Another School Shooting

jt512 said:
I see you have no new arguments and are just going to restate them ignoring my refutations. Yes, some limitations on the right to keep and bear arms have been not been struck down by the SC, at least not yet. Regardless, these laws have not effectively prevented gun violence.
Click to expand...
No. The point is that people are claiming that you can't have gun control laws because of the 2A. This is not true because there already are. There are also laws that seem to restrict the scope of other clauses in the constitution.

Your claim we can't have gun control laws because of the Supreme Court is just an excuse. Change the Supreme Court.

Or so you subjectively perceive. In fact, the probability that anybody is going to get hurt with any particular gun is actually extremely low, so the premiums would be correspondingly low. You are much more likely to injure someone one driving, yet just about everybody who has a car manages to afford car insurance.
Click to expand...
Cars are far more important in people's lives than guns. Many more people own cars than guns and the consequences of most mishaps in cars are fairly minor. With the leading cause of deaths amongst young people now being guns, I think we can question your assertion that "you are much more likely to injure someone one driving".

Insurance isn't going to magically solve the problem but it will put some pressure on the problem leading to some people deciding it is not worth owning guns leading to some downward pressure on deaths.


No, neither you nor a single person in any discussion of this issue I have seen on this website has come up with a single viable solution to the American gun violence problem. Snappy Onion headlines aren't a solution.
Click to expand...
No. It's intended to throw the problem into sharp relief and tells you something about your attitude which is "we can't do anything". You can. You just don't have the will.

I don't have an attitude. Explaining the facts is not an attitude.
Click to expand...

Yes you do.

Here's another snappy sound bite: "the perfect is the enemy of the good". You seem to think that, if a measure doesn't completely solve the gun problem then it's not worth doing. The insurance thing, for example, won't solve your gun problem but it will almost certainly have some positive effect. Not only that, it will transfer some of the financial burden of your horrendous gun problem from the victims to the gun owners.

There is no silver bullet* for this. You should be thinking more in terms of how you can ratchet down the problem little by little.

*sorry, couldn't resist it.
 
jeremyp said:
No. The point is that people are claiming that you can't have gun control laws because of the 2A. This is not true because there already are. There are also laws that seem to restrict the scope of other clauses in the constitution.
Click to expand...


Redundant. Already addressed.

Your claim we can't have gun control laws because of the Supreme Court is just an excuse. Change the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...


I vote for anti-gun Supreme Court justices every chance I get.
 
jeremyp said:
...

Insurance isn't going to magically solve the problem but it will put some pressure on the problem leading to some people deciding it is not worth owning guns leading to some downward pressure on deaths.
Click to expand...

That sounds like you want to make gun ownership more expensive and thus less appealing. Okay, but I have to ask, insurance against what liability?

Someone doesn't go bankrupt every time someone else gets shot, do they? So mandating insurance is looking at the problem from the wrong end. It's only if you create some new legal liability that people will need to insure against it.

If you don't then the market will quickly decide mandatory gun insurance costs a small admin fee plus a penny.
 
Steve said:
But fish are tasty! Trout fresh caught from the water to a pan on an open fire in a couple of hours - nothing ever tasted better.
Click to expand...

You seem to misunderstand the point being made. The argument wasn't about people who actually eat that fish, but about "catch and release" people who don't really get any other benefit from it than torturing a fish a bit and letting it go.

It's akin to if I were to go hunting wabbit, a la Elmer Fudd, except with a BB gun or a paintball gun. I don't want to kill that wascawy wabbit, I just want to give him a right pain in the ass and take a photo. And it might make for some hilarity when I give Bugs Bunny a purple ass, but that's about it. I don't gain a meal or even a trophy out of it. That is why some people object to catch and release.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
You seem to misunderstand the point being made. The argument wasn't about people who actually eat that fish, but about "catch and release" people who don't really get any other benefit from it than torturing a fish a bit and letting it go.

It's akin to if I were to go hunting wabbit, a la Elmer Fudd, except with a BB gun or a paintball gun. I don't want to kill that wascawy wabbit, I just want to give him a right pain in the ass and take a photo. And it might make for some hilarity when I give Bugs Bunny a purple ass, but that's about it. I don't gain a meal or even a trophy out of it. That is why some people object to catch and release.
Click to expand...

