The Appealment Of the 2nd Amendment

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I... don’t get your point. As that didn’t answer my question. You linked me to a comedian describing what we already know happened in American history.

I asked what specific aspects they have more credibility/validity in.

I feel like I asked “what color is the ball” and you answered “bowling ball”. Kinda strange. Please explain so I can get your point.

Originally posted by NemeBro
This is an apples to oranges comparison. The Japanese-American internment camps were an action directly perpetuated by the government, the other an act committed by a disturbed individual. The idea that the government shouldn't detain its citizens with no evidence is, frankly, a much more simple one than the idea of preventing mass shootings through better gun legislation. As such it is much easier to support, and the experiences of the survivors and how they suffered under the actions of their own government is much more relevant than the experience of a bunch of kids surviving an active shooter situation. See, all those kids can really emphasize is how horrible an mass shooting situation is with their experiences. Which... pretty much no one openly disagrees with. By comparison, the Japanese-Americans were detained by the government, which is to say that it was openly endorsed and even perpetuated by the US.

The government does not openly endorse of perpetuate school shootings my friend. The comparison is not valid.

Perhaps it wasn't the best example, after all.

The point I was trying to make was that the survivors' experiences should not dictate the argument, but perhaps should define it. The survivors of massacres like Las Vegas and Parkland witnessed the amount of death and the severity of terror and carnage caused by a gunman armed with a semi-automatic rifle in such a short period of time. Their experiences should carry more weight in the gun control debate than an armchair quarterback's opinions about what should have been done and how severe the incident actually was, which goes on a lot after tragedies like this.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Perhaps it wasn't the best example, after all.

The point I was trying to make was that the survivors' experiences should not dictate the argument, but perhaps should define it. The survivors of massacres like Las Vegas and Parkland witnessed the amount of death and the severity of terror and carnage caused by a gunman armed with a semi-automatic rifle in such a short period of time. Their experiences should carry more weight in the gun control debate than an armchair quarterback's opinions about what should have been done and how severe the incident actually was, which goes on a lot after tragedies like this.

Look, I get where you’re coming from. And maybe I know where the disconnect in the positions on both sides may be coming from as well. I 100% agree that the experiences of victims should carry value. Now if you would indulge me for a minute, I’m going to try bridge this gap and see if I can come up with logic that can perhaps be found more acceptable for either side.

As I mentioned above, I 100% agree that the experiences of the victims should carry value. But I think the mistake is placing this value on the wrong elements of the debate.

Victims do not gain technical expertise simply from the virtue of victimhood.
They do not suddenly gain negotiating skills that way as well.
They also do not gain broad knowledge on the intricacies of the issue (I would argue that their emotional connection would give them tunnel vision).
They also (more likely than not) do not have a balanced view of the issue.

What victims have is the sense of the urgency of the problem weighed against their own experiences.

If I missed anyhing, please feel free to correct me as I am not an expert on the issue. I, just like most any of us here, am a layman from outside looking in.

What this gives victims is the ability to bring attention to an issue. To prove that the problem exists and that there is a need to come up with solutions to the problem asap.

However, what being a victim does not automatically give them is the expertise to know exactly what this solution is. These things tend to be complex issues with fair points from either sides of the debate. And for us to come up with fair solutions we need to be able to see things from both sides.

I would actually argue that their emotionally traumatic connection to the issue makes them perhaps the worst “authority” that may be consulted on the matter as they would have a biased view.

Laws should be based off of facts, surviving violence does not give you special knowledge on what will and what will not work. Just like surviving a heart attack does not magically turn you into a heart surgeon.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Perhaps it wasn't the best example, after all.

The point I was trying to make was that the survivors' experiences should not dictate the argument, but perhaps should define it. The survivors of massacres like Las Vegas and Parkland witnessed the amount of death and the severity of terror and carnage caused by a gunman armed with a semi-automatic rifle in such a short period of time. Their experiences should carry more weight in the gun control debate than an armchair quarterback's opinions about what should have been done and how severe the incident actually was, which goes on a lot after tragedies like this.

If this is the measure of expertise you are looking for then the best people to talk about gun control would be combat veterans that were shot at in constant situations of "massacres."

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Perhaps it wasn't the best example, after all.

The point I was trying to make was that the survivors' experiences should not dictate the argument, but perhaps should define it. The survivors of massacres like Las Vegas and Parkland witnessed the amount of death and the severity of terror and carnage caused by a gunman armed with a semi-automatic rifle in such a short period of time. Their experiences should carry more weight in the gun control debate than an armchair quarterback's opinions about what should have been done and how severe the incident actually was, which goes on a lot after tragedies like this.

Nah, their experiences do not carry more weight. Especially when they use said experiences to lie, bully, and strip others of their rights. Tell you what:

YouTube video

Go to around 8:00. Watch the shit that comes out of this kids mouth. You seriously gonna say this persons words should carry more weight?

Originally posted by snowdragon
If this is the measure of expertise you are looking for then the best people to talk about gun control would be combat veterans that were shot at in constant situations of "massacres."

Get that logic the f*ck out of here.

Trump is a danger to the USA. He's Hitler! So we should disarm law abiding US citizens because a few lunatics shoot up schools, offices and churches. No guns = no violence. Look how well disarming law abiding citizens worked in the past. There were no mass political killings in the Russian or Chinese Communist revolutions, or in Nazi Germany. 🙂

Originally posted by Hillary2020
Trump is a danger to the USA. He's Hitler! So we should disarm law abiding US citizens because a few lunatics shoot up schools, offices and churches. No guns = no violence. Look how well disarming law abiding citizens worked in the past. There were no mass political killings in the Russian or Chinese Communist revolutions, or in Nazi Germany. 🙂

I really don’t know if you’re trolling, or are you being serious.

Can't you do both at the same time?

I hear its up to 14 advertisers now and Ingraham is going on 'vacation' next week.

They are doing this to a women. Leftist Approved Sexism is a thing now.

But then Nepy doesn't give a shit about that.

Because He is a .....HORRIBLE Person.

I don't think you quite get what equality means, bro.....

Real Equality for YOUR Type of "equality"?

Originally posted by Nephthys
I hear its up to 14 advertisers now and Ingraham is going on 'vacation' next week.

The "vacation" has zero to do with David Hogg or any advertisers. Not saying you said it did, just thought I'd make that clear either way. Laura is not going anywhere.

And as a liberal you no doubt find the calls to boycott her pathetic as hell, right?

This guy wants Hogg's hog. 😘

Originally posted by Nephthys
The way I see it, its easy for a sociopath like Silent Master or even most politicians to just ignore mass shootings because they don't affect them. They're things that happen to other people so they don't trigger any kind of empathetic response. Someone who's actually lived through it however knows the real impact they have. They've lost people they know. They've seen the consequences first hand. They have a true perspective on the issue that gives their voices weight. Their opinion is far more informed than a worm like SM who knows technical details about guns but not what the actual consequences are like.

Idol was bang on with the 9/11 connection. Try and tell me a 9/11 survivor would get this kind of response.

It is almost like the have an entire set of experiential knowledge that only people who have lived through a mass shooting share.

Living through a heart attack doesn't make someone an expert on heart disease.

The way I see it, its easy for a sociopath like Silent Master or even most politicians to just ignore mass shootings because they don't affect them. They're things that happen to other people so they don't trigger any kind of empathetic response. Someone who's actually lived through it however knows the real impact they have. They've lost people they know. They've seen the consequences first hand.

It's almost AS IF you want to disregard folks in the military that have experienced this sort of activity many times in a month to pursue your narrative.

Your inability to empathize with people that understand violence is crazy.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is almost like the have an entire set of experiential knowledge that only people who have lived through a mass shooting share.

Congrats... They learned the Big Life Lesson of Learning how to ...

Originally posted by snowdragon
If this is the measure of expertise you are looking for then the best people to talk about gun control would be combat veterans that were shot at in constant situations of "massacres."

Originally posted by Surtur
Get that logic the f*ck out of here.

Wrong. Soldiers are trained for combat and many of them become hardened to being shot at and shooting back. They enlisted knowing they could be put in situations where their lives could be endangered, and they may have to kill others. That's war, though, not to be confused with civilian massacres, which are what's being discussed.

Your average civilian is neither trained nor prepared for armed combat, nor should they have to be. In the richest and most powerful country in the world, nobody should have to be so fearful for their own lives, that they should feel the need to be armed at all times, much less with a semi-automatic rifle.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Living through a heart attack doesn't make someone an expert on heart disease.

No, it doesn't, but it often demands drastic changes in lifestyle to prevent another, and that's the point being made here. Whether we're talking heart attacks or mass shootings, we should not be surprised that they constantly reoccur when no significant changes have been made since the last one.

Semi-automatic and fully-automatic rifles, as well as components used to convert them, should be completely restricted to military and emergency law-enforcement use, and outlawed for civilian use. It's becoming all too easy and common for people to purchase them to kill as many people as they can.