My thought for the day:

[Lagboltz]

School shootings are horrible events and everyone wants to see them stopped immediately.

The undeniable fact is that for the vast majority of school children their only experience with a mass shooting at school is doing drills and being led to believe by adults that such a situation is much more likely than it actually is. If you want to enact public policy that will actually make a difference it is time to drop the emotional appeals and examine the facts and data surrounding the situation.

Examining facts and data doesn't work. The right wing press always comes back with "now is not the time to talk about gun control." Emotional appeal is the only thing that works. It did in Selma. And in the "Me Too" movement. The kids got the nation's attention. Maybe now something sane can be done.

 

[dogtowner]

Examining facts and data doesn't work. The right wing press always comes back with "now is not the time to talk about gun control." Emotional appeal is the only thing that works. It did in Selma. And in the "Me Too" movement. The kids got the nation's attention. Maybe now something sane can be done.

How is fixing a problem that doesn't exist sane?
This country has real problems impacting large numbers of people but you are fretting over this because a handful of white kids are involved while a generation of black and brown kids are suffering unnoticed.

 

[BigRob]

Examining facts and data doesn't work.

This statement only gets made when the facts and data do not support the conclusion you want to reach.

This is quite literally a textbook example of a logical fallacy:
Appeal to Emotion: Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence

It's not to say the end conclusion is automatically wrong if you make the argument from an illogical angle - but the argument itself is not rational.

The right wing press always comes back with "now is not the time to talk about gun control."

I don't begrudge anyone talking about any issue whenever they decide they want to do so. But the simple fact is that if facts and data overwhelmingly supported the position that doing policy X would have a clear impact then you are in a much better position to win the argument.

Emotional appeal is the only thing that works.

That is true - when you lack the facts and data to make a logically consistent argument.

It did in Selma. And in the "Me Too" movement. The kids got the nation's attention.

I will grant you that things can be emotional catalysts for action - but are you really going to sit here and tell me there is no logical argument that black people should be equal to and have the same rights as white people? You can only make such a case using an appeal to emotion? That is nonsense. The very basis for discrimination in general is an illogical feeling among whoever is enacting the discrimination (ie an emotional argument) that somehow one race is inferior to another. The kids have the nation's attention - but what actual policy proposals come out of that should rightfully be examined and debated on their own merits.

Maybe now something sane can be done.

What you actually mean by this is you hope that your feelings about an issue - which may or may not be actually based in an fact - can be imposed on everyone - without a clue as to what the impact might be.

My point is that if you truly want to enact good public policy it is important to vet these proposals from a factual standpoint, examine the data, figure out what actual impact we expect enacting a policy will have, and then decide from there if we want to enact it or not. For example, let's say you want to argue the merits of banning magazines that hold over 10 rounds. Fine - but saying "think of the children" is not an argument.

 

[Lagboltz]

Your entire post is a logical fallacy: a strawman.
Argumentum ad passiones only applies if you are using that as an argument. I was not. My meaning was that the emotion of the kids brought to the forefront an important issue that has been ignored for some time. The country was already aware of that issue for many years. I don't need any "logical tricks" to bring that out. Gov. Scott in FL already "enacted good public policy" and made some restrictions in the state gun laws. Apparently he was moved to action by the kids.

I was not making an argumentum ad passiones regarding Selma and "MeTo" either. They were obviously also wake-up calls to America.

Of course "think of the children" is not an argument. Maybe you are trying to insult me, but in my eyes you are degrading yourself by stooping to such a condescending strawman.

 

[BigRob]

Your entire post is a logical fallacy: a strawman.
Argumentum ad passiones only applies if you are using that as an argument. I was not. My meaning was that the emotion of the kids brought to the forefront an important issue that has been ignored for some time. The country was already aware of that issue for many years. I don't need any "logical tricks" to bring that out. Gov. Scott in FL already "enacted good public policy" and made some restrictions in the state gun laws. Apparently he was moved to action by the kids.

I was not making an argumentum ad passiones regarding Selma and "MeTo" either. They were obviously also wake-up calls to America.

Of course "think of the children" is not an argument. Maybe you are trying to insult me, but in my eyes you are degrading yourself by stooping to such a condescending strawman.

I'll stand corrected if I misrepresented your statements. I'm not trying to insult you - rather trying to speak generally. I apologize if I came across as insulting as it was not my intent.

But here is a direct quote from one of the "faces" of the movement:

"It just makes me think what sick f***ers out there want to continue to sell more guns, murder more children, and honestly just get reelected. What type of s***y person does that? They could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action, because they all still see these dollar signs.”

Sounds like a sound, logical argument to me!

As for what was done in Florida - we will see the impact of what was passed. What's the evidence that rising the purchase age to 21 will prevent future mass shootings? What's the evidence that a waiting period does? What's the evidence thst arming teachers (also in the Florida bill) will bring about these goals?

Reason Magazine recently published:
"Of the 23 deadliest shootings in modern U.S. history, three (Parkland, Sandy Hook, and Columbine) were perpetrated by killers younger than 21 who used rifles. The Sandy Hook shooter, who was 20, used a Bushmaster XM-15 bought by his mother, so a higher purchase age clearly would not have thwarted him. The Columbine killers, who were both younger than 18 when they started collecting weapons, obtained two shotguns and a Hi-Point 995 carbine through a straw purchase by an acquaintance who was 18. If the purchase age had been 21, they might have found an older straw buyer, or they might have obtained the long guns through an illegal private sale, which is how they acquired an Intratec TEC-DC9 pistol."

Am posting via phone however and will aim to keep this short

 

[Old_Trapper70]

This statement only gets made when the facts and data do not support the conclusion you want to reach.

.

Since Columbine folks like you have used the same sorry "logic", and done nothing. In the meantime kids are getting killed whether it be in the school, or in the home, matters not, they are still dead. People like you supported Republicans, and the NRA, when they cut funding for mental treatment, or when the proposal for mandatory reporting of mental illness was presented. In fact, you have opposed any, and all, common sense proposals for gun control.

You speak of "emotion" yet it is your side that promotes the fear, and paranoia, that guns will be confiscated if any regulations are passed. You then argue the "need" for semi-automatic weapons, another emotion. You want the people to ignore the rulings of the USSC in favor of your illogical desires.

The "facts", and "data" you propose are pure *********. Kids are dying, and thousands of others are committing suicide with firearms, and the truth is you could not care less. As long as you have you precious toys all is fine with you. Another emotion.

 

[BigRob]

Since Columbine folks like you have used the same sorry "logic", and done nothing. In the meantime kids are getting killed whether it be in the school, or in the home, matters not, they are still dead. People like you supported Republicans, and the NRA, when they cut funding for mental treatment, or when the proposal for mandatory reporting of mental illness was presented. In fact, you have opposed any, and all, common sense proposals for gun control.

You speak of "emotion" yet it is your side that promotes the fear, and paranoia, that guns will be confiscated if any regulations are passed. You then argue the "need" for semi-automatic weapons, another emotion. You want the people to ignore the rulings of the USSC in favor of your illogical desires.

The "facts", and "data" you propose are pure *********. Kids are dying, and thousands of others are committing suicide with firearms, and the truth is you could not care less. As long as you have you precious toys all is fine with you. Another emotion.

I'll grant you that the "guns will be confiscated" rhetoric is similar in nature to the "kids are dying" rhetoric - and neither really advances the debate.

That said - your argument here amounts to "kids are dying" and "you don't care". Your premise is absurd, your argument is illogical, and none of your comments here are worth taking seriously.

 

[Lagboltz]

"It just makes me think what sick f***ers out there want to continue to sell more guns, murder more children, and honestly just get reelected. What type of s***y person does that? They could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action, because they all still see these dollar signs.”

Sounds like a sound, logical argument to me!

No, it's not a sound argument, and is representative of a minority. You can expect emotions to run rampant for some people after a mass shooting.

Reason Magazine recently published:
"Of the 23 deadliest shootings in modern U.S. history, three (Parkland, Sandy Hook, and Columbine) were perpetrated by killers younger than 21 who used rifles. The Sandy Hook shooter, who was 20, used a Bushmaster XM-15 bought by his mother, so a higher purchase age clearly would not have thwarted him. The Columbine killers, who were both younger than 18 when they started collecting weapons, obtained two shotguns and a Hi-Point 995 carbine through a straw purchase by an acquaintance who was 18. If the purchase age had been 21, they might have found an older straw buyer, or they might have obtained the long guns through an illegal private sale, which is how they acquired an Intratec TEC-DC9 pistol."

That is a very common counter argument. I would guess that any new gun laws consistent with the second amendment will not eliminate mass shootings. So, arguments that this or that law will not solve the problem is avoiding the problem.

What I think should happen is that gun buyers should licensed like cars. You can't buy a new or used car from a dealer or private transaction without filing registration papers with the government. There is a readily available database of cars and owners so that stolen vehicles can be traced. Just like cars, the laws can't be enforced unless someone is caught without a license. In that case further penalties are in play. As I understand it, there is no computer database for guns; only a very incomplete and awkward paper trail to trace gun ownership. With cars, it is easy to trace interstate ownership.

Of course licensing and registration will not eliminate murder or mass shootings, but it will make it easier to apply further penalties for use of guns in felonies, and cause certain people to think twice about amassing weapons.

 

[dogtowner]

No, it's not a sound argument, and is representative of a minority. You can expect emotions to run rampant for some people after a mass shooting.



That is a very common counter argument. I would guess that any new gun laws consistent with the second amendment will not eliminate mass shootings. So, arguments that this or that law will not solve the problem is avoiding the problem.

What I think should happen is that gun buyers should licensed like cars. You can't buy a new or used car from a dealer or private transaction without filing registration papers with the government. There is a readily available database of cars and owners so that stolen vehicles can be traced. Just like cars, the laws can't be enforced unless someone is caught without a license. In that case further penalties are in play. As I understand it, there is no computer database for guns; only a very incomplete and awkward paper trail to trace gun ownership. With cars, it is easy to trace interstate ownership.

Of course licensing and registration will not eliminate murder or mass shootings, but it will make it easier to apply further penalties for use of guns in felonies, and cause certain people to think twice about amassing weapons.

What's more of a penalty than the one for murder ?

 

[Lagboltz]

What's more of a penalty than the one for murder ?

Guns used in attempted murder, pistol whipping, etc. are not murder, but still are felonies.

 

[dogtowner]

Guns used in attempted murder, pistol whipping, etc. are not murder, but still are felonies.

And are there not already laws pertaining to those ? What further laws are you suggesting ?
And why are they needed ?

 

[Old_Trapper70]

I'll grant you that the "guns will be confiscated" rhetoric is similar in nature to the "kids are dying" rhetoric - and neither really advances the debate.

That said - your argument here amounts to "kids are dying" and "you don't care". Your premise is absurd, your argument is illogical, and none of your comments here are worth taking seriously.

Problem is you have posed no solutions, just more whining about what others have offered.

 

[penderyn]

It seems to me that part of any answer is for the whole civilized world to keep on telling Americans that all this 'freedom' rhetoric about guns is silly fantasy, so as to give more support to the majority of civilized Americans against the killers. The NRA types will call it interference, but it remains a human duty I think, depressing as it is to see apparently likeable people so totally brainwashed. How is any American actually freer than us?

 

[dogtowner]

It seems to me that part of any answer is for the whole civilized world to keep on telling Americans that all this 'freedom' rhetoric about guns is silly fantasy, so as to give more support to the majority of civilized Americans against the killers. The NRA types will call it interference, but it remains a human duty I think, depressing as it is to see apparently likeable people so totally brainwashed. How is any American actually freer than us?

Only 20%.support for your preferred perspective. You may not have noticed but we don't care what the world thinks. That's why we are the top dog.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Only 20%.support for your preferred perspective. You may not have noticed but we don't care what the world thinks. That's why we are the top dog.

You probably have not noticed, but over 60% of the people support stricter gun controls

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...almost-7-in-10-support-stricter-gun-laws-poll

The Politico/Morning Consult poll released Wednesday finds that support for stricter gun laws now sits at 68 percent among registered voters, compared to just 25 percent who say they oppose tightening restrictions.

The poll also revealed wide support for raising the age required to purchase an assault-style weapon to 21. Eighty-two percent of voters said the age to purchase such a weapon should be raised to 21, and 81 percent support all firearm purchases requiring this minimum age.

Support for gun control is also growing among Republicans, pollsters found, with 53 percent of GOP respondents saying they support tougher gun laws, compared to 37 percent who said the same after an Orlando nightclub shooting in 2016.

"Republican support for tougher gun laws is at its highest point since Morning Consult and Politico began tracking the issue," Morning Consult pollster Kyle Dropp told Politico.

Voters are largely pessimistic, however, when it comes to whether Congress will act to address mass shootings. Just 31 percent of voters say there is a "good" or "excellent" chance that Congress addresses gun laws this year, while another 27 percent said there was a "fair" chance Congress would address the issue. Thirty-two percent said the chances Congress passes stricter gun laws are "poor."