I understand that point perfectly. I was responding to the post I quoted, and nothing else.
 
arthwollipot said:
But the point remains. The process for amending those things is just the same as the process for amending the others.

All it takes is for enough people to want it to happen. Admittedly that's a really high bar. But it's possible.
Click to expand...

Maybe I am misreading what you are saying. If you are saying it is possible for us to rid ourselves of the 2A, then yes it’s possible. If however you are saying it is possible to fundamentally change our system of governance and that while difficult it is achievable, then no. You are incorrect. It is possible in the same way that time travel is possible. And it isn’t even desirable.



There is a goal that a significant majority of Americans wish for…..a more accurate interpretation of the second amendment by the courts. That requires zero change to the constitution. There is currently no chance that the wording of the 2A is going to change, and even if that were to happen it wouldn’t represent a change to our system of governance. That would be a change within our system, not a change to our system.

It is obvious that the SCOTUS is wrong about what the 2A says. The achievable change is to the members of the court. Thomas is functionally an idiot and swore revenge against Democrats for his contentious confirmation hearings. Alito is inserting his personal religious beliefs into his decisions. He has said that compromise with ‘the left’ is not possible and that the ‘right’ has to win. These two decide the way they do because it enrages non-Republicans.

The solution to our gun nuttery is owning the White House and senate long enough to replace these two despicable people. That would allow reasonable Federal gun legislation to survive court challenges. Unfortunately while this is by far the easiest solution it is still difficult and would take a generation to achieve.
 
@Steve
Which in turn was about catch and release. But, hey, it would be hypocritical of me to tell others not to take the piss out of context :p
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
Not seeing "catch and release" in Darat's post. But you do so that is fine. Trivially unimportant and I don't give a crap.
Click to expand...

Right. You don't give a crap if it doesn't specifically mention that, right in the message, even if the context is a "catch and release" tangent, and answering a message about that. I'm sorry, but I don't see your mental confusion as unimportant, if you derail a thread with it. I'm sorry, but if you're unable or unwilling to follow what the message was about, even after being told about it, and can't focus your attention on more than exactly one message at a time, not even what it was answering to, that's your failure not mine :p
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Or you know - just not fish at all....
Click to expand...

Maybe we should take this to a new thread?

Humans are omnivores and I like eating fish, which is also extremely healthy food.

On the other hand, I detest fish that's been caught days ago, sat on ice, then transported to be displayed under lights and subject to contamination by humans and other pests.

I like to catch, clean and cook my own fish on the same day. That means that every now and then I catch an alpha breeding male, which I then return to the sea.
 
HansMustermann said:
Right. You don't give a crap if it doesn't specifically mention that, right in the message, even if the context is a "catch and release" tangent, and answering a message about that. I'm sorry, but I don't see your mental confusion as unimportant, if you derail a thread with it. I'm sorry, but if you're unable or unwilling to follow what the message was about, even after being told about it, and can't focus your attention on more than exactly one message at a time, not even what it was answering to, that's your failure not mine :p
Click to expand...

More trivially unimportant drivel that I don't give a crap about. How about you get off my unimportant trivial one-off comment and get back to the topic of the thread. Which is not unimportant or trivial.

Them fresh trout sure fre tasty though.
 
My tip for the best way to avoid being shot at school, if your school is a school of fish, is not to locate it in a barrel.
 
Steve said:
Which is not unimportant or trivial.
Click to expand...

That's funny - I think it's both those things.

Otherwise, something would get done to stop it. As Vance says, it's the price you pay for having guns.

We pay for car speeds being more 40 kmh with a certain number of deaths, USA pays for gun laws with a certain number of school shootings.

No big deal.
 
HansMustermann said:
You seem to misunderstand the point being made. The argument wasn't about people who actually eat that fish, but about "catch and release" people who don't really get any other benefit from it than torturing a fish a bit and letting it go.

It's akin to if I were to go hunting wabbit, a la Elmer Fudd, except with a BB gun or a paintball gun. I don't want to kill that wascawy wabbit, I just want to give him a right pain in the ass and take a photo. And it might make for some hilarity when I give Bugs Bunny a purple ass, but that's about it. I don't gain a meal or even a trophy out of it. That is why some people object to catch and release.
Click to expand...
In Australia if you're not killing that bunny you're doing it very wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom