused.
The best we can do is fill in false information where practical and use anonymizing tech. But that doesn't make you invisible to the government or the banks... and they share with everyone and know more information about you then most people would guess.
absent collective buy in, any specific social construct doesn't exist...
That is obvious. You're reinforcing racial divisions. It is stupid if that isn't want you want to do. Either admit that is your objective or stop being stupid.
You missed the consequences of arguing that your mind and mentality is causally related to your race.
I'll also point out that you're basically in David Duke territory as regards arguments. And what is more... there is no science to back up this position that would stand up to inquiry.
Perhaps you should troll some "race realist" forums and find some material.
Its funny watching the PC crowd unwittingly argue the races are mentally different via their genetics.
And no, you can't argue that it is merely experiential because your test is entirely on the basis of skin color. Someone with a stereotypical "black" background... would be treated by the likes of you as "white" if they had light skin whilst someone with a stereotypical "anything else" background but had dark skin would be treated as "black".
Your standard of who and what people are would be recognizable to the antebellum south during chattel slavery.
Where as I am acknowledging people's individuality and treating them not as races but as people with unique personal backgrounds.
Regardless of your asinine opinions, the market has no interest in supporting your silly position. The movie going consumer shows no racial bias regarding the producer, director, or writer.
So even if you weren't completely and odiously wrong... no one cares and it would be irrelevant anyway.