|
|
Post by mancraider on May 20, 2018 13:43:32 GMT -5
It’s hilarious how no one on this forum can talk about political issues without insulting someone they disagree with. Are you even a real person? You act like an NRA twitter bot that's escaped. There is no debate going on here. It's just you circling the wagons and defending your right to have a gun. Making out that anyone that doesn't agree with you is intolerant and abusive towards you and not intelligent enough to debate you. If you want to feel clever and convince yourself you've won something here then go ahead. 👏👏👏 |
|
|
|
Post by funhouse on May 20, 2018 13:43:47 GMT -5
It’s hilarious how no one on this forum can talk about political issues without insulting someone they disagree with. Did you find my response insulting? |
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on May 20, 2018 13:48:39 GMT -5
It’s hilarious how no one on this forum can talk about political issues without insulting someone they disagree with. Did you find my response insulting? Yes I did, you’re saying I’m acting like an NRA bot. I haven’t done anything but ask people why they feel so anti-gun, and I get called a troll. I just want to know why you and the others here feel this way, and then I respond with I how I feel. But it seems like if you’re not anti-gun on this forum you’ll just be made fun of, so it makes this place seem like a joke |
|
|
|
Post by funhouse on May 20, 2018 13:54:30 GMT -5
Did you find my response insulting? Yes I did, you’re saying I’m acting like an NRA bot. Guess you mixed me up with the guy whose post was just above mine? |
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on May 20, 2018 13:55:23 GMT -5
Yes I did, you’re saying I’m acting like an NRA bot. Guess you mixed me up with the guy whose post was just above mine? My bad, you guys have the same avatar |
|
|
|
Post by Flashbax on May 20, 2018 14:02:00 GMT -5
I'm not really pro- or anti-gun. I don't really know what to think of it. I only think that it's sad that all those innocent kids died. I read this somewhere and I thought it was interesting:
'Prior to the Brady Bill in 1993, anyone could waltz into a gun store and buy a gun, in cash, no background check, no questions asked. Yet massacres with guns were exceedingly rare.
So instead of shrieking about how easy it is to get guns, maybe we should ask ourselves "what has changed since then?"
We've raised an entire generation of grown-up children, coddled them, told them their feelings are all that matter and that "try your best" was good enough. It's an entire generation with no coping skills, no mental maturity, who've never heard "no" and never had to overcome any real adversity. Then the left praises fatherless parenting as "strong and empowered," rather than "sad and pathetic," insists that we cant discipline our kids, and pumps them full of mood-altering drugs when they stop being the perfect little conformist angels we want (basically, when they act human.) Then we wonder why those kids lash out violently?'
|
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on May 20, 2018 14:05:00 GMT -5
I'm not really pro- or anti-gun. I don't really know what to think of it. I only think that it's sad that all those innocent kids died. I read this somewhere and I thought it was interesting: 'Prior to the Brady Bill in 1993, anyone could waltz into a gun store and buy a gun, in cash, no background check, no questions asked. Yet massacres with guns were exceedingly rare.So instead of shrieking about how easy it is to get guns, maybe we should ask ourselves "what has changed since then?"We've raised an entire generation of grown-up children, coddled them, told them their feelings are all that matter and that "try your best" was good enough. It's an entire generation with no coping skills, no mental maturity, who've never heard "no" and never had to overcome any real adversity. Then the left praises fatherless parenting as "strong and empowered," rather than "sad and pathetic," insists that we cant discipline our kids, and pumps them full of mood-altering drugs when they stop being the perfect little conformist angels we want (basically, when they act human.) Then we wonder why those kids lash out violently?'I agree with a lot of what was said in that quote. Be prepared for people to jump down your throat for suggesting it's more than just a gun issue |
|
|
|
Post by funhouse on May 20, 2018 14:19:19 GMT -5
I'm not really pro- or anti-gun. I don't really know what to think of it. I only think that it's sad that all those innocent kids died. I read this somewhere and I thought it was interesting: 'Prior to the Brady Bill in 1993, anyone could waltz into a gun store and buy a gun, in cash, no background check, no questions asked. Yet massacres with guns were exceedingly rare.So instead of shrieking about how easy it is to get guns, maybe we should ask ourselves "what has changed since then?"We've raised an entire generation of grown-up children, coddled them, told them their feelings are all that matter and that "try your best" was good enough. It's an entire generation with no coping skills, no mental maturity, who've never heard "no" and never had to overcome any real adversity. Then the left praises fatherless parenting as "strong and empowered," rather than "sad and pathetic," insists that we cant discipline our kids, and pumps them full of mood-altering drugs when they stop being the perfect little conformist angels we want (basically, when they act human.) Then we wonder why those kids lash out violently?'I agree with a lot of what was said in that quote. Be prepared for people to jump down your throat for suggesting it's more than just a gun issue There are often many reasons why a person would reach the point where killing innocent people seems like a good idea. I don't think anyone is ignoring this. But the issue at hand is how to in the best way prevent these people from purchasing a gun, and in a worst case scenario killing innocent people with it. Can't we care about both issues at the same time? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2018 14:21:24 GMT -5
