Debate about Gun Control

[playwrite]

(07-05-2016, 05:15 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-05-2016, 12:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I do not propose prohibition. You use that word, but it does not compute.

We have agreed on some control measures.

Most gun control advocates want weapons of certain types out of circulation.  The same problems encountered in the war on drugs and in 1930s alcohol prohibition exist with the current and proposed gun prohibitions.  You don't like the word as it reminds everyone about how difficult the practical problems of prohibiting stuff is.  The one sure thing prohibitions do is provide opportunity for profits for criminals.  Actually keeping stuff out of circulation is hard.  There are very real trade offs involving the cost of attempting to enforce a prohibition, increased criminal profit and violence resulting from attempts to bypass the prohibition, and the very limited impact such laws actually have on availability.

I don't care if you like the word or not.  Do you want possession of certain things prohibited by the government?  If so, the word applies and the problems with the government attempting to enforce prohibitions should be remembered.  You can spend as much time as  you like describing how intense you feel about the issue, but some care about how difficult it is to actually implement your ideas.  Is it practical?  Does it work?

There it is.  I knew you get around to the false equivalency of banning military weapons platforms to illegal drugs.  I guess comparing such a ban to  say ownership of bazookas, chemical warfare shells, tanks and ICBMs is just too far afield, ey?

Are you sure you're not just trying to talk yourself into opening up your own Meth lab?  Maybe too many Breaking Bad episodes?  pssss, most, by far, get caught or killed eventually.   As far as I'm concern, it's a triple: less military platforms in civilian hands, less ammosexuals running free, and a devastated GOP.  Whooo-hoo!

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-05-2016, 12:24 PM)playwrite Wrote: There it is.  I knew you get around to the false equivalency of banning military weapons platforms to illegal drugs.  I guess comparing such a ban to  say ownership of bazookas, chemical warfare shells, tanks and ICBMs is just too far afield, ey?

Are you sure you're not just trying to talk yourself into opening up your own Meth lab?  Maybe too many Breaking Bad episodes?  pssss, most, by far, get caught or killed eventually.   As far as I'm concern, it's a triple: less military platforms in civilian hands, less ammosexuals running free, and a devastated GOP.  Whooo-hoo!

There we go with ad-hominum / strawman again.  You know full well that the above is not what I represent or advocate, but that's all you've got, lies and insults.

Hmm…  I don’t know if it is that you can’t get it, or that you don’t want to get it, or that some sort of defense mechanism that protects your world view is kicking in.  To me, what I’m trying to express is very simple.  I’ll go around one more time.  It’s not that I think you are open to basic human decency, it’s for the other people reading at this point.

What is the opposite of partisan?

A partisan has a culture, set of values and/or world view that he is extremely fond of and has grave difficulty moving outside of.  Anything that meshes with his home culture is obviously and absolutely correct.  Anything that opposes it must therefore be wrong.  

The opposite mode of thinking acknowledges that one can have differences in self interest without being wrong.  It might line up with the Myers Briggs distinction between Judger and Perceptive.  The Judger sees things through a system while the Perceptive tries to see things as they are.  My own perspective weighs heavily that if a whole bunch of people are strongly affiliated with a culture, there is a reason the culture came into existence.  If it is an old culture, there was likely a time when said culture worked very well.  If it is a new and rapidly changing culture, it likely developed out of an older culture that had significant problems, or someone had a theory which sounded really good and took root among lots of people.

Neither a conservative or progressive culture is necessarily ideal.  A conservative culture or world view is apt to ignore problems that are important to some but not others.  On the other hand, not every new idea is a good one.  Marxism at one time seemed like a good idea.  So did alcohol prohibition.  People can work up a ton of enthusiasm for something untried and spend considerable effort creating a disaster.

The key, no matter whether one is attached to a conservative of perspective approach, is the attitude towards those with conflicting perspective.  The partisan will ignore, disparage and reject conflicting ideas.  The opposite would be to respect, acknowledge and perhaps incorporate aspects of conflicting world views.

I will admit to disliking the heavily partisan approach.

One aspect of the uber partisan approach is the techniques used to reject an opposing world view or culture wholesale.  One labels the rival group with some extremely disrespecting ugly label, then state it obvious that anyone so labeled is wrong.  Labels that might be used include stupid, religious fanatic, insane and authoritarian.  This can become argument by insult.  It can be and often is ad-hominium, as one is not dealing with ideas or history, one is just disparaging the individual.  It is often strawman, as the labels are not always accurate or relevant.

But if one is sufficiently partisan, if one insults someone, it seems to follow that one has invalidated his culture and won the argument.

The recent examples are “ammosexual” and “Narcissist”.  These are variations on the insanity offense.  If everyone on the other size is crazy, one can presumably ignore everything they are saying.  Thus a common partisan tactic is to scatter shot accusations that anyone who disagrees with one is insane.

The opposite is to assume that they other guy has reasonable and valid reasons for his beliefs.  The way I try to understand history, if one sees a culture, a way of perceiving the world, there is presumed to be a valid reason why that culture formed.  If one wants to truly understand a history, a culture, a people, one should not strive always to insult and demean, one should seek to understand and respect.

This doesn’t mean one has to always agree.  If I am living somewhere where a new and very real problem is not being addressed, and some other guy lives somewhere where the problem hasn’t become a problem yet, and doesn’t want to pay a lot of money to fix what doesn’t seem to be broken, that ought to be interpreted as reasonable differences of opinion on what it would take to improve life in one place or another.

Differences of opinion should not lead one to jump instantly to the conclusion that the other guy is evil, stupid, insane, authoritarian and/or etc…  The primary approach to understanding and resolving ought not to be to disparage, insult and lie.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-05-2016, 02:29 PM)taramarie Wrote: I do not know whether to offer a tissue for your mouth or your arse. Both are one and the same. Yes, you deserve that. You push someone will push back. You get no respect from me when you behave worse than a 3 year old boy.

There is something to be said for communicating with someone at their own level...

Who?  Push back?  Moi?   

[Ragnarök_62]

playwrite Wrote:Are you sure you're not just trying to talk yourself into opening up your own Meth lab?

Hell yes!   Abolish the DEA goons and legalize all substances.  The DEA and all its goons have no place in this world.

 


There's also THC, which should be legal as well.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25024327

Weed ain't called "herb" for nothing.  Stupid politics getting in the way of reducing alzheimers.  America, America.
Home of the holier than thous, land of the TeeVee zombies.

Quote:Maybe too many Breaking Bad episodes?  pssss, most, by far, get caught or killed eventually. 

That's only because meth is illegal.

Quote:As far as I'm concern, it's a triple: less military platforms in civilian hands, less ammosexuals running free, and a devastated GOP.  Whooo-hoo!

I prefer things go the opposite direction myself.

PS.

Can I have an ICBM silo in my back yard, man?

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-06-2016, 10:37 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Can I have an ICBM silo in my back yard, man?

The silo, sure. When a class of missile goes obsolete, eventually the silos and launch control facilities get declared surplus. You occasionally see articles on odd properties, often build by survivalists, built in old holes in the ground.

The ICBM itself? With warheads? Not generally declared surplus.

[playwrite]

(07-05-2016, 02:22 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-05-2016, 12:13 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(07-05-2016, 12:41 AM)taramarie Wrote: Reds and libs have told me blues are authoritarians on different issues. Thing is neither is listening so nothing will be done. Some of them would also say they value life too and some blues don't (abortion). For me personally, I do not like guns. Never have, never will. I have never touched a gun in my life and distrust anyone with one. Reason being is the culture i was brought up in. Illegal to carry guns here and you never see a gun anywhere here. To me it means defense is up and an area is dangerous. (My reaction when i went to South Africa.) It means danger to me. As to abortion it should be the decision of the parents, or if a rape case; the mother as she has to live with the actions against her. No matter the thoughts of outsiders it should be her decision. However my first comments are to address what is being said on the other side. If blues do not listen to reds, why should they listen to you? That has lead to extremism, anger and polarization, as well as other reasons of course.

Dear, New Zealand is beautiful place with very interesting cultures.

It does, however, have a population that is half that of my city.  And on the world stage, it is a backwater, a beautiful, backwater, but still a backwater.  My city (NYC), my state (the Empire State), and my country (USA), on the other hand, is, well, you know.

If we're looking for advice on sheep shearing, well, maybe (I think some guys in Wyoming won the last world contest).  If I'm looking for how, as a deep Blue, to handle the Reds here in my own country, I think I might look elsewhere - Luxembourg perhaps?

Cannot come up with a rational argument for childish squabbles in a country that likes to war with itself LITERALLY so resorts to insults. Just business as usual with you. This is why some Americans never learn. They do not like to take lessons from ANY other country let alone NZ.

Deary, there are 320 MILLION Americans and you not only believe we are at war (you ever been in one to know?) amongst ourselves but that ALL of us are incapable of learning.

That's not only childish, but bigotry on a grand scale.

Go wipe that potty mouth of yours.

[playwrite]

(07-05-2016, 02:25 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-05-2016, 12:04 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(07-04-2016, 09:13 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-04-2016, 08:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-04-2016, 04:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You are simply self-deceived.

Someone is self deceived.  

What measures with regard to prohibiting access to weapons do you most wish for?  (I'd suggest limiting rate of fire and magazine size, but propose something.)  To what degree are you willing to grant in perpetuity a right to own and carry weapons for self defense?  I have proposed one tit-for-tat that attempts to grant both sides the most central elements of what they desire.  I'm open to tweaks.  You have persistently rejected anything except those who you disagree with completely surrendering.

