- 1,136
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- Age 30
- The Subway
- Seen Jun 18, 2020
Listen, I have been over this numerous times and have discussed this at length wirh many people over many different walks of life. Fire fighters, Military, Police, Teachers etc.
Most, if not all, seemed to have an amiable position with some well laid facts and interesting ideas. However, when up against just raw facts the FBI comes up like a brick wall.
For the most part people tend to be reasonable and accept the facts that our DOJ, BJS and FBI provide for free and without any motivational bias.
I have sourced many times the exact page of their expanded data table breaking down firearm homicides by type. Rifles are extremely low on the totem pole in regards to deaths.
This table does not break down who actually commits the crime, however, I have posted and sourced the FBI and the BJS who estimate that 80% of all firearm homicides are commited by felons/gang members (both of which are disallowed access to firearms).
Regardless of any popular news handle or headline, shootings such as these *when compared to everyday life and functionality* are extremely rare and extremely difficult to prevent in many instances.
I'm sorry, but I do not agree with the notion that an extremely small percentage group should determine the larger group as a whole.
This is the same logic that 2nd amendment opponents on the left love to use, and have used most recently on the travel ban.
Whether or not you agree with the travel ban I'm sure you've heard it said 'you're more likely to be killed by 'X' than a terrorist' or something along those lines so you shouldn't worry about letting those people in.
Now, I believe I have made my intentions and stance perfectly clear here:
I am all for the 2nd amendment and I am for a certain amount of control (felons: no guns). I do not agree with shootings at all, but in order to influence policy you must utilize facts, data, statistical analysis and other hard truths to justify your positions. I have seen many times where politicians argue without facts on their side.
You'll also notice the sick practice of the 'bandwagon' effect where a certain group will lobby to make themselves more appealing or more popular after an incident involving multiple deaths.
If you argue for the sake of argument and without the numbers, rules, laws and facts at your side you should at least have enough intellectual integrity to note that you will have to find some facts to support your own claims.
Rules and laws aren't made on the backs of emotion and shouldn't be.
The courts should be impartial and I've seen it more often from the left that they appeal to that emotional factor to try and force the laws to change based on what *could* happen and not based on "Here's what is happening and here is what has been happening. Here's a chart".
Now, that's not to say that the right doesn't have it's losers either.
The NRA puts out some really stupid promos that would have been better to just keep quiet. Make no mistake though, the claim of 'they want to take your guns!' is not entirely baseless as we've even broached this topic in this thread multiple times.
There are indeed politicians who would like to take them all with nothing in return.
Both the left and the right have their losers, but in the case of the left they typically show up with polls and not actual cold data. I don't think polls should influence the discussion.
Most, if not all, seemed to have an amiable position with some well laid facts and interesting ideas. However, when up against just raw facts the FBI comes up like a brick wall.
For the most part people tend to be reasonable and accept the facts that our DOJ, BJS and FBI provide for free and without any motivational bias.
I have sourced many times the exact page of their expanded data table breaking down firearm homicides by type. Rifles are extremely low on the totem pole in regards to deaths.
This table does not break down who actually commits the crime, however, I have posted and sourced the FBI and the BJS who estimate that 80% of all firearm homicides are commited by felons/gang members (both of which are disallowed access to firearms).
Regardless of any popular news handle or headline, shootings such as these *when compared to everyday life and functionality* are extremely rare and extremely difficult to prevent in many instances.
I'm sorry, but I do not agree with the notion that an extremely small percentage group should determine the larger group as a whole.
This is the same logic that 2nd amendment opponents on the left love to use, and have used most recently on the travel ban.
Whether or not you agree with the travel ban I'm sure you've heard it said 'you're more likely to be killed by 'X' than a terrorist' or something along those lines so you shouldn't worry about letting those people in.
Now, I believe I have made my intentions and stance perfectly clear here:
I am all for the 2nd amendment and I am for a certain amount of control (felons: no guns). I do not agree with shootings at all, but in order to influence policy you must utilize facts, data, statistical analysis and other hard truths to justify your positions. I have seen many times where politicians argue without facts on their side.
You'll also notice the sick practice of the 'bandwagon' effect where a certain group will lobby to make themselves more appealing or more popular after an incident involving multiple deaths.
If you argue for the sake of argument and without the numbers, rules, laws and facts at your side you should at least have enough intellectual integrity to note that you will have to find some facts to support your own claims.
Rules and laws aren't made on the backs of emotion and shouldn't be.
The courts should be impartial and I've seen it more often from the left that they appeal to that emotional factor to try and force the laws to change based on what *could* happen and not based on "Here's what is happening and here is what has been happening. Here's a chart".
Now, that's not to say that the right doesn't have it's losers either.
The NRA puts out some really stupid promos that would have been better to just keep quiet. Make no mistake though, the claim of 'they want to take your guns!' is not entirely baseless as we've even broached this topic in this thread multiple times.
There are indeed politicians who would like to take them all with nothing in return.
Both the left and the right have their losers, but in the case of the left they typically show up with polls and not actual cold data. I don't think polls should influence the discussion.