Church shooting - Sutherland Springs, Texas
- Thread starter thethe
- Start date
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
I'm really not sure what you're angling here. These potential "common sense gun laws" are one strategy of mitigation, but they are neither sufficient on their own nor would they exist in a static future where you just draft legislation and somehow it's relevant and effective forever and always. Even in this hypothetical near-future with "common sense gun laws", a mass-shooting could (and very likely would) happen, and it would be reflective of the fact that more still needs to be done to improve our national institutions and culture—but the need to improve would exist even if we never saw another mass-shooting in this country.
I think you're doing a few things here. First, while I sort of hate this over-used maxim, I think you're making the perfect the enemy of the good. Second, I think you're overly focused on the spectacular (mass-shooting events) and not focused enough on the broader culture of gun-violence in the US (borne out in the statistics). Third, I think you're assuming that suggestions for improvements are being put forward as one-time, cure-all/fix-all proposal, which they clearly aren't, and which—for complex issues like this—largely don't exist. Fourth, I think you're weirdly fixated on what will shorten or silence these debates in the future, which seems an odd policy-goal.
chop2chip
Well-known member
I mean I already answered that exact question which you didn’t care to reply to despite post after post practically begging for a response.
Like I said, you are presupposing the question with the expectation of a rash response.
chop2chip
Well-known member
The debate is rather insignificant in context, no? You don’t pass laws to mitigate debate. You pass laws to improve society. If that means more nonsensical debate then so be it.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I think I see the problem.
sturg33
I
That is not what I said... but you know that.
sturg33
I
Here's what I'm angling.
We will pass more laws to stop this from happening. Then it will happen again because the laws being bandied about wouldn't stop these things from happening.
Then the same people on here will go back to mocking thoughts and prayers, and saying more needs to be done.
So what will the next call be? I suspect the end goal from the left is confiscation - but they won't ever admit that. Just going down the logical path of how we'll eventually get there
sturg33
I
No... trying to make murder illegal across the board.
chop2chip
Well-known member
Maybe, maybe not. I have an open mind about reevaluating the effectiveness of whatever legislation is passed. What I don’t think is a reasonable position is those that cite gun statistics in Chicago and hold it up as a golden retort to any conversation starter regarding reform.
Can’t both sides just make a trade? The Left offers up Roe v. Wade straight up for the second amendment. That seems like a fair compromise for both sides.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
You're falling into the very same fallacy, though: nobody here is suggesting these potential regulations and laws "will stop this from happening", only that it could lessen the frequency and severity of these events when they do happen. So, again, you're beginning from a fallacious pretext when you try to take us "down the logical path", which sort of makes the whole hike fallacious.
sturg33
I
You are not understanding what I'm saying.
I'm not saying that you think that new laws will stop this from happening. I'm saying just the opposite. That the new laws will come, and it will in fact happen again.
So my question is, when that inevitability happens again, what will the call be? For more regulations? Or, nothing - because you don't believe "common sense gun laws" will stop every tragedy"
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
As I said, "common sense gun laws" need to be part of a broader package, and certainly many parts of that won't be achieved all at once, or succeed in their first form. So when the "inevitability happens again", we will continue to review those policy changes and adjudicate their efficacy.
But on another level, you are still not understanding what I'm saying, because you keep asking what "what the call will be" after the next instance, but I'm not talking instance, I'm talking trend. For example, if some "common sense gun laws" are instituted, along with other measures, and the gun deaths in this country are cut in half over the next ten years, "the call will be" something along the lines of "good job" (even accepting that there is always more to do).
