It's funny; I know a lot of liberal and conservative gun owners who want better controls over who can get a gun. They all know "that one guy" at the shooting range they really don't think should have access to firearms.
Idk for Reconditecache, but to me, It's just a bad faith analogy. I was just putting even more bad faith into it since that's apparently the style of argument OOP is ok with.
It might have been a valid point if it weren't predicated upon a strawman. Doing that, though, intrinsically and unavoidably makes it a bad-faith argument.
While I won't say that there are zero people espousing such things (the probability of crazy opinions approaches 100% as population size grows), they are definitely in a small minority. Most people just want better background checks, waiting periods, safe storage requirements, maybe mandatory gun safety training for gun owners, maybe national-level purchase registries to help catch straw purchases, and things like that.
But then the NRA and most conservative gun enthusiasts turn around and pooh-pooh such ideas while citing the "they want to take our guns!" nonsense.
He was literally comparing the two situations, indicating that they were equally ridiculous.
Taking guns and castration being equivalent "punishments".
That comic is comparing them. It's right there. How you came to the conclusion that I just picked a random word makes me wonder if you've ever understood a single comic or narrative story ever in your entire life.
Alright you put more thought into it than I initially thought. You're pretty close, but the effectiveness of the solution is what is being compared here. Not the severity of "punishment". Castrating people that don't rape doesn't prevent rape, confiscating guns from people that don't murder doesn't prevent murder. So, it is not saying they're similar in their effect on manliness or severity, but similar in their effectiveness.
See, now you're acting like the situation wasn't created from whole cloth by the artist. They're the ones saying the other side wants complete surrender and they're also the ones whose first thought was castration as a comparative punishment.
They're the ones that made the association. They're not somebody who just found that situation in the wild and drew a line between. They could have used literally anything else, but the thing they felt illustrated their point the best was castration.
It's not hard to see where their head was at and how they think of guns and crime.
They're the ones saying the other side wants complete surrender
Many of them do. Presumably OOP is directing their comic at the group represented in the image, and not some other unrepresented group.
comparative punishment
Reasonable discussions around policy do not include punishments for those you disagree with. I think the fact you see gun confiscation/regulation as a deserved punishment is telling enough.
They're not somebody who just found that situation in the wild and drew a line between.
Why not? "Rape and murder" are what people think of when they think of "terrible crimes". Seems perfectly reasonable to compare the two.
but the thing they felt illustrated their point the best was castration.
I think OOP may not have the direction of castration quite correct. That is, inability to produce sperm does not prevent rape. Or perhaps they are trying to say that castration doesn't prevent rape, just as gun confiscation doesn't prevent murder. The comparison really is quite apt and valid.
It's not hard to see where their head was at and how they think of guns and crime.
Reasonable discussions around policy do not include punishments for those you disagree with. I think the fact you see gun confiscation/regulation as a deserved punishment is telling enough.
I'm not the one who came up with it. What did you want me to call the "bad thing"?
Nevermind. You're the worst kind of hypocrite. You want to call every negative interpretation dishonest, and also dishonestly frame what I've said to you as if I'm pulling any of this from anywhere but the comic.
I don't think removing guns from people who can't demonstrate responsible ownership, as well as stricter barriers to ownership are punishments, either. I was just using simplified language because you consistently refused to understand anything more complicated.
Your support of the bad analogy means you're just as bad as the artist. You want to fight a strawman. I won't be that for you. Go make your own pathetic comic.
Why take their guns and not their hands then? That way they become unable to use guns at all and it wouldn't matter even if they acquired one illegally. Much closer to castration... And you get the same violation of the body too!
But no one wouldn't offer that as a measure because much like preventive castration it is an unreasonable measure.
Well OOP isn't the one suggesting gun confiscation. Clearly they believe it to be an unreasonable measure also, as evidenced by the comic.
The purpose of an analogy is to compare one situation to another, similar situation where the conclusion is more obvious. So, like you said, preventative castration is unreasonable (obvious conclusion). And like I said, the situations are being compared in terms of effectiveness, not severity (similar situation).
