You're yet to name someone who proposes doing nothing.
A law is that which confirms with God's standards.
Not that you can quote apparently. Not even after I named his ideas mysteries and routinely called for specifics, any specific idea. Now if you look at my last to Yor you'll see I've set out enough ideas, clearly and often enough that he can list a handful long past my noting them.
And again, when you don't propose an actual change that can be instituted (and miraculous alterations of our national sensibility wouldn't be an example) you're doing nothing about the problem. You're holding the line of the status quo that has led to an increasing level of violence and death.
It isn't a falsehood. You're trying to strain at rhetorical gnats and looking more like an English as second language speaker who can't read beyond the literal. If that's the problem (as opposed to a goofy attempt to side bar for no reaSo again how, specifically, would you combat the problem of mass shooting in the U.S? What particular steps could you take that aren't being taken to safeguard people?
This isn't a conversation about your religious beliefs relating to law. And on the actual point I've set out ideas for laws that should impact mass shootings. Have you any?
Given you don't have an absolute right to every particular weapon we are, following his logic, transitioning to the complete suppression of the right. It's a bonkers notion and every right has some restriction and even Yor doesn't believe in his own point. How do I know that? He tells me so:
That's a limitation on the right, a fetter.
Whatever you call it, if it limits the ownership of weapons it's a fetter, a limitation, a restriction on the right, and a logic problem he doesn't begin to solve within his own position.
But they already have the freedom his ideas allow. You could argue they have more if Yor is actually willing to put himself down under the "no machine gun" idea, which he doesn't endorse directly, but appears to recognize. That wouldn't be giving people more freedom though.
Now he wants to remove all restrictions of law except the above. Now we have bazookas.
And now we have no clear idea what the world would look like with Yor, since it appears he's starting to realize why codes are complex and evolving as other issues come to his mind.
It's your job to know what your opponents are saying.
Therefore, something. :idunno:
Nope.
And I answered.
It sure is. Nobody here proposes doing nothing.
Uphold the law.
Because you say so?
No, it's not.
You seem to be able to figure out that "single mothers" are a large part of "broken homes". Yet, when asked the rhetorical question about how to deal with a black market, you seem to be unable to put two and two together.
I have provided at least one solution, but you don't want to talk about it.
You've never acknowledge the data. And that's because it's obvious a discussion about stopping "mass shootings" is emotional cover for discussing homicide problems that affect people a great deal more.
See? This is rhetoric. It's an emotional trigger based on incomplete, and in this case, wrong information.
People in big cities are afraid to leave their homes because of violent crime, especially at certain parts of the day and in certain areas of a big city. No one is afraid a mass shooting will happen at their event.
Thanks for the acknowledgement. So stop it with the "ban bump stocks and high capacity mags" mags when what you really mean is "No one can own a firearm beyond a breech-loader except for government approved agents and after a psych eval." And beyond that, you can't have any firearm if you commit a felony.
You're using the relatively small emotion-driven event of a mass shooting to restrict the ability of people to defend themselves across the board. And as you admit here, you will always have another statistically insignificant but emotion-driven event wherein you will call for regulations to control the population as a whole even more.
Yeah, I understood the first time I read it. That was the point. To illustrate it; We could sure reduce the cirrhosis rate if we applied prohibition equally across the nation. Don't you care about people with cirrhosis?
You don't understand what "status quo" means. I've proposed changes to gun regulations in big cities to be more like those of rural areas. I've also said we should discuss curbing gangs, black markets, and broken families - instead of gun regulations that other western nations have proven don't change anything.
I do and your initial with me was a fair sum of it, as I noted. Then you went worse than that as I noted.
That sounds considered, but all you actually did was suggest we wipe gun laws off the books in more dangerous areas of the country with larger concentrations of poverty and crime. Or as you put it:
Crime rates have generally fallen everywhere as the Baby Boomers have gotten older. But the rates will be higher where you have greater concentrations of criminals and the poverty that you don't address and that continues to foster the gangs you have no particular solution for...gangs that do contribute to disproportionate human suffering in those areas of the country where a lack of universal gun law contributes to a ready supply of lethality.