You are hardly alone.  On this board, as in the general population of the US, very few are open to considering and acknowledging the culture of the other guys.  I'm not getting much in the way of agreement or tweaks from the conservatives either.  I'm not saying that wanting all and being willing to yield nothing is unique to either side, is more common among Blue than Red.  

The country is very sincerely and deeply divided.  The values are profoundly deep and sincere on both sides.  If you can't acknowledge that, no doubt about the lack of connection with reality.

I agree and I can see it especially as a foreigner as I know of another culture that is not as deeply divided as America. You are certainly not self deceived. You are aware and take all sides into account.

Best example of damning admiration I've ever seen.

My comment still stands as truth. You have more in common with Eric on the other hand than Bob does from what i can see in your comments. Although way more disrespectful. I will bet Eric would think you are a scorpio.

Given your massive prejudices against this country, your claiming something as 'truth' is a pretty good reason to doubt

[playwrite]

(07-05-2016, 02:29 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-05-2016, 11:55 AM)playwrite Wrote:

(07-03-2016, 01:55 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-03-2016, 08:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-03-2016, 05:04 AM)playwrite Wrote: This is not reasonableness, tis scantomonious glee of someone loving the status quo - a clear symptom of ammosexuality.

I'm trying to reprise a basic difference in approach between Eric and I.  I'll go out of my way to show how two conflicting world views can both be considered well and truly justified.  If one side of a conflict is conservative, one is apt to find some time and place in the past where the solutions provided by the world view worked very well, thank you, and might still be working well in some environments.  If the other side is progressive, it is quite likely that the progressive is dwelling somewhere where the old solutions aren't working so well anymore.  Anyone following this thread ought to realize that both factions truly believe their approach works and ought to be allowed, while both sides also see obvious flaws in the other side.  My belief, not just in this issue, but in many issues, is that one ought to fully comprehend both sides of a story and respect where both sides are coming from.  While that really isn't the human way, I have a stubborn rainbows and unicorns belief that it ought to be.

On another thread, I recently reminded people once more of the history of the Middle East.  They have good reasons to hate us.  Their world views are not irrational.  The 'terrorists' didn't spring out of nowhere.  Many US citizens, even though they ought to know better, persist in a perspective that we are the good guys pushing democracy and human rights while they are irrational religious fanatics.  That might feel good, but it doesn't make for a working understanding of the problem.  Without a working understanding of the problem, the problem isn't going to go away.

Eric is more representative of the human way.  He has his perspective.  He is absolutely correct, the other guy is absolutely wrong, and he ain't gonna listen.  While he might be worse than most posters in this respect, milder variations on this sort of 'my way or the highway' thinking dominates most or our partisan threads.  You don't get conversations with both people listening... with either person listening, really.  He's just one of the worst case obvious examples.

Meanwhile, there you go again with ammosexuality.  You know full well I don't own a firearm, let along be obsessed with stockpiling ammunition.  I own a bow and about a dozen target arrows.  That's it.  There are times I think all you've got is that one strawman argument that you know full well is bogus.  Whenever you can't answer a point, you run at the mouth with ammosexuality.  It's about as meaningful and argument as comparing folks with Hitler.  It's a sign you haven't a rational argument.  If  you insult and lie over and over again, do you think you are going to get anywhere?  If we were talking about a racial or sexual issue, the sort of repeated insult based argument you indulge in would have long since been reported to the moderator.  If you continue, I'm considering doing just that.

Cause it is a sexual insult.  As far as I can read it, you believe you have a proper respectful relationship with your rifle, but add one feature to the weapon and the relationship becomes akin to a black guy being with a white girl, or two women being together.  You go bonzo nuts with the sort of language I'd expect of a bigot.  It's not a rational argument.  You are not diagnosing a disease that exists outside of your obviously disturbed mind.  All you are doing is making rational conversation impossible by constantly diverting the conversation away from the issue and into your perverse pseudo-sexual hang up.

You are spot on regarding the character of both playwrite and Eric. I have mentioned the exact same thing to both of them.

Please, you're going to make me cry.

Boo-hoo. 

I do not know whether to offer a tissue for your mouth or your arse. Both are one and the same. Yes, you deserve that. You push someone will push back. You get no respect from me when you behave worse than a 3 year old boy.

I suggest you use that tissue to wipe your own potty mouth of massive bigotry against 320 million people.  You make Trump look saintly.

[playwrite]

(07-06-2016, 08:51 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-05-2016, 12:24 PM)playwrite Wrote: There it is.  I knew you get around to the false equivalency of banning military weapons platforms to illegal drugs.  I guess comparing such a ban to  say ownership of bazookas, chemical warfare shells, tanks and ICBMs is just too far afield, ey?

Are you sure you're not just trying to talk yourself into opening up your own Meth lab?  Maybe too many Breaking Bad episodes?  pssss, most, by far, get caught or killed eventually.   As far as I'm concern, it's a triple: less military platforms in civilian hands, less ammosexuals running free, and a devastated GOP.  Whooo-hoo!

There we go with ad-hominum / strawman again.  You know full well that the above is not what I represent or advocate, but that's all you've got, lies and insults.

Hmm…  I don’t know if it is that you can’t get it, or that you don’t want to get it, or that some sort of defense mechanism that protects your world view is kicking in.  To me, what I’m trying to express is very simple.  I’ll go around one more time.  It’s not that I think you are open to basic human decency, it’s for the other people reading at this point.

What is the opposite of partisan?

A partisan has a culture, set of values and/or world view that he is extremely fond of and has grave difficulty moving outside of.  Anything that meshes with his home culture is obviously and absolutely correct.  Anything that opposes it must therefore be wrong.  

The opposite mode of thinking acknowledges that one can have differences in self interest without being wrong.  It might line up with the Myers Briggs distinction between Judger and Perceptive.  The Judger sees things through a system while the Perceptive tries to see things as they are.  My own perspective weighs heavily that if a whole bunch of people are strongly affiliated with a culture, there is a reason the culture came into existence.  If it is an old culture, there was likely a time when said culture worked very well.  If it is a new and rapidly changing culture, it likely developed out of an older culture that had significant problems, or someone had a theory which sounded really good and took root among lots of people.

Neither a conservative or progressive culture is necessarily ideal.  A conservative culture or world view is apt to ignore problems that are important to some but not others.  On the other hand, not every new idea is a good one.  Marxism at one time seemed like a good idea.  So did alcohol prohibition.  People can work up a ton of enthusiasm for something untried and spend considerable effort creating a disaster.

The key, no matter whether one is attached to a conservative of perspective approach, is the attitude towards those with conflicting perspective.  The partisan will ignore, disparage and reject conflicting ideas.  The opposite would be to respect, acknowledge and perhaps incorporate aspects of conflicting world views.

I will admit to disliking the heavily partisan approach.

One aspect of the uber partisan approach is the techniques used to reject an opposing world view or culture wholesale.  One labels the rival group with some extremely disrespecting ugly label, then state it obvious that anyone so labeled is wrong.  Labels that might be used include stupid, religious fanatic, insane and authoritarian.  This can become argument by insult.  It can be and often is ad-hominium, as one is not dealing with ideas or history, one is just disparaging the individual.  It is often strawman, as the labels are not always accurate or relevant.

But if one is sufficiently partisan, if one insults someone, it seems to follow that one has invalidated his culture and won the argument.

The recent examples are “ammosexual” and “Narcissist”.  These are variations on the insanity offense.  If everyone on the other size is crazy, one can presumably ignore everything they are saying.  Thus a common partisan tactic is to scatter shot accusations that anyone who disagrees with one is insane.

The opposite is to assume that they other guy has reasonable and valid reasons for his beliefs.  The way I try to understand history, if one sees a culture, a way of perceiving the world, there is presumed to be a valid reason why that culture formed.  If one wants to truly understand a history, a culture, a people, one should not strive always to insult and demean, one should seek to understand and respect.

This doesn’t mean one has to always agree.  If I am living somewhere where a new and very real problem is not being addressed, and some other guy lives somewhere where the problem hasn’t become a problem yet, and doesn’t want to pay a lot of money to fix what doesn’t seem to be broken, that ought to be interpreted as reasonable differences of opinion on what it would take to improve life in one place or another.

Differences of opinion should not lead one to jump instantly to the conclusion that the other guy is evil, stupid, insane, authoritarian and/or etc…  The primary approach to understanding and resolving ought not to be to disparage, insult and lie.

I make absolutely no apologies for my partisanship against civilians having easy access to military weapon platforms that have become the standard for mass killings.

It is much more honest than you hiding your partisanship of defending such access behind word salads of false equivalencies, preposterous political scenarios (e.g. tinkering with the 2nd Amendment, my ass), and sanctimonious proselytizing the status quo as a higher ground of rationality when it is, in fact, nothing but death and carnage.

You may fool a Kiwi here and there, but you're not fooling me.

[playwrite]

(07-06-2016, 09:00 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-05-2016, 02:29 PM)taramarie Wrote: I do not know whether to offer a tissue for your mouth or your arse. Both are one and the same. Yes, you deserve that. You push someone will push back. You get no respect from me when you behave worse than a 3 year old boy.

There is something to be said for communicating with someone at their own level...

Who?  Push back?  Moi?   

Does this mean you might get to the level called "honesty?"

[playwrite]

(07-06-2016, 09:05 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-06-2016, 08:51 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-05-2016, 12:24 PM)playwrite Wrote: There it is.  I knew you get around to the false equivalency of banning military weapons platforms to illegal drugs.  I guess comparing such a ban to  say ownership of bazookas, chemical warfare shells, tanks and ICBMs is just too far afield, ey?

Are you sure you're not just trying to talk yourself into opening up your own Meth lab?  Maybe too many Breaking Bad episodes?  pssss, most, by far, get caught or killed eventually.   As far as I'm concern, it's a triple: less military platforms in civilian hands, less ammosexuals running free, and a devastated GOP.  Whooo-hoo!

There we go with ad-hominum / strawman again.  You know full well that the above is not what I represent or advocate, but that's all you've got, lies and insults.

Hmm…  I don’t know if it is that you can’t get it, or that you don’t want to get it, or that some sort of defense mechanism that protects your world view is kicking in.  To me, what I’m trying to express is very simple.  I’ll go around one more time.  It’s not that I think you are open to basic human decency, it’s for the other people reading at this point.

What is the opposite of partisan?

A partisan has a culture, set of values and/or world view that he is extremely fond of and has grave difficulty moving outside of.  Anything that meshes with his home culture is obviously and absolutely correct.  Anything that opposes it must therefore be wrong.  

The opposite mode of thinking acknowledges that one can have differences in self interest without being wrong.  It might line up with the Myers Briggs distinction between Judger and Perceptive.  The Judger sees things through a system while the Perceptive tries to see things as they are.  My own perspective weighs heavily that if a whole bunch of people are strongly affiliated with a culture, there is a reason the culture came into existence.  If it is an old culture, there was likely a time when said culture worked very well.  If it is a new and rapidly changing culture, it likely developed out of an older culture that had significant problems, or someone had a theory which sounded really good and took root among lots of people.

Neither a conservative or progressive culture is necessarily ideal.  A conservative culture or world view is apt to ignore problems that are important to some but not others.  On the other hand, not every new idea is a good one.  Marxism at one time seemed like a good idea.  So did alcohol prohibition.  People can work up a ton of enthusiasm for something untried and spend considerable effort creating a disaster.

The key, no matter whether one is attached to a conservative of perspective approach, is the attitude towards those with conflicting perspective.  The partisan will ignore, disparage and reject conflicting ideas.  The opposite would be to respect, acknowledge and perhaps incorporate aspects of conflicting world views.

I will admit to disliking the heavily partisan approach.

One aspect of the uber partisan approach is the techniques used to reject an opposing world view or culture wholesale.  One labels the rival group with some extremely preparative ugly label, then state it obvious that anyone so labeled is wrong.  Labels that might be used include stupid, religious fanatic, insane and authoritarian.  This can become argument by insult.  It can be and often is ad-hominium, as one is not dealing with ideas or history, one is just disparaging the individual.  It is often strawman, as the labels are not always accurate or relevant.

But if one is sufficiently partisan, if one insults someone, it seems to follow that one has invalidated his culture and won the argument.

The recent examples are “ammosexual” and “Narcissist”.  These are variations on the insanity offense.  If everyone on the other size is crazy, one can presumably ignore everything they are saying.  Thus a common partisan tactic is to scatter shot accusations that anyone who disagrees with one is insane.

The opposite is to assume that they other guy has reasonable and valid reasons for his beliefs.  The way I try to understand history, if one sees a culture, a way of perceiving the world, there is presumed to be a valid reason why that culture formed.  If one wants to truly understand a history, a culture, a people, one should not strive always to insult and demean, one should seek to understand and respect.

This doesn’t mean one has to always agree.  If I am living somewhere where a new and very real problem is not being addressed, and some other guy lives somewhere where the problem hasn’t become a problem yet, and doesn’t want to pay a lot of money to fix what doesn’t seem to be broken, that ought to be interpreted as reasonable differences of opinion on what it would take to improve life in one place or another.

Differences of opinion should not lead one to jump instantly to the conclusion that the other guy is evil, stupid, insane, authoritarian and/or etc…  The primary approach to understanding and resolving ought not to be to disparage, insult and lie.

Very reasonable response. I have listened to both sides on this issue too and both have some points that are very reasonable and understandable to me.

Oh, that's just great.

Could you write a letter explaining it to the moms of these Sandy Hook kids -



I think it would be particularly helpful to the moms who had closed-caskets, given that most of the head of their kid had been blasted away.  I'm sure they would particularly find comfort in your seeing both sides.

Myself?  I had this reaction to your discovering Bob's 'reasonableness' -

[playwrite]

(07-06-2016, 09:08 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-06-2016, 09:00 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-05-2016, 02:29 PM)taramarie Wrote: I do not know whether to offer a tissue for your mouth or your arse. Both are one and the same. Yes, you deserve that. You push someone will push back. You get no respect from me when you behave worse than a 3 year old boy.

There is something to be said for communicating with someone at their own level...

Who?  Push back?  Moi?   

Unfortunately it is what he understands. But you are quite right. I should not stoop to his juvenile behaviour.

That's really wonderful that you want to avoid juvenile behavior.

But maybe those Sandy Hook moms are missing that behavior.

Why don't you put your letter to the moms, explaining Bob's wonderful rationality, on the back of a colorful postcard?  Maybe like this one with the guns used to kill their children in these really wonderful Lego-colors!



I mean this photo and the one of the 5 year olds above puts Bob's rational balance in just the most eye-pleasing manner, no?

[Eric the Green]

(07-05-2016, 05:15 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-05-2016, 12:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I do not propose prohibition. You use that word, but it does not compute.

We have agreed on some control measures.

Most gun control advocates want weapons of certain types out of circulation.  The same problems encountered in the war on drugs and in 1930s alcohol prohibition exist with the current and proposed gun prohibitions.  You don't like the word as it reminds everyone about how difficult the practical problems of prohibiting stuff is.  The one sure thing prohibitions do is provide opportunity for profits for criminals.  Actually keeping stuff out of circulation is hard.  There are very real trade offs involving the cost of attempting to enforce a prohibition, increased criminal profit and violence resulting from attempts to bypass the prohibition, and the very limited impact such laws actually have on availability.

I don't care if you like the word or not.  Do you want possession of certain things prohibited by the government?  If so, the word applies and the problems with the government attempting to enforce prohibitions should be remembered.  You can spend as much time as you like describing how intense you feel about the issue, but some care about how difficult it is to actually implement your ideas.  Is it practical?  Does it work?

Gun control is not prohibition, and gun control advocates are not advocating prohibition of civilian guns. Those weapons of certain types are the military weapons; yes we want those out of circulation. But the civilian types can't be prohibited now, so we don't advocate such. It is well-known that gun control works. Just repeating the idea that it doesn't, and saying that my knowledge of the facts is merely my feeling, seems pointless to me. You can assert your ideas; doesn't make them true. But I have no doubt you will persist.

I admit I made a typo and at first wrote gin control (u is next to i on the qwerty keyboard). You can chuckle at that and think what you want about it

Quote:I don't trust the recent over use of the word 'authoritarian'.  It reminds me too much of the recent habit of calling all Democrats Communist and all Republicans Fascist.  These days it seems fashionable to use 'Authoritarian' to replace either 'Fascist' or 'Communist', but does the word really apply?

The article I linked on the Let's Bash Trump thread seemed quite scientific and thorough, and I'm inclined to take the word's meaning as quite applicable to our red state culture and to Trump supporters. It's as factual an attribution as one can hope for in such matters.

Quote:Both cultures have strong values and try to use the government to enforce their values.  Using government authority to enforce values is going to appear by the victim of such authority as an assault on freedom and as authoritarian policy.  Enforce a prohibition?  Authoritarianism!  Making sure the baker sells wedding cakes to homosexuals?  Authoritarianism!  I see most value systems as being justifiable, as having a solid basis in history and culture.  I understand the desire to use the government to enforce one's values on everyone.  On the other hand, the more one subculture attempts to use the government to enforce their values on all, the less free we are, the more tempting it gets to use words like 'authoritarian'.  There is something to be said for the government just leaving the People alone to make their own decisions.

Still, if someone likes the policy being enforced, it won't seem like authoritarianism, it would seem a well justified lawful measure intended to improve the community.

At least 'authoritarian' is an all purpose insult usable by both sides on lots of issues.  I personally think it is being over used.  It's a little better than 'Nazi' and 'Communist' though.  Slightly more true.  Negligibly more true.

It often seems like you talk from both sides. I may seem uncivil and partisan to some like you and Taramarie because I am clear about things in my own mind, and say so, but I prefer it that way for myself. I just try to explain the truth as I see it the best I can, and learn from others who know things that I don't know, even if I don't agree to their worldview or ideology. And my passions come through too at times, because there's lots to be passionate about (to paraphrase Mrs. Thatcher).

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-07-2016, 11:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Gun control is not prohibition, and gun control advocates are not advocating prohibition of civilian guns.

Well, I don't think you are Noah Webster, nor an official representative of the Dictionary Police.  If you are advocating that possession and use of something be prohibited by the government, you are by definition advocating a prohibition.  The root word is the same.  More important, there are practical implementation problems with prohibitions.  These shouldn't be ignored or glossed over.  In general, the prohibition of mind altering substances has resulted in massive and often violent criminal behavior that the government struggles to keep in check.  I have no reason to expect anything different if other things are prohibited.

(07-07-2016, 11:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I admit I made a typo and at first wrote gin control (u is next to i on the qwerty keyboard). You can chuckle at that and think what you want about it

The sort of gin control that implies one shouldn't have more than a few glasses I can sympathize with.  The sort of gin control attempted in the 1930s?  Not so much.

(07-07-2016, 11:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It often seems like you talk from both sides. I may seem uncivil and partisan to some like you and Taramarie because I am clear about things in my own mind, and say so, but I prefer it that way for myself. I just try to explain the truth as I see it the best I can, and learn from others who know things that I don't know, even if I don't agree to their worldview or ideology. And my passions come through too at times, because there's lots to be passionate about (to paraphrase Mrs. Thatcher).

I see reviewing and respecting both sides of a question to be a feature rather than a bug.  I guess if I followed up on that, I'd have to review and respect partisan thinking as well.  There are times when it is appropriate to go partisan, when the other guy is wrong and dangerously wrong.  My father's generation was quite partisan in their attitudes about Hitler, for example.  Even then, it doesn't hurt to understand how and why he managed to gather a following.  Even if one can in no way tolerate a particular set of values, it is prudent to understand them.

[Odin]

I see Playwrite has decided to play the classic authoritarian gambit of politicizing tragedies in order to silence opposition.   

Playwrite, you are officially no better than the Neocons who used 9/11 to force through the USA PATRIOT Act and the Islamophobes like Trump who use the Orlando Massacre to promote their "deport all Muslims" bile. You have no fucking shame.

[Eric the Green]

(07-07-2016, 01:33 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-07-2016, 11:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Gun control is not prohibition, and gun control advocates are not advocating prohibition of civilian guns.

Well, I don't think you are Noah Webster, nor an official representative of the Dictionary Police.  If you are advocating that possession and use of something be prohibited by the government, you are by definition advocating a prohibition.  The root word is the same.  More important, there are practical implementation problems with prohibitions.  These shouldn't be ignored or glossed over.  In general, the prohibition of mind altering substances has resulted in massive and often violent criminal behavior that the government struggles to keep in check.  I have no reason to expect anything different if other things are prohibited.

Dictionary police at your service.

I don't think the DMV is prohibiting cars by denying a license to my 90-year old Mom who could no longer drive without bumping into things, nor by prohibiting ownership of loaded tanks by individuals. Nor is it prohibition for gun control to deny a license to possess and use a gun if you are a criminal or insane or on a terror watch list, or to deny individuals ownership of military weapons.

Quote:I see reviewing and respecting both sides of a question to be a feature rather than a bug.  I guess if I followed up on that, I'd have to review and respect partisan thinking as well.  There are times when it is appropriate to go partisan, when the other guy is wrong and dangerously wrong.  My father's generation was quite partisan in their attitudes about Hitler, for example.  Even then, it doesn't hurt to understand how and why he managed to gather a following.  Even if one can in no way tolerate a particular set of values, it is prudent to understand them.

Understanding is possible and valuable.

[Eric the Green]

(07-07-2016, 03:32 PM)Odin Wrote: I see Playwrite has decided to play the classic authoritarian gambit of politicizing tragedies in order to silence opposition.   

Playwrite, you are officially no better than the Neocons who used 9/11 to force through the USA PATRIOT Act and the Islamophobes like Trump who use the Orlando Massacre to promote their "deport all Muslims" bile. You have no fucking shame.

I'm not sure any of us can claim to be better or worse than playwrite, or that anyone else is better or worse than anyone else, for that matter.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-07-2016, 05:05 PM)taramarie Wrote: Another psycho cop with a gun shot an unarmed man. Thoughts from those who support cops blindly?

https://www.facebook.com/officialderrick...nref=story

I don't support cops blindly.

In the US, the training and judicial system seem to work on the meme that if a cop feels threatened he can use lethal force.  The last two incidents, the black victims both did have guns, but according to all I've heard, neither man was attempting to draw let alone threaten or use their guns.  The crime seems to be carrying while black.

At the very least, the cops have to train much better for such situations.  The media is tasting blood in the water.  Every incident is going to go front page national.  I don't know that the People are going to tolerate a continuation of these incidents.

There are other improper crimes involved, especially in the later incident.  Using electronic media to record improper acts by police seems to be criminal.  Using social media at a crime scene seems treated as a crime.  The police are accustomed to presenting the only (supposedly) reliable account to the judge, and get very hostile and improperly so when their actions are recorded and shared.  While taking a life is quite arguably more serious than anything else, I'd like to see even more people pulling cell phones when cops start misbehaving.  I'd like to see false arrest charges brought against the cops who arrested the woman who took the above video.  I don't think that modern police are worse than police have been in the past.  I just think the video security camera and the cell phone have poked big holes in the Blue Wall of Silence.  They just aren't getting away with abuse as easily as they are accustomed.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-07-2016, 05:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-07-2016, 03:32 PM)Odin Wrote: I see Playwrite has decided to play the classic authoritarian gambit of politicizing tragedies in order to silence opposition.   

Playwrite, you are officially no better than the Neocons who used 9/11 to force through the USA PATRIOT Act and the Islamophobes like Trump who use the Orlando Massacre to promote their "deport all Muslims" bile. You have no fucking shame.

I'm not sure any of us can claim to be better or worse than playwrite, or that anyone else is better or worse than anyone else, for that matter.

I'd be pleased if we could manage to move in that direction.  Still, if I'm going to be called ammosexual and a narcissist, it seems that someone thinks he is better than me.  I don't care for ad-hominum attacks, strawman arguments and insult based debate.  I don't want a lot of talk about building a ranking system saying who is better or worse than who.  I would like talk about what behavior is acceptable, and agreements to avoid it.

Bottom line, let's talk more about issues, less about the alleged character flaws of people one disagrees with.

I don't see politicizing tragedies as uniquely authoritarian.  The over all point is valid enough, but I don't know that bringing in the 'authoritarian' label makes it clearer.  

Politicizing tragedy is traditional in gun policy debate.  If there is a shooting, some will ask what would happen if the shooter was prevented from having a gun, and some others will ask how many lives would have been saved if the good guys had more guns immediately available.  Nothing new about that.  I think the prohibition crowd is a bit more blatant about exploiting tragedy.  I expect Obama and Hillary to be making a spiel after every spree shooting event.  Still, both factions do it.  The NRA pushes their fair share of propaganda as well.

There are lots of angles to the gun policy debate.  One might look at the wording of the law, the intent of the authors, the court precedents, academic analysis, crime statistics and so much else.  Some of these areas can be well researched and known.  Other's can't.  The results are often so murky and questionable that you see no meaningful resolution.  I think throwing up tragic incidents with accompanying opinions on what could have happened given a policy change is as futile and indecisive a form of discussion as any.  Too many stories, and many of them can be spun either way.

But if the point of the discussion is to reduce the number of tragedies, how can we totally avoid the politicizing of tragedies?

This is becoming less about gun policy and more about various posters attacking one another.  What forms of personal attack are palatable?  Perhaps...  None?  Perhaps parts of this discussion belong on a thread about internet etiquette and forum moderation?  Dan's call, though.  I'd say not yet.

[playwrite]

(07-07-2016, 01:33 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-07-2016, 11:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Gun control is not prohibition, and gun control advocates are not advocating prohibition of civilian guns.

Well, I don't think you are Noah Webster, nor an official representative of the Dictionary Police.  If you are advocating that possession and use of something be prohibited by the government, you are by definition advocating a prohibition.  The root word is the same.  More important, there are practical implementation problems with prohibitions.  These shouldn't be ignored or glossed over.  In general, the prohibition of mind altering substances has resulted in massive and often violent criminal behavior that the government struggles to keep in check.  I have no reason to expect anything different if other things are prohibited.

(07-07-2016, 11:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I admit I made a typo and at first wrote gin control (u is next to i on the qwerty keyboard). You can chuckle at that and think what you want about it

The sort of gin control that implies one shouldn't have more than a few glasses I can sympathize with.  The sort of gin control attempted in the 1930s?  Not so much.

(07-07-2016, 11:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It often seems like you talk from both sides. I may seem uncivil and partisan to some like you and Taramarie because I am clear about things in my own mind, and say so, but I prefer it that way for myself. I just try to explain the truth as I see it the best I can, and learn from others who know things that I don't know, even if I don't agree to their worldview or ideology. And my passions come through too at times, because there's lots to be passionate about (to paraphrase Mrs. Thatcher).

I see reviewing and respecting both sides of a question to be a feature rather than a bug.  I guess if I followed up on that, I'd have to review and respect partisan thinking as well.  There are times when it is appropriate to go partisan, when the other guy is wrong and dangerously wrong.  My father's generation was quite partisan in their attitudes about Hitler, for example.  Even then, it doesn't hurt to understand how and why he managed to gather a following.  Even if one can in no way tolerate a particular set of values, it is prudent to understand them.

There you go again.

First, the word salad to attempt to conflate "gun control" with "gun prohibition."   Let me help you - "gun control" does not equate with "TOTAL gun prohibition."  That's pretty simple enough for most people, but we'll await your next inevitable word salad attempt at fuzzing once again.

Then we get your repeated false equivalency of drug and alcohol prohibitions.  I'm still waiting for why you believe those are better comparisons than the prohibition of bazookas, tanks and ICBMs.

And finally, your sanctimonious bow to the status quo that allows for what you really want - continued unfettered civilian access to military weapon platforms, irrespective of you crocodile tears to the contrary.