It’s hilarious how no one on this forum can talk about political issues without insulting someone they disagree with. I'd be surprised if there was a debate about gun control that didn't have insults. Whether these laws are implemented or not will affect whether certain people live or die, and so imo it's justified for people to get worked up about it, therefore it's likely that insults will get thrown. Most of the insults here seem to arise from frustration of each side not being able to get the other side to at least see where they're coming from and acknowledge their point of view. As I've said before on some other topic, people often don't change their opinions in online political debates from what I've seen. As a result, a person is often seen to have 'won' an argument/debate if the other person merely acknowledges the other person's viewpoint as being a valid opinion. This leads to the usual boring impasse where both sides adhere to their original opinion as strongly as possible without ceding any ground under any circumstances -- which achieves nothing positive imo. In this scenario, I think it mostly boils down to a balance between how much independence/how many liberties a person would like to grant to the state in return for the safety + security that the state can offer back. Where people stand on that line depends massively on what they're accustomed to, their upbringing, ideologies, etc., and so personally I cba to get into any debate about it*, when it just reduces to a clash in fundamentals (which I guess goes some way to explaining the frustration and insults on this thread) Btw, I agree with you re:generalising in that it is to be avoided, so would personally avoid saying stuff like "no one on this forum can talk about political issues without insulting someone they disagree with." when I guess you've only had political conversation with maximum a few dozen people on this forum out of the ~35,000 members.  I have seen political conversation on here that hasn't devolved into insults, but that usually only happens when both sides can see where the other side is coming from and both are willing to cede ground. *cba to debate atm also because I've got revision, exams..... Probably a better excuse. |
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on May 20, 2018 14:22:56 GMT -5
I agree with a lot of what was said in that quote. Be prepared for people to jump down your throat for suggesting it's more than just a gun issue There are often many reasons why a person would reach the point where killing innocent people seems like a good idea. I don't think anyone is ignoring this. But the issue at hand is how to in the best way prevent these people from purchasing a gun, and in a worst case scenario killing innocent people with it. Can't we care about both issues at the same time? My issue is with the large amounts of people who believe this is the only way to solve this problem. And I don’t believe it will help much, because will find other ways to kill people. In Europe, people run over crowds of people with cars all the time, and stabbings are becoming a crisis. I can’t quite understand that people will ignore the obvious issues here and instead focus on the firearms used. |
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on May 20, 2018 14:25:12 GMT -5
It’s hilarious how no one on this forum can talk about political issues without insulting someone they disagree with. I'd be surprised if there was a debate about gun control that didn't have insults. Whether these laws are implemented or not will affect whether certain people live or die, and so imo it's justified for people to get worked up about it, therefore it's likely that insults will get thrown. Most of the insults here seem to arise from frustration of each side not being able to get the other side to at least see where they're coming from and acknowledge their point of view. As I've said before on some other topic, people often don't change their opinions in online political debates from what I've seen. As a result, a person is often seen to have 'won' an argument/debate if the other person merely acknowledges the other person's viewpoint as being a valid opinion. This leads to the usual boring impasse where both sides adhere to their original opinion as strongly as possible without ceding any ground under any circumstances -- which achieves nothing positive imo. In this scenario, I think it mostly boils down to a balance between how much independence/how many liberties a person would like to grant to the state in return for the safety + security that the state can offer back. Where people stand on that line depends massively on what they're accustomed to, their upbringing, ideologies, etc., and so personally I cba to get into any debate about it*, when it just reduces to a clash in fundamentals (which I guess goes some way to explaining the frustration and insults on this thread) Btw, I agree with you re:generalising in that it is to be avoided, so would personally avoid saying stuff like "no one on this forum can talk about political issues without insulting someone they disagree with." when I guess you've only had political conversation with maximum a few dozen people on this forum out of the ~35,000 members. I have seen political conversation on here that hasn't devolved into insults, but that usually only happens when both sides can see where the other side is coming from and both are willing to cede ground. *cba to debate atm also because I've got revision, exams..... Probably a better excuse.If you can’t talk about an issue without constantly getting worked up and insulting people, you need to work on yourself. I can’t believe you would excuse behavior like that just because the issue is prevalent right now |