Here you say reducing gun restrictions will make us safer but even you don't really believe that, which is why you tried to offset the idea of universal law above and earlier not by suggesting that it wouldn't work, but by suggesting it wouldn't work a radical difference absent harder measures than you saw suggested to that point.You mean single parent families. You think single moms are a root of gun violence...but you don't think poverty plays a role.
lain:Those things? Vague principles and the elimination of some or most law? Yeah, you proposed a whole lot of nothing, Yor. But nothing that would actually make a difference on the topic.
lain:
It's not my notion of what the law is here. It's what the law is here.
Rather, I keep noting that every other Western democracy does a much better job when it comes to protecting their citizens from gun violence and I've suggested we look at their models, which vary, from the UK to Switzerland, in doing a better job of it ourselves.
What ideas have you particularly advanced to impact the problem that you feel I've excluded?
You keep denying ownership of your posts. Why is anyone's guess.
Nope.
No, it isn't.
Literally true. And I can read. So either I was really hoping that no one else here could read or I was doing something that appears to escape you.
No, it's just a point you'd rather attempt to get around this way instead. And I can't blame you. When someone says, "What we need are jet packs in every household!" as a solution to highway fatalities they really need for the discussion to move off that point and to be about something else.
I don't have to. I only have to use the term correctly, which I have.
I'm talking about gun laws here modeled on gun laws in other Western democracies. There's literally no mystery about that and no one should need a clarification on the point.
It wouldn't be sensible to stop and define words that are used properly and within a context that doesn't invite ambiguity. I'd wonder at what someone who attempted that was up to. I'd wonder what someone attempting to get anyone else to do that was up to.
I'm sure you believe that. What I know is that in every country where they're in play incidents of mass shooting and firearm violence are markedly lower than where they aren't, which is here.
You don't like it therefore it doesn't count. Got it.
No, I'm distinguishing between steps that can be taken and flights of fantasy that literally everyone reading understands can't and won't happen. So if you propose striking the laws of the land and...anything past that point is pointless. It's fantasy. It can't and won't be done.
You've compared me to Stalin, and written
For anyone new to the conversation that's how Yor characterizes the deaths from mass shootings. It's how he justifies not actually changing anything. I kid you not.
You should look at Australia and every Western democracy with universal gun laws and dramatically lower rates of those shootings and commiserate deaths and realize how irrational what you just wrote is.
Changing a black market can't and won't happen?
Just like striking down prohibition didn't happen. Oh, wait...
Except for things I propose we change. Plus, my proposals reduce all homicides, whereas Town Heretic wants to create a new group of criminals across the whole country to affect just the red dots.
Except the data says you're wrong. The trend didn't change. There were no dramatically lower rates, in fact there was a spike in homicides when the ban was enacted.
I was speaking to your ditch all the laws and change them to three, get rid of the "situational law" you never would define for me. Changing a black market? What does that even mean? We've been after criminal markets and activity for years, just as we've been after gangs for years and worked to help struggling, single parent households.
That's a bizarre way to attempt a point. Prohibition was the surprising aberration to begin with, a break from tradition. It was immensely unpopular and eventually failed. It was at no point unforseeable or on par with an overhaul of basic legal principle in the nation.
You made no real proposals on the few concrete and possible points you raised, Yor. We must do something about gangs and black markets? We are and have.
Yeah, that's my master plan all right, to create criminals, people who just aren't responsible for their actions in owning or trafficking in illegal goods. [/sarcasm]
The dots he tries to diminish, the things he calls "statistically insignificant" and not the thing for which laws should be enacted are American lives. Thousands of them can be saved by serious, universal gun laws and safety mandates. But not if you listen to Yor.
13 Mass shootings in Australia in the two decades before the laws and four in the twenty plus years since. Zero if you require the death of five to qualify, but four by FBI standards. Pretty dramatic decrease.
I've noted that enacting laws to diminish gun supplies won't immediately and magically work without the process of actually getting the guns and then reducing their availability in replacement over time. And you need to look up extinction events related to behavior modification if you want to understand spikes in unwanted acts prior to the inevitable decline.
Nope.
But it would be right to correct you if you were arrogantly asserting authority on a matter where you have shown yourself to be utterly clueless.
When you ban cars, traffic fatalities drop.
Try responding sensibly to what you've been given. :up: