Nobody stifles gun debate in the non extraordinary times for the gun

[applegrove]

Last edited Tue Feb 27, 2018, 03:09 PM - Edit history (2)

discussion than the NRA. Post something about common sense gun control in any discussion forum and bots will alert the NRA who will show up en masse and try and convince you that if you do not know the details of particular gun you should be quiet. And of course in extraordinary time for discussion of gun control they silence many successfully including the many politicians. But they claim nobody is for free speech like they are. Today Trump folded. And he said the NRA were authentic. And he claimed to be standing up to them. He just parroted what they told him. But then he said he would imagine that he would go in to face a shooter even without a gun and that is all people remember tonight. It is opposite world. Not banning assault rifles to kids will result in more kids dying and Trump has a hand in that because he has the leadership position to do something about it. And it will break him a bit inside each time it happens. And then the NRA will own his soul.

[Straw Man]

1. Who's stifling gun debate here?

Guess what -- I've been a Democrat longer than a lot of people on this board have been alive. I find the insinuation that I'm some kind of NRA stooge both obnoxious and laughable. I've never told anybody to "be quiet," but I won't let outright misrepresentations stand. If you want a particular piece of hardware banned, you need to know what it is and what it does. Otherwise it's just more "guns kill, guns bad" background noise, out of which no consensus or effective policy can ever emerge.

The amount of misinformation and disinformation in these discussions is staggering, yet when I've tried to point it out, I've been told to "Go back to the Gungeon" and/or "Stop peddling NRA talking points." So who's trying to stifle debate? Feel free to be proud of your ignorance, but don't expect me to applaud you for it.

Now, shall we continue that national conversation on gun violence that we're supposed to be having? Or would you rather I just shut up?

[applegrove]

2. Will more kids die because Trump is not banning assault weapons being sold to

people under the age of 21? A simple yes or no will do.

[Straw Man]

3. I don't know, and neither do you.

Let's not pretend we do, OK?

Do you see anything wrong with allowing people to serve and die in the military before they are able to exercise their full rights as citizens? Or are you advocating a 21-year-old minimum for military service as well?

[applegrove]

4. Yes. Kids will die. We have not seen the last of an AR-15 slaughtering

students.

[Straw Man]

5. And you know that the shooters will be under 21 because ...

... your crystal ball told you so?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-gun-age-plan-affected-shootings-53319153

[applegrove]

6. Because it is a trend. That could be stopped. Trump could make background checks

stronger too.

[Straw Man]

7. What trend? Did you read the article?

But an overwhelming number of U.S. mass shooting over the last 50 years were committed by adults older than 21 who would not have been affected by Trump's proposal.

And in nearly all the mass shootings by shooters younger than age of 21, the guns were stolen from relatives or illegally purchased or the shooters were armed with guns not considered assault weapons.

[applegrove]

9. Well I am a fan of an assault weapons ban. Talk about trends the killings went

down when the assault weapons ban came into affect and went up when it was not renewed by Bush.

[Straw Man]

12. Check your facts.

First of all, it was not renewed by Congress, not Bush. The President can't unilaterally legislate.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5946127/ns/politics/t/congress-lets-assault-weapons-ban-expire/

Second, opinions on its efficacy vary widely:

https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2018/feb/23/ted-deutch/did-mass-shootings-increase-200-percent-assault-we/

[applegrove]

13. A president could have led. Trump takes credit for tax reform. Bush could have taken responsibility

the awb.

[Straw Man]

14. He said he would sign it if they re-authorized it.

They didn't.

[Sophia4]

8. I am a musician, and I speak several languages.

I don't expect people with whom I discuss music or languages to understand about time signatures, keys, modulation, or the conjugation of verbs in German or French or Spanish or Italian or the subtleties of slang in any of those languages.

NRA spokespeople who grant the right of free speech only to people who understand the technical language of guns, different kinds of guns, the differences between guns, etc. are actually denying the right of free speech and refusing to talk to normal people.

Most of us don't know the differences between guns. And most of us don't want to know the differences between guns.

We want to be safe. We want our lives to matter more than some stranger's right to possess a gun or guns.

As long as guns are not used to kill people, they are OK. Hunting is popular in many parts of the world, and they don't have an outright epidemic of murders. We do.

But the right of a person to live is more important than the right of another person to possess a gun. As long as deaths due to guns are rare, almost nonexistent, no one will care about guns.

But when we have as many gun deaths as we have had thus far this year, then generally people will, more and more, question whether we need to amend our Constitution to qualify the Second Amendment so that everyone understands specifically which guns if any may be possessed and by which people.

We changed the Constitution -- amended it -- to abolish slavery, to give women the vote, to provide for election of senators and for many, many other reasons.

If guns are used to shoot people as often as they have been so far this year, then more and more people will favor limiting who can possess a gun and what kinds of guns can be possessed by private citizens in the US.

And no one is going to care about the technical differences between this gun and that gun. It's going to be the killing and not the technology that matters.

When we listen to music, only the musicians know the difference between a double sharp and a double flat. Only musicians and music fanatics care about keys and meters and precisely what kind of instrument is being played.

It's the killing that has to end. Just precisely what kind of gun is used in the killing does not matter to the general public.

We want to be free from the killing. We want to be free to live. Our right to live supersedes anyone's right to possess a gun.

[applegrove]

10. I think you can legislate without changing the Constitution. It says "well

regulated militia" in it. Assault weapons ban has already once taken place. There is currently legislation on the books for partial background checks. There are precidents. No need to spoonfed the NRA the fevered dreams they try to push. And thanks for your music analogy.

[Straw Man]

11. And so am I, and so do I.

I don't expect people with whom I discuss music or languages to understand about time signatures, keys, modulation, or the conjugation of verbs in German or French or Spanish or Italian or the subtleties of slang in any of those languages.

But you would certainly expect people who loudly state opinions about time signatures, keys, modulation, conjugation, etc. to have some understanding of them.

NRA spokespeople who grant the right of free speech only to people who understand the technical language of guns, different kinds of guns, the differences between guns, etc. are actually denying the right of free speech and refusing to talk to normal people.

Nobody is denying anybody's "right of free speech." As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. When I see a statement that is based in ignorance and error, I will point out the ignorance and error. Some people interpret that as a denial of free speech, but it is nothing of the kind. It is the exercise of free speech.

And no one is going to care about the technical differences between this gun and that gun. It's going to be the killing and not the technology that matters.

It's the killing that has to end. Just precisely what kind of gun is used in the killing does not matter to the general public.

Right. And killing is illegal. Apparently that prohibition is not working, so you want to limit technology in order to reduce killing. How can you, then, in virtually the same breath, say that the technology doesn't matter? Unless, of course, you want to ban all guns. I think that would be a grave political and ethical mistake.

When we listen to music, only the musicians know the difference between a double sharp and a double flat. Only musicians and music fanatics care about keys and meters and precisely what kind of instrument is being played.

Imagine that you hear a non-musician saying "I hate music with double sharps; it sounds so harsh." This would be an ignorant and unfounded comment, and you would feel that the appropriate response would be to correct that person. Now imagine that the reply you get is "I don't care about all your technical babble -- I just know that I hate double-sharps. Do I have to know all that minutiae to have an opinion about it?" See how that goes?

[HopeAgain]

15. I don't know much about green house gasses

mine safety, pharmaceutical side effects, aviation safety, or many other things that are being regulated. We discuss the concept of regulating those things, and expect our leaders and regulators to hold hearings, listen to experts, and create the regulations.

But since I don't know how fast a bullet travels, how many bullets a clip can hold or how quickly in succession a finger can pull a trigger, I'm told there's nothing we can do about it because "details matter." It IS a tactic to try and shut me up.

I know kids at MSD, and they aren't cynical enough yet to fall for that BS.

[Lee-Lee]

16. But you also dont advocate for specific laws on all those things

How you taken a stand on what the permissible levels or various gasses should be inside a mine in your desire for mine safety? Or what the proper amount of training should be in every subject required annually for a pilot?

The difference between all your examples and what the gun debate is now is that people are mandating specific changes and law in things they don’t really have a clue about, or even what the words they are saying mean.

And when people try to educate them they get mad and make up absurd accusations because we try and correct their “alternative facts” about guns that we are somehow stifling the debate.

[HopeAgain]

18. Educate me all you want

After the lawmakers start agreeing to take this matter up seriously. Don't use your gunsplaining to be an obstacle to moving forward to ban weapons like AR15s. And be honest about whether you want to ban some semiautomatic guns or not.

[Lee-Lee]

17. You dont get to have alternative facts any more than Trump does

So when you try and push for laws using mad eup terms, or make claims that the facts don’t support, or make proposals that are way out there you will get called out just as much as he does when he does it.

If you can’t take utilities demands for a new law based in and on actual facts, then take a few moments to educate yourself first. If you don’t, then don’t get mad when people who actually have knowledge on the subject call you out for ignorance or spouting “alternive facts”.