|
|
|
Post by mancraider on May 20, 2018 14:28:34 GMT -5
Guess you mixed me up with the guy whose post was just above mine? My bad, you guys have the same avatar That was me. Hardly insult of the year, more a critique of your debating method which is to play the reasonable victim of bullies who won't listen to your arguments. You asked for opinions,people gave them and you don't agree so you want to keep arguing for what? Whatever your thoughts over this they aren't going to be changed by strangers on a music forum. |
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on May 20, 2018 14:30:14 GMT -5
My bad, you guys have the same avatar That was me. Hardly insult of the year, more a critique of your debating method which is to play the reasonable victim of bullies who won't listen to your arguments. You asked for opinions,people gave them and you don't agree so you want to keep arguing for what? Whatever your thoughts over this they aren't going to be changed by strangers on a music forum. But I’m interested in debates like these and just asked simple questions, which garnered unnecessary hate towards me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2018 14:36:15 GMT -5
I'd be surprised if there was a debate about gun control that didn't have insults. Whether these laws are implemented or not will affect whether certain people live or die, and so imo it's justified for people to get worked up about it, therefore it's likely that insults will get thrown. Most of the insults here seem to arise from frustration of each side not being able to get the other side to at least see where they're coming from and acknowledge their point of view. As I've said before on some other topic, people often don't change their opinions in online political debates from what I've seen. As a result, a person is often seen to have 'won' an argument/debate if the other person merely acknowledges the other person's viewpoint as being a valid opinion. This leads to the usual boring impasse where both sides adhere to their original opinion as strongly as possible without ceding any ground under any circumstances -- which achieves nothing positive imo. In this scenario, I think it mostly boils down to a balance between how much independence/how many liberties a person would like to grant to the state in return for the safety + security that the state can offer back. Where people stand on that line depends massively on what they're accustomed to, their upbringing, ideologies, etc., and so personally I cba to get into any debate about it*, when it just reduces to a clash in fundamentals (which I guess goes some way to explaining the frustration and insults on this thread) Btw, I agree with you re:generalising in that it is to be avoided, so would personally avoid saying stuff like "no one on this forum can talk about political issues without insulting someone they disagree with." when I guess you've only had political conversation with maximum a few dozen people on this forum out of the ~35,000 members. I have seen political conversation on here that hasn't devolved into insults, but that usually only happens when both sides can see where the other side is coming from and both are willing to cede ground. *cba to debate atm also because I've got revision, exams..... Probably a better excuse.If you can’t talk about an issue without constantly getting worked up and insulting people, you need to work on yourself. I can’t believe you would excuse behaviour like that just because the issue is prevalent right now I excuse the behaviour because often if one person in a debate is understanding of the other side and doesn't add fuel to the flames, then that often tends to reduce the number of insults on both sides and leads to a more constructive debate focussed on the facts. I feel that putting the onus on myself to understand where people are coming from and why they behave in a certain way is much more productive for myself than just expecting everyone else to 'work on themselves', to paraphrase what you were saying. |
|
|
|
Post by funhouse on May 20, 2018 14:42:15 GMT -5
There are often many reasons why a person would reach the point where killing innocent people seems like a good idea. I don't think anyone is ignoring this. But the issue at hand is how to in the best way prevent these people from purchasing a gun, and in a worst case scenario killing innocent people with it. Can't we care about both issues at the same time? My issue is with the large amounts of people who believe this is the only way to solve this problem. And I don’t believe it will help much, because will find other ways to kill people. In Europe, people run over crowds of people with cars all the time, and stabbings are becoming a crisis. I can’t quite understand that people will ignore the obvious issues here and instead focus on the firearms used. But even those people saying that would probably agree that we should also care about mental health. And to their point, I think some sort of gun reform would be the most urgent issue to take care of right now. People would still get killed, but not as many. At least I can't think of such a scenario. And then it would be rather strange to not enforce it just because it wouldn't 100% end mass shootings. Every potentially saved life is a victory. And I guess that's also my point when it comes to the argument about other weapons they would use instead. Yes, knives kill people, but not as many as a gun, not if we're talking about one person committing the act. This isn't a way to trivialise knife violence, it's just a fact. The Las Vegas shooter could kill about 50 people from his window, he would never have reached that amount with a knife, not in a thousand years. If he wouldn't have had a gun(and especially that type of gun which no civilian should be able to buy), he might have bought a knife instead, trying to kill someone with it. That would be awful. But it's still a better scenario than if he had a gun. |
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on May 20, 2018 15:22:51 GMT -5
My issue is with the large amounts of people who believe this is the only way to solve this problem. And I don’t believe it will help much, because will find other ways to kill people. In Europe, people run over crowds of people with cars all the time, and stabbings are becoming a crisis. I can’t quite understand that people will ignore the obvious issues here and instead focus on the firearms used. But even those people saying that would probably agree that we should also care about mental health. And to their point, I think some sort of gun reform would be the most urgent issue to take care of right now. People would still get killed, but not as many. At least I can't think of such a scenario. And then it would be rather strange to not enforce it just because it wouldn't 100% end mass shootings. Every potentially saved life is a victory. And I guess that's also my point when it comes to the argument about other weapons they would use instead. Yes, knives kill people, but not as many as a gun, not if we're talking about one person committing the act. This isn't a way to trivialise knife violence, it's just a fact. The Las Vegas shooter could kill about 50 people from his window, he would never have reached that amount with a knife, not in a thousand years. If he wouldn't have had a gun(and especially that type of gun which no civilian should be able to buy), he might have bought a knife instead, trying to kill someone with it. That would be awful. But it's still a better scenario than if he had a gun. I've never really heard any solid ideas in regards to stricter gun laws. Do you have any ideas on what we should do? |
|
|
|
Post by funhouse on May 20, 2018 15:34:15 GMT -5
But even those people saying that would probably agree that we should also care about mental health. And to their point, I think some sort of gun reform would be the most urgent issue to take care of right now. People would still get killed, but not as many. At least I can't think of such a scenario. And then it would be rather strange to not enforce it just because it wouldn't 100% end mass shootings. Every potentially saved life is a victory. And I guess that's also my point when it comes to the argument about other weapons they would use instead. Yes, knives kill people, but not as many as a gun, not if we're talking about one person committing the act. This isn't a way to trivialise knife violence, it's just a fact. The Las Vegas shooter could kill about 50 people from his window, he would never have reached that amount with a knife, not in a thousand years. If he wouldn't have had a gun(and especially that type of gun which no civilian should be able to buy), he might have bought a knife instead, trying to kill someone with it. That would be awful. But it's still a better scenario than if he had a gun. I've never really heard any solid ideas in regards to stricter gun laws. Do you have any ideas on what we should do? Really? Ok, from the top of my head: Proper background checks which would stop clearly mentally ill people from (legally)purchasing guns. And no gun shops should be able to sell(for example) assault rifles. Those are military weapons, you don't need it for hunting, you don't need it to protect yourself. Those two would be a good way to start, I think. |
|
|
|
Post by eva on May 20, 2018 15:36:34 GMT -5
But even those people saying that would probably agree that we should also care about mental health. And to their point, I think some sort of gun reform would be the most urgent issue to take care of right now. People would still get killed, but not as many. At least I can't think of such a scenario. And then it would be rather strange to not enforce it just because it wouldn't 100% end mass shootings. Every potentially saved life is a victory. And I guess that's also my point when it comes to the argument about other weapons they would use instead. Yes, knives kill people, but not as many as a gun, not if we're talking about one person committing the act. This isn't a way to trivialise knife violence, it's just a fact. The Las Vegas shooter could kill about 50 people from his window, he would never have reached that amount with a knife, not in a thousand years. If he wouldn't have had a gun(and especially that type of gun which no civilian should be able to buy), he might have bought a knife instead, trying to kill someone with it. That would be awful. But it's still a better scenario than if he had a gun. I've never really heard any solid ideas in regards to stricter gun laws. Do you have any ideas on what we should do? it's been mentioned repeatedly, and not only in this thread. First step: don't let a regular person buy an automatic weapon. why the hell would anyone buy that other than to kill several people in a few seconds? doesn't that raise any alarms? Second step, background checks. Mental issues More ideas: don't sell weapons at a grocery store. that's fucked up Don't let kids handle weapons etc etc there are plenty of ideas where to start to avoid killing more innocent people and especially kids at school, where they should be learning stuff instead of being worried someone will enter at any minute and start shooting everyone |
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on May 20, 2018 15:52:40 GMT -5
