*

Offline Ghost Spaghetti

  • *
  • Posts: 857
  • Don't look in that mirror. It's absolutely furious
    • View Profile
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2017, 08:23:52 AM »
The shooter was an old white guy.
I'm relieved.  Now a minority group can't be blamed.

If you do a search for "suicide bomber" you get a new incident almost every week. Also, you're a pretty shitty person for using this as political ammo.

Out of curiosity, why? When someone is hit and killed on a dangerous stretch of road, the family is usually one of the first people using the tragedy to try to improve the safety of that stretch of road. Following the 1968 Ronan Point gas explosion, building regulations were changed so that high-rise residential buildings could not have gas feeds. Following the recent Grenfell Tower fire in London, there has been a push to investigate all similar tower blocks for similar faults.

Why is using this, or any shooting, as an argument for a change in the law considered to be in 'bad taste'? Politicians aren't professional mourners, their job is to review the legislation to make people's lives better, if a mass-shooting gives the topic the attention and political drive to implement a change in the law to prevent future shootings, then they should take advantage of it. What that change looks like, or whether any change is needed is, of course, up for debate, but trying to shut down that debate out of some sort of bizarre fixation with 'taste' seems like a pretty shitty excuse to not do your job.

Changes to the fundamental rights of a population based on emotional reactions to tragedies typically aren't the best kind of changes.

It doesn't have to be an emotional reaction. There are plenty of logical arguments based on statistics and probability on both sides of the debate, but they never get much attention beyond people who passionately care one way or the other until something like this happens. I'm not suggesting that we leave legislation to hysterical Helen Lovejoy-types, but when the national media has shone a spotlight on the subject, and there are people who are impassioned enough to lobby their legislators and turn up to protests, then politicians who want to make a positive change (whatever that looks like) should be free to make the most of this situation without being accused of being 'a shitty person'

The Road Traffic Act 1934 was brought into effect in the UK following mass public outcry over a record number of casualties on Britain's roads. It reintroduced a speed limit, made tests compulsory, and included a number of other clauses which still inform British driving legislation today. In fact, reading about the battles underlying the Act, it's easy to see the similarities with America's gun control debate:

On the side of motor car controls, the Pedestrians' Association argued that busy main routes were, roads of ‘blood and tears’ because of the number of accidents.

On the side against controls, a Conservative MP railed against the pleas about 7,000 people a year dying on the roads by saying: "'Why such concern over 7,000 road deaths a year? More than 6,000 people commit suicide every year, and nobody makes a fuss about that."

Change only comes when people have an emotional investment in making it, insisting that we never talk about gun control or changes to legislation following a mass-shooting out of 'decency' or 'taste' is really just an effort to shut down the debate entirely.

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1153
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #21 on: October 12, 2017, 11:14:36 AM »

Not changing the fundamental rights of a population (to kill each other) based on the needs of gun manufacturers profit margins and good old boy sentiments, despite the mounting tragedies, typically are the best kind of (non)changes.

Fixed that!
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

No one infers a god from the simple, from the known, from what is understood, but from the complex, the unknown, and the incomprehensible. Our ignorance is God; what we know is science. Robert Green Ingersoll

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5803
  • Videmus Omnia
    • View Profile
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #22 on: October 12, 2017, 11:17:14 PM »
It doesn't have to be an emotional reaction. There are plenty of logical arguments based on statistics and probability on both sides of the debate, but they never get much attention beyond people who passionately care one way or the other until something like this happens. I'm not suggesting that we leave legislation to hysterical Helen Lovejoy-types, but when the national media has shone a spotlight on the subject, and there are people who are impassioned enough to lobby their legislators and turn up to protests, then politicians who want to make a positive change (whatever that looks like) should be free to make the most of this situation without being accused of being 'a shitty person'

The Road Traffic Act 1934 was brought into effect in the UK following mass public outcry over a record number of casualties on Britain's roads. It reintroduced a speed limit, made tests compulsory, and included a number of other clauses which still inform British driving legislation today. In fact, reading about the battles underlying the Act, it's easy to see the similarities with America's gun control debate:

On the side of motor car controls, the Pedestrians' Association argued that busy main routes were, roads of ‘blood and tears’ because of the number of accidents.

On the side against controls, a Conservative MP railed against the pleas about 7,000 people a year dying on the roads by saying: "'Why such concern over 7,000 road deaths a year? More than 6,000 people commit suicide every year, and nobody makes a fuss about that."

Change only comes when people have an emotional investment in making it, insisting that we never talk about gun control or changes to legislation following a mass-shooting out of 'decency' or 'taste' is really just an effort to shut down the debate entirely.

This debate isn't as simple as adding some traffic tests or other measures. Owning weapons is a fundamental right in the United States, and is specifically stated to be so in a Constitutional amendment, while something like driving, as far as I know, is not considered to be a fundamental right in any nation.

The key here is that after something like this happens, certain politicians move in to use the emotional capital to pass legislation that limits the rights of people. I see gun control as no different than, say, demanding all of your citizens wear a camera at all times to prevent crime. The price of removing rights is always higher than some little added security.


Not changing the fundamental rights of a population (to kill each other) based on the needs of gun manufacturers profit margins and good old boy sentiments, despite the mounting tragedies, typically are the best kind of (non)changes.

Fixed that!

