Gun control

chaos · Jan 17, 2013

Tuco_sl said:
There's some hypocrisy there, but yes, protecting the President's kids and wife is a top national priority.

How do you figure that it is hypocritical? Did the President ever come out and say that kids can get fucked and he hopes they all die in mass shootings or something? Did he work to limit armed guards/cops in schools around the country? I see people saying something something hypocrisy but I just don't get it.

Sulrn · Jan 17, 2013

Simas_sl said:
Reading comprehension is consistently a problem here. How does

equal "armed guards do not provide safety from gun violence" in your head?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2483118.html

Actually, there are no issues with reading comprehension (at least for myself). That's why I came in arguing over the point of whether a line of thought was hypocritical or not, which it is. If you want to kill the (admittedly weak - hence trying to remain general in home/family defense)point, you should have pointed out the mobilization of federal funds specifically for school nurses and armed guards/police for schools.

To clarify, yes I think the NRA is utterly ridiculous in their ad targeting and quite certainly going down the wrong road for a solution. However, they are right that as an individual, his/their (Obama/Legislators) ability to comment (for or against) is compromised by the fact that he doesn't have a dog in the fight either way - which is hypocrisy when you're perceived as being against.

Sulrn · Jan 17, 2013

TPDDODD_sl said:
Arguing about the particulars of the President's family situation is fruitless. Although technically one man, he is actually akin to an institution: the presidency. Comparisons and comments should take this into account. Replace any discussion that involves him with the term the presidency and see if your point is still worth pursuing.

It isn't really the point to argue the president in particular - it's that the people making/pushing laws are often removed from the effects of the laws they are intending to pass. Whether you're talking armed guards in schools (President/NRA) or Ammo Capacity / AWB (Federal/State Congress) It all comes down to a large group of people that don't know(for the most part) about what they're talking about out of fear of a minority (supposedly) instead of incorporating (outside of lip service) the concerns of the safe majority.

chaos · Jan 17, 2013

Again, how is it hypocritical? At what point did the President work against armed guards or police protection in schools? Or even speak against these ideas? Where does this shit come from?

Numbers_sl · Jan 17, 2013

Apparently some people don't know what hypocritical means chaos.

Sulrn · Jan 17, 2013

chaos_sl said:
Again, how is it hypocritical? At what point did the President work against armed guards or police protection in schools? Or even speak against these ideas? Where does this shit come from?

Skeptical = hesitant, not fully committed. Lends perception that he is not really pro protection via armed guards based off his quote. In reality it doesn't mean anything at all. In politically correct America it potentially means one of three things:

1. I'm dickless and can't directly support this measure.
2. I'm dickless and can't directly oppose this measure.
3. I am skeptical towards this measure and think there are other measures to be explored.

The NRA went with the perception of #2 - while no one really knows the answer to what he really meant.

Going with line 2, read above arguments about how it is hypocritical.

Arbiter · Jan 17, 2013

Jaded_sl said:
I'm not going to jump in on either side but yeah if they come for your guns there will be a war sure... a short one sided war with the goverment winning. I'd like to see how all these deer rifles, handguns and semi-auto assault weapons handle against Bradleys, Tanks and fully trained miltray soldiers.

Itd be a fairly short war.

This statement from you assumes that our military personnel and our various state police entities will be just good little boys and girls and do everything they can to dismantle any insurrection they may encounter in our states, just because little obama says to do it.

No matter what particular administrative leaders may say in support of obama, the rank and file personnel on the ground will not just easily begin firing on their countrymen, or taking their guns.

chaos · Jan 17, 2013

Sulrn_sl said:
Skeptical = hesitant, not fully committed. Lends perception that he is not really pro protection via armed guards based off his quote. In reality it doesn't mean anything at all. In politically correct America it potentially means one of three things:

1. I'm dickless and can't directly support this measure.
2. I'm dickless and can't directly oppose this measure.
3. I am skeptical towards this measure and think there are other measures to be explored.

The NRA went with the perception of #2 - while no one really knows the answer to what he really meant.

Going with line 2, read above arguments about how it is hypocritical.

What quote? The one where he said "more guns in schools isn't the only answer" or the one where he actually called for more armed guards in schools? Damn the NRA, they have an agenda so I know why they are full of shit. You just said that it was hypocritical, so did Tuco. Based on what? He has never given an indication that he does NOT support guards in schools, backed up by the fact that more guards in schools was part of his goddamn plan he unveiled yesterday.

I'm with MagicNumbers here, I don't think people understand what the word means.

Sulrn · Jan 17, 2013

chaos_sl said:
What quote? The one where he said "more guns in schools isn't the only answer" or the one where he actually called for more armed guards in schools? Damn the NRA, they have an agenda so I know why they are full of shit. You just said that it was hypocritical, so did Tuco. Based on what? He has never given an indication that he does NOT support guards in schools, backed up by the fact that more guards in schools was part of his goddamn plan he unveiled yesterday.

Huffington Post_sl said:
But the president largely dismissed the NRA's suggestion of stationing armed guards at every school. "I am not going to prejudge the recommendations that are given to me," he said. "I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools, and I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem. And, look, here's the bottom line. We're not going to get this done unless the American people decide it's important."

The line of thought from the NRA based off the above quote = The President is skeptical? Bah.The President isn't behind armed guards. The president is a hypocrite. How can he sway the perception of citizens and law makers against proper measures that his own kids have provided for them?

Coming from that line of thought, it is indeed hypocritical based off the definition I've already provided above and from the argument I've provided above.

I think you're confusing my arguing the NRA's POV and how Obama is hypocritical from it with me arguing the facts as they stand today and whether or not he is a hypocrite. I've already mentioned above the federal release of funds and how weak the argument is from the particular POV.

The argument I make for hypocrisy ends on 12/30/12 (based off the source article time stamp). However, the point that President/Legislators credibility in regards to gun law very much stands.

chaos · Jan 17, 2013

Sulrn_sl said:
The line of thought from the NRA based off the above quote = The President is skeptical? Bah.The President isn't behind armed guards. The president is a hypocrite. How can he sway the perception of citizens and law makers against proper measures that his own kids have provided for them?

Coming from that line of thought, it is indeed hypocritical based off the definition I've already provided above and from the argument I've provided above.

I think you're confusing my arguing the NRA's POV and how Obama is hypocritical from it with me arguing the facts as they stand today and whether or not he is a hypocrite. I've already mentioned above the federal release of funds and how weak the argument is from the particular POV.

The argument I make for hypocrisy ends on 12/30/12 (based off the source article time stamp). However, the point that President/Legislators credibility in regards to gun law very much stands.

It didn't seem like you were arguing another point of view, you pointedly said that you think the President is acting hypocritically in this instance. The NRA is being purposely deceptive by twisting that quote to meet their agenda. Taken at face value, it does not give a measure of the President's support for any particular stance.

There is no hypocrisy. Sure, legislators are often removed from issues they are legislating. That isn't hypocrisy. Not that it doesn't exist in our Congress and even within the Obama administration. But on this point, it is just a bunch of bullshit.

Sulrn · Jan 17, 2013

Sulrn_sl said:
hypocrisy [h?'p?kr?s?]
n pl -sies
1. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc., contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour, esp the pretence of virtue and piety
2. an act or instance of this

He (or they if you're talking some of our legislators) believes that armed guards do not provide safety from gun violence. He has armed guards that protect him and his family from the threat of violence that (most likely) involves guns. Sounds contrary, mate.

Is the point I assume you're referring to. This is utilizing the NRA pov.

Sulrn_sl said:
Actually, there are no issues with reading comprehension (at least for myself). That's why I came in arguing over the point of whether a line of thought was hypocritical or not, which it is. If you want to kill the (admittedly weak - hence trying to remain general in home/family defense)point, you should have pointed out the mobilization of federal funds specifically for school nurses and armed guards/police for schools.

To clarify, yes I think the NRA is utterly ridiculous in their ad targeting and quite certainly going down the wrong road for a solution. However, they are right that as an individual, his/their (Obama/Legislators) ability to comment (for or against) is compromised by the fact that he doesn't have a dog in the fight either way - which is hypocrisy when you're perceived as being against.