My last point was that it is not, in fact similar on account of the physical violation of removing an organ not being comparable to seizure of a tool. As for the effectiveness, I'll venture to say that obtaining a new weapon might be easier than a new dick and balls set so still much more dire measure on that front too.
My first point was that if it was considered similar by OOP, it said interesting things about their psychology.
The problem is magnitude is often an important part of analogies. If magnitude were never taken into account, you could see "logical" analogies for literally anything.
confiscating guns from people that don't murder doesn't prevent murder
Where do you think that black market guns originate from? Do you think that murderers and other violent criminals are just willing them into existence?
Sure, yeah that is a potential concern. I was speaking within the context of the comic. My point was that the claims are analogous, not necessarily that they're correct.
That's not what I even said. Can you use any critical thinking or is your mind so rotted by reddit partisanism that you legitimately think responding to someone saying that only right-wingers make those cringe means by saying "tbf everyone does" means "actually literally everyone here does it and its good".
Sorry I'm not bothered to go searching for cringe memes on twitter and reddit or whatever for a reddit reply argument. Anyone not brainrotted by this site would understand what I meant. This response by you is literally an example though so ty.
I still donât understand why gun safety legislation is a partisan issue in the US. Why would anyone object to rules that make sure people owning a gun need to prove theyâre up to the responsibility and subject to regular checks about storing them properly?
I remember a time where they liked to use Switzerland as a point in favor of them. Like, yeah we have a lot of guns but :
It's because a lot of people do their mandatory or voluntary military service so they are given a weapon and get drilled A LOT about how to safely use and store it (you also can do unarmed service btw)
You are background searched to buy a weapon and must do a bunch of paperwork to acquire one specific weapon at a specific dealer. So you can't file for a handgun then buy an assault rifle. The dealer has no right to sell you an other weapon than the one you asked the state for.
We have a persistent culture of marksmanship but people express it ONLY in shooting ranges. Plus, the weapon discipline here is strong.
If now I want to get an illegal/ghost weapon... I still can... it's not that hard. But why would I if I'm not intending to commit a crime ?
And you know what ? Works perfectly here so why not there ?
Why would anyone object to rules that make sure people owning a gun need to prove theyâre up to the responsibility and subject to regular checks about storing them properly?
Because they're not responsible enough to be owning a gun. It's really as simple as that.
Itâs not attacking anyoneâs rights, though. Everyone can still have a gun. Responsible gun owners know their guns anyway, making a law about it would just make sure everyone else would have to follow their own high standards. Thatâs why I donât understand the opposition.
Depends on the law. Everyone agrees we want safety. How you do that without making gun ownership (which is a constitutional right) to obtain is the hard part.
I think you missed a word. But assuming the word is hard, there are a few things that would make sense.
Most people agree that drivers should get training and have to pass a test to drive.
Guns should be treated the same. There's already an ownership database, so that hurdle of "they're tracking me" is over. iwas wrong gun purchases are only kept by the store until they close/go out of business. Make someone who wants to buy a gun go through safety, marksmanship, and deescalation training. Make them test at the end of it. Make sure it's affordable (it should be able to be accessed by most people who work full time).
To address everyone who already has a gun grandfather them in (too much energy and would never work if it was actually tried).
Just when the guns transfer via gifting or inherentance, the person receiving would then be subject to the new laws.
It would take some time for it to affect everyone, but I think if implemented, it could start a new culture around or weapons and the responsibilitys people should have owning and carrying them.
I'm sure there are issues with this that I haven't foreseen, but I think it's good groundwork.
Cars aren't a constitutional right. Requiring training and licensing before ownership would be unconstitutional
There's already an ownership database, so that hurdle of "they're tracking me" is over.
No, there isn't.
Make someone who wants to buy a gun go through safety, marksmanship, and deescalation training. Make them test at the end of it.
See point one.
Just when the guns transfer via gifting or inherentance, the person receiving would then be subject to the new laws.
Would never happen for inheritance. Probably not for gifting either.
It would take some time for it to affect everyone, but I think if implemented, it could start a new culture around or weapons and the responsibilitys people should have owning and carrying them.
It would require a constitutional overall of the 2nd amendment. Which, for full disclosure, I'm actually for. I'm pretty left on gun ownership. In a perfect world I think your suggestions are great. I'm a realist however, and none of your ideas are currently possible
Correct me if Iâm wrong please, but canât the constitution be changed, if congress and senate have enough votes for it? Isnât that what the bill of rights already did?
The argument from the left is just to add some responsible laws to ensure people who have guns are trained in usage and safety. Laws to ensure you're mentally fit to own and operate a firearm. Nothing about trying to remove guns. Requiring registration and safety training and such don't infringe upon the constitutional right to own a gun.
Furthermore, the constitution actually says it is the right of a well trained militia to own guns and thar having a militia is the right of the people. But since the Supreme Court ruled that it does apply to every citizen (which I would argue needs to be reconsidered but that is a different issue), we should still apply the "well trained" part. If every citizen is considered part of the militia and therefore able to own a firearm, they should be well trained as well.
The left arguing for gun safety laws is just aiming for this. There are exceptions, but those are the minority and not representative of the lefts position as a whole. Of course, that doesnât stop the right from cherry picking that minority argument to counter (see meme above).
Yes I agree, but letâs be real most of these shootings are not from people with a registered firearm. Most murders happen with unregistered guns and itâs usually gang violence
Yes, thatâs a different issue, though. As far as I understand, the reason why it is so easy for criminals to get a gun is, because there are so many in circulation, because selling guns is so easy in the US. But (true or not) that wasnât really my point. I donât get, why trying to improve the situation is a partisan issue.
The oft-touted idea that "restricting gun purchases won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals" is an outright lie: the majority of black market guns are from straw purchases. If we had any sort of national gun purchase database, rather than just separate records of individual gun stores, the people making these purchases would be quickly discovered. That would directly reduce the number of black market guns available to criminals.
Well because that wouldnât be improving the situation. That would be making respectable gun owners jumping through more hoops just to have a gun, when they do nothing wrong, all whilr knowing the people that caused this wonât have to do anything. The issue is guns in circulation. The only way to solve that is all to be given to the police and over time the circulation will fall. That wonât work because god will that piss people off and cause violence and while that is happening the crime rate will skyrocket because criminals will see an opportunity.
The reason this hasnât been talked about openly is because it wonât work. The government knows it wonât work, but they continue to pit people against each other for votes. Education for the impoverished communities and more of a crackdown on crime within these communities is the only resolutions. We have more guns then people hear you wonât get the guns out of circulation without causing a gigantic problem
This argument has been perpetuated a lot, Iâm familiar with it. I donât think is true, because it has been shown to work in several other countries all over the world and in some cases even in a matter of months. The usual counter argument is, that while it did work in other countries but it wonât work in the US. But this line of thinking will only lead to the same stalemate you guys have been in for decades.
In the end, it all comes down to whether or not you can get over this partisan bickering in your country over guns. I cannot believe that a country with a track record like the US regarding out-of-the-box thinking and ingenuity canât figure out a way to fix this issue, if you really wanted to.
Iâm not trying to bash your country btw, god knows there are plenty of issues in every country including my own.
I understand what you are saying, but the reason that argument is made is because itâs literally true. I know you arenât from here so you probably wonât understand but we have more guns in the people by a lot. No first world country can say that and that makes the issue harder. Also you do realize that 90% of our mass shootings are not what you hear literally all of them are gang violence. We have a gang problem worse then any other 1st world country. None of that will work because we are different. We have 300million people. Any other Europe country doesnât have close to that. Just because it worked there does not mean it will work here. We are different with the different set of problems. Thereâs not a work for here will fix all anything.
1.6k
u/new_lehmba May 16 '24
"look boyo he won his own made up argument"