• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

How many more school shootings before the NRA allows common sense?

thatguy2016 said:
yeah let's just kill all those crazy nuts, and damn the collateral damage
Click to expand...

You would be given every opportunity within a certain timeframe to turn over guns determined to now be illegal. You would be offered above market value for the guns. After that time it would be against the law, what happen to law and order!!!!!
 
thatguy2016 said:
yeah let's just kill all those crazy nuts, and damn the collateral damage
Click to expand...

i mean, so far it's the only thing that's worked.

but you'll spend billions to bomb villages in far away lands with robots controlled by teenagers in Arizona, killing civilians (including children) who pose zero threat to anyone here
 
Shorty said:
PH, to answer your neg rep (god, I think it’s hilarious that grown up adults actually do that), yes, I think people would post tags like, ”ph sneaky dumb”, ph:85k posts = no life”, “phacts”, “phucking idiot”, and “pretty dumb for a phd” if you were white.

Check out the RJ tags on any thread. I’m pretty sure he’s white.
Click to expand...

Obviously I’m not talking about those tags and others that aren’t racial but I suspect you knew that.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
i mean, so far it's the only thing that's worked.

but you'll spend billions to bomb villages in far away lands with robots controlled by teenagers in Arizona, killing civilians (including children) who pose zero threat to anyone here
Click to expand...

who will?
 
scooter84 said:
I know what you are saying but my point is a pretty simple one and I am surprised that it is receiving push back at all. Just argue passionately but don't make crap up or exaggerate. Why is that so hard to understand? If someone is on the fence on the issue and I make a passionate argument for gun control based on the fact that there have been 20 school shootings this year - and that person either knows or finds out that there really have "only" been a couple, what are they now going to think about the rest of my argument?

Instead, make the same passionate argument supported by the actual facts that over 20 students have been killed and over 30 injured THIS YEAR (by mid-february) in purposeful school shootings (I think that is right, could be more)...

Hell, you don't even need the made up numbers - mass shootings, school and otherwise, have been in the news enough that everyone knows that plenty of them have been going on. The argument should be around the causation and ways of preventing.
Click to expand...

So the way this thread had gone is exactly why you've gotten push back, at least from me. It's not that you are wrong. There is no question that people exaggerate, cite misleading data, and in general make bad arguments. Most people aren't very good at this kind of thing. And I know you think that correcting them is being helpful. But I think it's not and it inevitably leads to exactly what happened on this thread, fighting over semantics and other bullshit that actually doesn't really change the argument or position in a meaningful way.

Think about this from the perspective of the NRA/ gun nuts. They have a completely unwinnable argument on the merits. They have spent untold millions of dollars to suppressed the ability of the government to even study guns as a public health issue. If you were them, how would you try to keep the status quo or make things more favorable for you? If it were me, I'd do two things. One, bribe as many politicians as possible (check). And two, have as many people as possible do exactly what you are doing on this thread. Get people interested in gun control to fight with each other and get distracted arguing over exactly how define words like "shootings" and "mass shootings" and "school shootings" and "assault rifles" etc etc etc.
 
tiltdeac said:
So the way this thread had gone is exactly why you've gotten push back, at least from me. It's not that you are wrong. There is no question that people exaggerate, cite misleading data, and in general make bad arguments. Most people aren't very good at this kind of thing. And I know you think that correcting them is being helpful. But I think it's not and it inevitably leads to exactly what happened on this thread, fighting over semantics and other bullshit that actually doesn't really change the argument or position in a meaningful way.

Think about this from the perspective of the NRA/ gun nuts. They have a completely unwinnable argument on the merits. They have spent untold millions of dollars to suppressed the ability of the government to even study guns as a public health issue. If you were them, how would you try to keep the status quo or make things more favorable for you? If it were me, I'd do two things. One, bribe as many politicians as possible (check). And two, have as many people as possible do exactly what you are doing on this thread. Get people interested in gun control to fight with each other and get distracted arguing over exactly how define words like "shootings" and "mass shootings" and "school shootings" and "assault rifles" etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

and what scooter and I (and others, including the Washington Post article) are saying is, it would be really helpful to stop giving the NRA easy wins in this arena

the NRA is going to look for this exaggerations and concentrate on them whether scooter (or I) point them out or not
 
thatguy2016 said:
and what scooter and I are saying is, it would be really helpful to stop giving the NRA easy wins in this arena

the NRA is going to look for this exaggerations and concentrate on them whether scooter (or I) point them out or not
Click to expand...

the point is there's literally no way to not give them ammo, the tactic is find any weakness in the study, the statistics, even nomenclature to focus on. when you engage on that point you're giving them the power of incredulity.

same as the tobacco and energy industries
 
thatguy2016 said:
and what scooter and I are saying is, it would be really helpful to stop giving the NRA easy wins in this arena

the NRA is going to look for this exaggerations and concentrate on them whether scooter (or I) point them out or not
Click to expand...