Sulrn_sl said:
It isn't really the point to argue the president in particular - it's that the people making/pushing laws are often removed from the effects of the laws they are intending to pass. Whether you're talking armed guards in schools (President/NRA) or Ammo Capacity / AWB (Federal/State Congress) It all comes down to a large group of people that don't know(for the most part) about what they're talking about out of fear of a minority (supposedly) instead of incorporating (outside of lip service) the concerns of the safe majority.

Is what I think you should reread. Outside of the NRA pov, no hypocrisy is mentioned.

Kruel_sl · Jan 17, 2013

I believe we need to address mental health and private firearm sales. As a gun "collector" I do not think the answer is to put a ban on a "style" of rifle. The answer is making a mandate for professionals that have patients with violent tendencies or have made threats while talking to the mental health professional to be denied a firearm of any sort. As a country we can say "no" to someone who has been reported as mentally unfit to have a firearm. Nobody would know other than the doctor and patient so they are not being publicly shamed or put on display. We need to address mental health not "the black gun". I also do not see the need for a 100rd magazine. Although again I wouldnt ban this unless we have already addressed mental health. As far as private sales: I dont think anyone would argue that a private sale should go through a FFL.

Aychamo BanBan · Jan 17, 2013

How long until a doctor is sued because some kid shoots himself because the parents left the guns out, but the doctor doesn't have documented that there is a gun in the house and that its locked up. Or doesn't have documented that there isn't a gun in the house (an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!)

chaos · Jan 17, 2013

Sulrn_sl said:
Is the point I assume you're referring to. This is utilizing the NRA pov.

Is what I think you should reread. Outside of the NRA pov, no hypocrisy is mentioned.

Whatever, if you were arguing a pov you don't even agree with, that is weird, but whatever.

But the hypocrisy part I still do not buy. Congress votes on all kinds of things that they may have strong views on while being simultaneously removed from it. That isn't hypocrisy in itself.

fanaskin · Jan 17, 2013

aychamo_aycono_sl said:
How long until a doctor is sued because some kid shoots himself because the parents left the guns out, but the doctor doesn't have documented that there is a gun in the house and that its locked up. Or doesn't have documented that there isn't a gun in the house (an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!)

You are on to something, this legislation is about setting up little by little a police state. Doctors are now gonna be watching for who has guns and dutifully put you on a list somewhere, coincidently they also will have the ability to declare people insane and strip people of their rights, Many doctors who wouldnt go along with this setup would be compelled to because of the legal implications you very aptly figured out.

ZyyzYzzy · Jan 17, 2013

I wonder how long into a conversation with fanaskin a doctor would have to get before deciding he is unfit forgun ownership. Then again if he was having mental health issues he could gargle some H2O2 and be cured.

Soysauceonrice_sl · Jan 17, 2013

Sulrn_sl said:
Actually, there are no issues with reading comprehension (at least for myself). That's why I came in arguing over the point of whether a line of thought was hypocritical or not, which it is. If you want to kill the (admittedly weak - hence trying to remain general in home/family defense)point, you should have pointed out the mobilization of federal funds specifically for school nurses and armed guards/police for schools.

To clarify, yes I think the NRA is utterly ridiculous in their ad targeting and quite certainly going down the wrong road for a solution. However, they are right that as an individual, his/their (Obama/Legislators) ability to comment (for or against) is compromised by the fact that he doesn't have a dog in the fight either way - which is hypocrisy when you're perceived as being against.

This is a really ... really really stupid statement. That's like saying Congress' ability to comment on and pass disaster relief for hurricane Sandy makes them hypocrites because their houses personally have not been leveled by a Hurricane. No where is it written that Congress or the president have to have a "dog in the fight", as you so suggest, to pass legislation that influences their constituency. That doesn't make them a hypocrite.

I like how you back-peddle and claim that Obama isn't a hypocrite at all and is only a hypocrite when you adopt the NRA view, whatever that means. If you were paying attention, the NRA's one size fits all solution was just to stick more guns in schools. Good guys with guns = solution to bad guys with guns, in every single case. I actually support the idea of guards and police in school, but this is all the NRA contends is needed.

The president's quote from that interview was his response to this assertion, in which he stated he wasskeptical that putting more guns in school is the ONLY answer, as the NRA suggests.

And if you actually, you know, READ the WH's recommendation, you will see such choice quotes such as :

White House_sl said:
Putting school resource officers and mental health professionals in schools can help prevent school
crime and student-on-student violence. School resource officers are specially trained police officers
that work in schools.When equipped with proper training and supported by evidence-based school
discipline policies, they can deter crime with their presence and advance community policing
objectives.

and

White House_sl said:
Each school is different and should
have the flexibility to address its most pressing needs. Some schools will want trained and armed
police; others may prefer increased counseling services.Either way, each district should be able to
choose what is best to protect its own students.

So where exactly does Obama say that he doesn't believe in armed guards in school ? Where does he say that his kids can have an armed guard, and your kids can't ? How does any of this make him a hypocrite ?

Source.

Sulrn · Jan 17, 2013

1. It's not backpedaling if it's your stance from the start. If I failed to adequately to bold, underline, italicize, or color coordinate my posts for easy reading and separation of lines of thought. I apologize and promise to do so for you from here on out.

2. As I pointed out to Chaos, the hypocrisy argument was restrained to a limited frame which I've previously carved out. Refer to point one.

3.You're absolutely right that it is extremely stupid to believe that not having a dog in a fight makes you a hypocrite as it is not always the case. Your example of Sandy aid is also wholly different beast. Refer to point two.

4.I've read the article, watched the interview, and heard it ad nausea over air. As previously stated multiple times, I entered the argument expressly to:
argue from particular POV (the NRA's interpretation of Obama's comments prior to Jan 1) and to throw my hat in the pot that it is grossly negligent and irresponsible of Obama or our Legislators to write/press for gun laws that most are ill-educated to even discuss intelligently - especially so when they ignore or do not allow informed/knowledgeable individuals to participate in the discussion.

opiate82 · Jan 17, 2013

Jaded_sl said:
I'm not going to jump in on either side but yeah if they come for your guns there will be a war sure... a short one sided war with the goverment winning. I'd like to see how all these deer rifles, handguns and semi-auto assault weapons handle against Bradleys, Tanks and fully trained miltray soldiers.

Itd be a fairly short war.

Confiscation will never ever be feasible.

They say that there are 80 million gun owners in America. I personally think that number is low for a few reasons. The majority of gun owners I know, when contacted for a phone survey and asked if they own guns, will become suspicious and simply lie...

But for the sake of math, let?s say that there are only 80 million gun owners, and let?s say that the government decides to round up all those pesky guns once and for all. Let?s be generous and say that 90% of the gun owners don?t really believe in the 2nd Amendment, and their guns are just for duck hunting. Which is what politicians keep telling us, but is actually rather hilarious when you think about how the most commonly sold guns in America are the same detachable magazine semiautomatic rifles I talked about earlier.

So ten percent refuse to turn their guns in. That is 8 million instantaneous felons. Let?s say that 90% of them are not wanting to comply out of sheer stubbornness. Let?s be super generous and say that 90% of them would still just roll over and turn their guns when pressed or legally threatened. That leaves 800,000 Americans who are not turning their guns in, no matter what. To put that in perspective there are only about 700,000 police officers in the whole country.

Let?s say that these hypothetical 10% of 10% are willing to actually fight to keep their guns. Even if my hypothetical estimate of 800,000 gun nuts willing to fight for their guns is correct, it is still 97% higher than the number of insurgents we faced at any one time in Iraq, a country about the size of Texas.

electromancer · Jan 17, 2013

Most people I know who have guns have a couple that are untraceable.

Gun control

Buzzfeed Editor

Deuces

Deuces

Buzzfeed Editor

shitlord

Deuces

Pelvic Sorcerer

Buzzfeed Editor

Deuces

Buzzfeed Editor

Deuces

shitlord

Buzzfeed Editor

Well known agitator

RIP USA

shitlord

Deuces

Bronze Squire

Trakanon Raider