• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How to frame the gun lobby argument to cut off debate

Skeptic Ginger said:
A poe for sure, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or literal. Except I know your POV on sensible gun regulation.

It's a dumb argument. The line is drawn somewhere, the debate is just on where to draw it.

Nukes? How about we all work toward our own stockpile.
SAMs? So what if they can take down a commercial aircraft? Individuals should have the ability to use them.
RPGs? Grenades? Tanks? If you can afford them, why not?

It's stupid, we are past the era where individuals can be armed so that if they disagree with the government they should have the firepower to take the feds on. It's a Bundy ranch fantasy.
Click to expand...

My point is regardless of how stupid or inappropriate a weapon is for the populous, taking back from them is disarmament.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Gun debate threads are that way >>>>>

This thread is about talking points intended to cut off said debates.
Click to expand...

Framing the use of a gun in self-defense as "playing judge, jury and executioner" I think counts.

Sideroxylon said:
But swimming pools...

A common deflection to avoid addressing gun deaths.
Click to expand...

A common straw-man by the anti-gun side. Swimming pools were originally brought up to illustrate the difference in outrage level not based on numbers but on the cause of accidental death of children.
 
SG...you seem to insinuate that no debate has ever been had due to reasons you attempt to lay out. I dont think that is accurate. The problem is not the discourse IMO, it is simply the lack of a viable solution. I feel if someone had a viable solution, even incrementally, progress could be made.

I still equate the gun debate as a classic ethical dilemma in the form of The Trolley Problem. You seem to be the type of person that will pull the lever to save the 2 people...but guarantee the death of the 1 through your actions.

Not everyone is comfortable in pulling that lever and different people will react differently and will hold various ideas as having a higher importance.

Add to that who might benefit and who might suffer and the moral calculus goes far beyond a simple body count for taking either fork in the road.
 
383LQ4SS said:
Add to that who might benefit and who might suffer and the moral calculus goes far beyond a simple body count for taking either fork in the road.
Click to expand...

Add to that guns are way fun. Even if I never get to kill a bad guy, there's no law (yet) stopping me from fantasizing about killing bad guys. I would really like see some Farood Sya-Sya-sayonara-mother-****** try this at my CHRISTMAS party.
 
383LQ4SS said:
SG...you seem to insinuate that no debate has ever been had due to reasons you attempt to lay out. I dont think that is accurate. The problem is not the discourse IMO, it is simply the lack of a viable solution. I feel if someone had a viable solution, even incrementally, progress could be made.

I still equate the gun debate as a classic ethical dilemma in the form of The Trolley Problem. You seem to be the type of person that will pull the lever to save the 2 people...but guarantee the death of the 1 through your actions.

Not everyone is comfortable in pulling that lever and different people will react differently and will hold various ideas as having a higher importance.

Add to that who might benefit and who might suffer and the moral calculus goes far beyond a simple body count for taking either fork in the road.
Click to expand...
My issue is media literacy. I see the gun lobby push the agenda, "don't talk about gun control."

You are talking about the debate issues. That's fine. So why put out talking points that only serve to cut off debate?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
My issue is media literacy. I see the gun lobby push the agenda, "don't talk about gun control."

You are talking about the debate issues. That's fine. So why put out talking points that only serve to cut off debate?
Click to expand...

Clearly some on the right have an agenda that does not appear to be rational. But I honestly think if there were good viable solutions...those ideas would slice right through any such attempts to stifle the conversation...or even action.

The problem here is that all solutions proposed so far simply outline your side in favor of pulling the lever. Those types of discussions or proposals will never convince those who would not pull the lever. In addition all of these discussions seem to be aimed at a quick fix (pull the lever or not). The discussion may need to be moved towards a longer term goal. How do we keep people off the tracks.
So until a new idea is proposed...the right will continue to shout down the tired old ideas and cries from the anti gun crowd.
 
Last edited:
383LQ4SS said:
Clearly some on the right have an agenda that does not appear to be rational. But I honestly think if there were good viable solutions...those ideas would slice right through any such attempts to stifle the conversation...or even action.
Click to expand...
How can it when the gun lobby marketers are so good at cutting off discussion?