I've never really heard any solid ideas in regards to stricter gun laws. Do you have any ideas on what we should do? Really? Ok, from the top of my head: Proper background checks which would stop clearly mentally ill people from (legally)purchasing guns. And no gun shops should be able to sell(for example) assault rifles. Those are military weapons, you don't need it for hunting, you don't need it to protect yourself. Those two would be a good way to start, I think. Why shouldn’t someone be allowed to on assault rifles? I’m not being antagonistic, what if someone likes collecting those kinds of guns? And what do you mean by “proper” background checks? We already have back ground checks, what else should change? |
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on May 20, 2018 15:55:12 GMT -5
I've never really heard any solid ideas in regards to stricter gun laws. Do you have any ideas on what we should do? it's been mentioned repeatedly, and not only in this thread. First step: don't let a regular person buy an automatic weapon. why the hell would anyone buy that other than to kill several people in a few seconds? doesn't that raise any alarms? Second step, background checks. Mental issues More ideas: don't sell weapons at a grocery store. that's fucked up Don't let kids handle weapons etc etc there are plenty of ideas where to start to avoid killing more innocent people and especially kids at school, where they should be learning stuff instead of being worried someone will enter at any minute and start shooting everyone I’m just shocked you didn’t insult me and actually answered my question. How can we make background checks different form how they are now? And like I asked the other person, why can’t someone own an assault rifle? What if they pass the background checks, can they still not own these kinds of weapons? A pistol will still murder someone, so with your line of thinking, shouldn’t all guns be banned? |
|
|
|
Post by eva on May 20, 2018 16:01:18 GMT -5
it's been mentioned repeatedly, and not only in this thread. First step: don't let a regular person buy an automatic weapon. why the hell would anyone buy that other than to kill several people in a few seconds? doesn't that raise any alarms? Second step, background checks. Mental issues More ideas: don't sell weapons at a grocery store. that's fucked up Don't let kids handle weapons etc etc there are plenty of ideas where to start to avoid killing more innocent people and especially kids at school, where they should be learning stuff instead of being worried someone will enter at any minute and start shooting everyone I’m just shocked you didn’t insult me and actually answered my question. How can we make background checks different form how they are now? And like I asked the other person, why can’t someone own an assault rifle? What if they pass the background checks, can they still not own these kinds of weapons? A pistol will still murder someone, so with your line of thinking, shouldn’t all guns be banned? when did I insult you? |
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on May 20, 2018 16:07:27 GMT -5
I’m just shocked you didn’t insult me and actually answered my question. How can we make background checks different form how they are now? And like I asked the other person, why can’t someone own an assault rifle? What if they pass the background checks, can they still not own these kinds of weapons? A pistol will still murder someone, so with your line of thinking, shouldn’t all guns be banned? when did I insult you? You insulted some Americans and their pro-gun views after I asked you what you thought was wrong with that video you posted of the child playing with the gun. I was surprised you didn’t insult me as well just for asking you the question. |
|
|
|
Post by funhouse on May 20, 2018 16:09:12 GMT -5
Really? Ok, from the top of my head: Proper background checks which would stop clearly mentally ill people from (legally)purchasing guns. And no gun shops should be able to sell(for example) assault rifles. Those are military weapons, you don't need it for hunting, you don't need it to protect yourself. Those two would be a good way to start, I think. Why shouldn’t someone be allowed to on assault rifles? I’m not being antagonistic, what if someone likes collecting those kinds of guns? And what do you mean by “proper” background checks? We already have back ground checks, what else should change? Because it is a gun designed to kill as many people as possible. I can't find any reasonable argument defending a civilian's right to own such a weapon. Those background checks are extremely flawed. For example people on the terrorist watch list are allowed to buy guns. I'm not kidding. |
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on May 20, 2018 16:12:11 GMT -5
Why shouldn’t someone be allowed to on assault rifles? I’m not being antagonistic, what if someone likes collecting those kinds of guns? And what do you mean by “proper” background checks? We already have back ground checks, what else should change? Because it is a gun designed to kill as many people as possible. I can't find any reasonable argument defending a civilian's right to own such a weapon. Those background checks are extremely flawed. For example people on the terrorist watch list are allowed to buy guns. I'm not kidding. So do you agree that all civilians with assault weapons should either turn their weapons in or have them taken away? |
|
|
|
Post by eva on May 20, 2018 16:15:12 GMT -5
You insulted some Americans and their pro-gun views after I asked you what you thought was wrong with that video you posted of the child playing with the gun. I was surprised you didn’t insult me as well just for asking you the question. you think that's insulting?? ok is this reply also insulting? because you assume I insult you with every reply |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5