Gun manufacturers profit margins wouldn't be terribly affected by a consumer gun ban, since their biggest customer has been is will always be governments around the world. Many European countries might have distaste for our gun policy, but that distaste disappears when they order our weapons en masse for their own purposes.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 11:19:58 PM by Rushy »

*

Offline Ghost Spaghetti

  • *
  • Posts: 857
  • Don't look in that mirror. It's absolutely furious
    • View Profile
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #23 on: October 13, 2017, 08:18:20 AM »
Quote
This debate isn't as simple as adding some traffic tests or other measures. Owning weapons is a fundamental right in the United States, and is specifically stated to be so in a Constitutional amendment, while something like driving, as far as I know, is not considered to be a fundamental right in any nation.

It was when the laws were being debated in the early 20th century. There's a great quote from a Conservative MP who essentially said that any kind of traffic laws were a fundamental attack of an Englishman's right to go where and how he likes.

Quote
The key here is that after something like this happens, certain politicians move in to use the emotional capital to pass legislation that limits the rights of people. I see gun control as no different than, say, demanding all of your citizens wear a camera at all times to prevent crime. The price of removing rights is always higher than some little added security.

And I'd agree with you about not making people wear cameras, but if, following some horrific crime, a politician tried to use public anger and fear to push his 'All Cameras All the Time' policy, I would expect that people like you and I would argue the follies of that policy and debate it down. I would have little respect for the argument that even proposing the policy is in some way in poor taste.

As I said, I'm not taking a position on gun control or traffic regulation in this thread, I'm simply making the argument that trying to shut the debate down on etiquette grounds is really disingenuous.

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1153
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #24 on: October 13, 2017, 08:51:15 AM »


Not changing the fundamental rights of a population (to kill each other) based on the needs of gun manufacturers profit margins and good old boy sentiments, despite the mounting tragedies, typically are the best kind of (non)changes.

Fixed that!

Gun manufacturers profit margins wouldn't be terribly affected by a consumer gun ban, since their biggest customer has been is will always be governments around the world. Many European countries might have distaste for our gun policy, but that distaste disappears when they order our weapons en masse for their own purposes.

You underestimate your addiction!

Number of firearms manufactured in the US in 2013 (for instance), 10,847,792. Number of those guns that stayed in the domestic market (US), 10,413,880, only about 4% exported. Of all the small arms the UK armed forces have, most are made either in the UK, Europe or in Canada the only US ones are sniper rifles.
 
The NSSF reports that the domestic firearms industry (US) is worth $42.9 billion, however the cost of fatal and non-fatal gun violence to the U.S, is estimated at $229 billion due to your retarded health system.

That is why serious gun control will never happen, not only will it cost the gun makers but all the attendants to its effects would suffer too. Quite a little industry, sell killing and maiming machines to the masses and call it freedom, and then build another billion-dollar industry to benefit from the carnage.

Edit; 2013 US exported small arms = $1.1 billion, Imports $2.5 billion, what Rushy not checking his figures again, surely not.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 09:21:15 AM by Jura-Glenlivet »
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

No one infers a god from the simple, from the known, from what is understood, but from the complex, the unknown, and the incomprehensible. Our ignorance is God; what we know is science. Robert Green Ingersoll

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5803
  • Videmus Omnia
    • View Profile
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2017, 02:47:32 PM »
You underestimate your addiction!

Number of firearms manufactured in the US in 2013 (for instance), 10,847,792. Number of those guns that stayed in the domestic market (US), 10,413,880, only about 4% exported. Of all the small arms the UK armed forces have, most are made either in the UK, Europe or in Canada the only US ones are sniper rifles.
 
The NSSF reports that the domestic firearms industry (US) is worth $42.9 billion, however the cost of fatal and non-fatal gun violence to the U.S, is estimated at $229 billion due to your retarded health system.

That is why serious gun control will never happen, not only will it cost the gun makers but all the attendants to its effects would suffer too. Quite a little industry, sell killing and maiming machines to the masses and call it freedom, and then build another billion-dollar industry to benefit from the carnage.

Edit; 2013 US exported small arms = $1.1 billion, Imports $2.5 billion, what Rushy not checking his figures again, surely not.

I was wrong. I was thinking of the weapons industry as a whole, instead of only looking at the numbers for small arms.

It was when the laws were being debated in the early 20th century. There's a great quote from a Conservative MP who essentially said that any kind of traffic laws were a fundamental attack of an Englishman's right to go where and how he likes.

The difference, again, being that "to go where and how he likes" is not a fundamental right.

And I'd agree with you about not making people wear cameras, but if, following some horrific crime, a politician tried to use public anger and fear to push his 'All Cameras All the Time' policy, I would expect that people like you and I would argue the follies of that policy and debate it down. I would have little respect for the argument that even proposing the policy is in some way in poor taste.

As I said, I'm not taking a position on gun control or traffic regulation in this thread, I'm simply making the argument that trying to shut the debate down on etiquette grounds is really disingenuous.

I can agree with that.

*

Offline Ghost Spaghetti

  • *
  • Posts: 857
  • Don't look in that mirror. It's absolutely furious
    • View Profile
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #26 on: October 16, 2017, 08:24:50 AM »
Quote
The difference, again, being that "to go where and how he likes" is not a fundamental right.

In the early twentieth century, it was. Apart from military bases and the like, an Englishman would have expected to go wherever they liked however they liked. There are even ancient rights of way which give you the right to walk over another man's land, so long as people have been doing that walk for long enough.

Quote
I can agree with that.

Glad we could agree.