383LQ4SS said:
The problem here is that all solutions proposed so far simply outline your side in favor of pulling the lever. Those types of discussions or proposals will never convince those who would not pull the lever. In addition all of these discussions seem to be aimed at a quick fix (pull the lever or not). The discussion may need to be moved towards a longer term goal. How do we keep people off the tracks.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you mean by "pulling the lever".

No one is talking about quick fixes or magic bullets. People are trying to talk about steps. But for reasons that make no sense except gun lobby profits, certain people want to cut off all discussion. They want to make it black and white, all or none. Regulations no matter how sensible become, "Obama is coming for your guns." A discussion of regulations becomes, "don't talk about gun control, talk about controlling radical Islamic terrorists."
 
WildCat said:
I like to frame it thusly: Agents acting on behalf of a hostile foreign power slaughtered Americans on our own soil, and the Democratic response to this is to disarm Americans of the best available means of defense against such attacks.
Click to expand...

I always wonder, how exactly do you think a massacre like the French one would have played out had the citizens been armed?

I live in a gun control country, so I have no idea.
If you go to a music event where you expect hundreds of others to be dancing to a metal group, do you carry a loaded weapon within easy reach with the safety off?
Do you keep exact track of who is there and what they look like?
Are you ready at a moments notice to drop, draw and start shooting?

Because even if the first one were true, I expect the event to go like this.
1: People are dancing to loud music, but now 10% carries loaded weapons
2: Terrorists come in and open up with automatic weapons without warning.
3: Those carrying weapons that are not immediately killed draw and start looking for people shooting.
4: They see each other AND the terrorists but don't know who is who so friendly fire will occur, hitting even more random innocents.
5: The same amount or more people will die.

In fact, the only time where I can possibly imagine a gun saving you from a criminal would be during a burglary (and even there I imagine the chances of loss of goods going to loss of life increase a lot). Every other time a criminal or terrorist will have the drop on you. Attempting to draw will probably cause a criminal to shoot you, and the terrorist will have shot you before you even realize it is happening.

While the argument that in a gun control country criminals can get guns is of course true, the counter argument that it is a LOT harder and that random joe who wants to start killing tomorrow cannot get guns is never mentioned.
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
Well, disarming somebody needs to be the damn answer, and those pesky law-abiding gun owners are just so easy to find. Let's start with them.
Click to expand...
The same laws that allow people with no intention to commit terrorist acts to get guns, allow people who have an intention to commit terrorist acts to get guns.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
... People are so easily manipulated by these talking points.... But you watch, the GOP talking heads and everyone on Fox News will all soon be echoing the same drivel....
Click to expand...

Oh, dear, somebody weaponized science again, I am afraid. You see, even my own erstwhile profession of linguistics can be misused (link to short abstract). The stuff on the link has been weaponized now, and propaganda is so sophisticated that it's now a Goebbels wet dream come true. The profession also spawned that woo horror, NLP.

The narratives the Republican Party deploys are part of a resource kit shared by the right in the EU and US. I find the same stories ("relatos") embedded and tailored to local condition here in Spain as I read in the US, over and over and over again. I imagine if I paid more attention elsewhere, I'd find it. Russia is getting much better at the game, and so are others.

The US, however, is still #1, numero uno, top dog in one thing. Let us take a moment of silence as Carlin lays out our common doom.
 
Last edited:
Hlafordlaes said:
Oh, dear, somebody weaponized science again, I am afraid. You see, even my own erstwhile profession of linguistics can be misused (link to short abstract). The stuff on the link has been weaponized now, and propaganda is so sophisticated that it's now a Goebbels wet dream come true. The profession also spawned that woo horror, NLP.

The narratives the Republican Party deploys are part of a resource kit shared by the right in the EU and US. I find the same stories ("relatos") embedded and tailored to local condition here in Spain as I read in the US, over and over and over again. I imagine if I paid more attention elsewhere, I'd find it. Russia is getting much better at the game, and so are others.

The US, however, is still #1, numero uno, top dog in one thing. Let us take a moment of silence as Carlin lays out our common doom.
Click to expand...

I'm going to need to see some evidence of manipulation.
 
lionking said:
How do you know? You haven't tried it.

Gun restrictions have worked elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why Chicago, New York, Detroit and Washington DC are among the safest cities in the US surrounded by hot spots of gun ownership like West Virginia, rural Kansas and Arkansas where thousands of people a year are killed by gun violence.

Oh, wait a minute, I have that backwards..... How does gun control work again? :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom