Mt. Tabor High Shooting

[PhDeac]

If that's the goal, shouldn't we focus our efforts on people that are actually committing gun violence, rather than the law-abiding citizens who the statistics show don't?

Conservatives have this engrained idea that “law-abiding” and “criminal” are permanent classes of people.

Many people who commit gun violence are law abiding citizens until the moment they aren’t.

 

[Deleted member 7528]

Conservatives have this engrained idea that “law-abiding” and “criminal” are permanent classes of people.

Many people who commit gun violence are law abiding citizens until the moment they aren’t.

This logic is flimsy and unsustainable, of course. Part of living in a free society (a once-shared goal) is that people are free to make choices and then be held responsible for the choices that they make. If we ban all potentially dangerous instrumentalities because of crimes not-yet-committed, then society would grind to a halt. Plenty of things are potentially dangerous, but it is behavior that is the problem. As always, focus on the behavior.

 

[bym051d]

This logic is flimsy and unsustainable, of course. Part of living in a free society (a once-shared goal) is that people are free to make choices and then be held responsible for the choices that they make. If we ban all potentially dangerous instrumentalities because of crimes not-yet-committed, then society would grind to a halt. Plenty of things are potentially dangerous, but it is behavior that is the problem. As always, focus on the behavior.

In the perfect society, that's all well and good.

When firearms enable a previously law abiding citizen to kill 60 people and injure 867 in 10 minutes, we need to reevaluate what is allowed.

The cost of being wrong is too high.

 

[wakelaw13]

Conservatives have this engrained idea that “law-abiding” and “criminal” are permanent classes of people.

Many people who commit gun violence are law abiding citizens until the moment they aren’t.

Yes, his point was exceptionally weak. Efforts should be focused on regulating access to guns. I'm strongly in favor of mandatory psych evaluations, background checks for every purchase, you name it. It should be far more difficult to own a gun.

 

[PhDeac]

And he followed it up with arguing we can’t outlaw things that can be used to do dangerous things because freedom.

 

[Deleted member 7528]

And he followed it up with arguing we can’t outlaw things that can be used to do dangerous things because freedom.

Cars are potentially dangerous. Alcohol is potentially dangerous. Drugs (that your party very much wishes to legalize) are potentially dangerous. Yet society makes cost-benefit analyses on each of the dangers relative to their benefits.

You don't always have to reach for the lazy answer.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

Cars are potentially dangerous. Alcohol is potentially dangerous. Drugs (that your party very much wishes to legalize) are potentially dangerous. Yet society makes cost-benefit analyses on each of the dangers relative to their benefits.

You don't always have to reach for the lazy answer.

we have done the calculations and it's plainly obvious that having guns is super duper dangerous and confers very little benefit to society

 

[bym051d]

Cars are potentially dangerous. Alcohol is potentially dangerous. Drugs (that your party very much wishes to legalize) are potentially dangerous. Yet society makes cost-benefit analyses on each of the dangers relative to their benefits.

You don't always have to reach for the lazy answer.

Drivers are licensed and required to carry insurance because cars are dangerous. I'm ok doing this with firearms too.

Very dangerous drugs are regulated and require a prescription. Also the effects are usually limited to the using party.

 

[bym051d]

we have done the calculations and it's plainly obvious that having guns is super duper dangerous and confers very little benefit to society

And it boils down to the only legitimate answer.

"But I like guns."

 

[BarcaDeac]

This logic is flimsy and unsustainable, of course. Part of living in a free society (a once-shared goal) is that people are free to make choices and then be held responsible for the choices that they make. If we ban all potentially dangerous instrumentalities because of crimes not-yet-committed, then society would grind to a halt. Plenty of things are potentially dangerous, but it is behavior that is the problem. As always, focus on the behavior.

so by this logic, all drugs should be legalized, no?

 

[PhDeac]

Cars are potentially dangerous. Alcohol is potentially dangerous. Drugs (that your party very much wishes to legalize) are potentially dangerous. Yet society makes cost-benefit analyses on each of the dangers relative to their benefits.

You don't always have to reach for the lazy answer.

While giving the lazy answer that is easily refuted by pointing out how much we regulate cars, alcohol, and drugs and how any cost-benefit analysis shows how dangerous guns are relative to little benefit.

 

[Biff Tannen]

 

[deacdiggler]

This logic is flimsy and unsustainable, of course. Part of living in a free society (a once-shared goal) is that people are free to make choices and then be held responsible for the choices that they make. If we ban all potentially dangerous instrumentalities because of crimes not-yet-committed, then society would grind to a halt. Plenty of things are potentially dangerous, but it is behavior that is the problem. As always, focus on the behavior.

Ah yes, how will Americas economy sustain itself if we ban guns?

One option, and I’m just spitballing here, is that we could critically analyze each of these questions independently, rather than your ridiculous “well you’re going to take away my CAR and my BEER so I refuse to give up my GUNS” fallacy.

 

[birdman]

X-TREME TAXIDERMY!

 

[deacdiggler]

Note: I’m a moderate conservative who voted AGAINST Trump because he’s a worthless pile of shit. Would be happy to consider reasonable republicans whenever they resurface…but they need to be reasonable on guns.

 

[Deleted member 7528]

Drivers are licensed and required to carry insurance because cars are dangerous. I'm ok doing this with firearms too.

Very dangerous drugs are regulated and require a prescription. Also the effects are usually limited to the using party.

We also have regulations on firearms. Most RGOs are ok doing this with firearms too.

 

[Deleted member 7528]

Yes, his point was exceptionally weak. Efforts should be focused on regulating access to guns. I'm strongly in favor of mandatory psych evaluations, background checks for every purchase, you name it. It should be far more difficult to own a gun.

Says the guy who became a RGO when leftists rioted in his town last year.

 

[birdman]

Cars are potentially dangerous. Alcohol is potentially dangerous. Drugs (that your party very much wishes to legalize) are potentially dangerous. Yet society makes cost-benefit analyses on each of the dangers relative to their benefits.

You don't always have to reach for the lazy answer.

Speaking of lazy answers....All of those things are highly regulated because of the dangers they present.

 

[deaconson]

We also have regulations on firearms. Most RGOs are ok doing this with firearms too.

I'll go ahead and believe this when their voting habits change to reflect your claim.

 

[Deleted member 7528]

we have done the calculations and it's plainly obvious that having guns is super duper dangerous and confers very little benefit to society

If that were true, why hasn't your party been able to convince a persuadable amount of voters to join them in advancing legislation to this effect? Where is this "we" you are referring to on election day?