Right, and I'm saying they don't even need the win, you are giving it to them, and they don't even need to spend any PR capital to do so. Does that give you any pause? Do you think it's realistic to expect everyone you agree with to make good arguments all the time? If anything is going to change, there needs to be overwhelming numbers and voices. And inevitably, a lot of those voices are going to be dumb people making pretty bad arguments. That's okay, because ultimately, they are on the correct side. I just think shouting them down is so counterproductive. But it seems I've beaten this into the ground. Carry on all.
 
tiltdeac said:
Right, and I'm saying they don't even need the win, you are giving it to them, and they don't even need to spend any PR capital to do so. Does that give you any pause? Do you think it's realistic to expect everyone you agree with to make good arguments all the time? If anything is going to change, there needs to be overwhelming numbers and voices. And inevitably, a lot of those voices are going to be dumb people making pretty bad arguments. That's okay, because ultimately, they are on the correct side. I just think shouting them down is so counterproductive. But it seems I've beaten this into the ground. Carry on all.
Click to expand...

An interesting discussion in today's environment. Should you be OK with the use of fake news if its supports your position? Should you excuse and/or accept its use because the end cause is "just"?
 
I really have a hard time understanding the argument against gun buybacks. Can someone explain it to me without using the term "it won't prevent everything" or any variation? Seems like a good way to voluntarily remove plenty of gun inventory from the streets which would drive up the black market costs of guns. It doesn't prevent these shootings where guns are legally acquired, but if the biggest barrier to any gun control is "there are too many guns out there" then wouldn't it stand to reason that reducing the volume of guns out on the streets is a good thing?
 
tiltdeac said:
Right, and I'm saying they don't even need the win, you are giving it to them, and they don't even need to spend any PR capital to do so. Does that give you any pause? Do you think it's realistic to expect everyone you agree with to make good arguments all the time? If anything is going to change, there needs to be overwhelming numbers and voices. And inevitably, a lot of those voices are going to be dumb people making pretty bad arguments. That's okay, because ultimately, they are on the correct side. I just think shouting them down is so counterproductive. But it seems I've beaten this into the ground. Carry on all.
Click to expand...

that is an extremely slippery slope; lots of folks will go to their graves convinced they are on the "correct side" of a particular issue (abortion is one such issue for another thread)

I'm not attempting to shout anyone down

I just believe the facts should be the basis for the argument and in this case there is no need to embellish them
 
DistrictDeacon said:
An interesting discussion in today's environment. Should you be OK with the use of fake news if its supports your position? Should you excuse and/or accept its use because the end cause is "just"?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not -- but this was not #fakenews, it was people reporting everytown stats, which had their methodology available. There are obviously different ways of defining what constitutes a "school shooting", and there will always be a way of quibbling with the stats -- no matter what methodology is used. The nuts have now successfully used it as a distraction and you're still talking about it. Played.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
An interesting discussion in today's environment. Should you be OK with the use of fake news if its supports your position? Should you excuse and/or accept its use because the end cause is "just"?
Click to expand...

This is a good point. I guess I distinguish between "fake" news that are pure fabrications --the Obama is a Muslim, Hillary murdered people, kind of nonsense where a whole argument is made up, typically in bad faith -- and exaggerations or misuse of data that doesn't really change the underlying, correct argument. Like in the example on this thread, there have been 18 "gun incidents" or whatever you want to call them on school campuses this year, but really only 5 "mass shootings" where people were injured or killed during school hours. I don't believe that difference is particularly meaningful, nor do I think the argument is being made in bad faith. The underlying point, that there are too many gun incidents on school campuses, is the same either way. Sure, I'd rather people didn't exaggerate or use the wrong numbers. But that's not what I think of when I think of "fake news."
 
tiltdeac said:
So the way this thread had gone is exactly why you've gotten push back, at least from me. It's not that you are wrong. There is no question that people exaggerate, cite misleading data, and in general make bad arguments. Most people aren't very good at this kind of thing. And I know you think that correcting them is being helpful. But I think it's not and it inevitably leads to exactly what happened on this thread, fighting over semantics and other bullshit that actually doesn't really change the argument or position in a meaningful way.

Think about this from the perspective of the NRA/ gun nuts. They have a completely unwinnable argument on the merits. They have spent untold millions of dollars to suppressed the ability of the government to even study guns as a public health issue. If you were them, how would you try to keep the status quo or make things more favorable for you? If it were me, I'd do two things. One, bribe as many politicians as possible (check). And two, have as many people as possible do exactly what you are doing on this thread. Get people interested in gun control to fight with each other and get distracted arguing over exactly how define words like "shootings" and "mass shootings" and "school shootings" and "assault rifles" etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

"You wanting actual facts is derailing the thread, accept the lies and just contribute like we want you too or don't post at all"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top