- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
To those who want to "do something" about gun deaths
Posted on 8/4/19 at 7:03 am
Posted on 8/4/19 at 7:03 am
Might I suggest that you think beyond "Are there policies that would reduce good deaths"?
There are absolutely many policies that would. But thinking, "great, let's do them" is falling victim to single variable thinking.
For example. I could dramatically reduce traffic fatalities if I cut all speed limits everywhere in half. Or maybe I could do it by regulating all cars so that they couldn't exceed 40 miles an hour. Both of those would absolutely reduce traffic fatalities. And if the only thing I cared about was reducing traffic deaths then there would be no way to defend not doing it.
But I'm sure you are all bright enough to know why it is that we don't do those two things
Examining gun fatalities is exactly the same. Liberals fall for the single variable "do something" line of thinking because to them there is zero benefit to having guns available to citizens in a society. Additionally. Liberals seem unable to contemplate the negatives of not having them available. As such. OF COURSE they are attracted to any and all suggestions for eliminating gun deaths because hell. No one likes gun deaths.
In any case. Of course if you think there is zero benefit to owning guns then the only variable you will look at is reducing gun fatalities. And you will also stupidly think that anyone who opposes you just doesn't care about gun fatalities because you can't imagine any variables other than that single one being relevant. Alas. The reality is that just like the traffic example....... Just because the benefits of not having super low speed limits aren't as obvious as the negatives of a 3 fatality car accident are, doesn't mean they don't exist.
There are absolutely many policies that would. But thinking, "great, let's do them" is falling victim to single variable thinking.
For example. I could dramatically reduce traffic fatalities if I cut all speed limits everywhere in half. Or maybe I could do it by regulating all cars so that they couldn't exceed 40 miles an hour. Both of those would absolutely reduce traffic fatalities. And if the only thing I cared about was reducing traffic deaths then there would be no way to defend not doing it.
But I'm sure you are all bright enough to know why it is that we don't do those two things
Examining gun fatalities is exactly the same. Liberals fall for the single variable "do something" line of thinking because to them there is zero benefit to having guns available to citizens in a society. Additionally. Liberals seem unable to contemplate the negatives of not having them available. As such. OF COURSE they are attracted to any and all suggestions for eliminating gun deaths because hell. No one likes gun deaths.
In any case. Of course if you think there is zero benefit to owning guns then the only variable you will look at is reducing gun fatalities. And you will also stupidly think that anyone who opposes you just doesn't care about gun fatalities because you can't imagine any variables other than that single one being relevant. Alas. The reality is that just like the traffic example....... Just because the benefits of not having super low speed limits aren't as obvious as the negatives of a 3 fatality car accident are, doesn't mean they don't exist.
This post was edited on 8/4/19 at 7:07 am
15
Posted on 8/4/19 at 7:09 am to ShortyRob
Shorty, you are 100% on point.
The same analysis applies to almost any controversial issue, be it MADD or abortion. People tend to focus upon the single variable that appeals to them and to ignore or minimize the dozens of other variables relevant to the same issue.
The same analysis applies to almost any controversial issue, be it MADD or abortion. People tend to focus upon the single variable that appeals to them and to ignore or minimize the dozens of other variables relevant to the same issue.
This post was edited on 8/4/19 at 7:10 am
Posted on 8/4/19 at 7:11 am to AggieHank86
quote:
MADD
God I hate those frickers.
And I don't even drink
Posted on 8/4/19 at 7:14 am to ShortyRob
Don't want to derail the awesome OP, but I haven't heard about MADD since the 80's.
What's up with them today?
What's up with them today?
Posted on 8/4/19 at 7:17 am to TigerBait1971
quote:
Don't want to derail the awesome OP, but I haven't heard about MADD since the 80
They're still out there still pushing for ever more irrational approaches but sadly the reality is you don't hear about them much because they've already largely succeeded and getting their irrational approaches implemented
This post was edited on 8/4/19 at 7:18 am
Posted on 8/4/19 at 7:21 am to ShortyRob
quote:
They're still out there still pushing for ever more irrational approaches but sadly the reality is you don't hear about them much because they've already largely succeeded and getting their irrational approaches implemented
Wanna guess why BAC for DWI/DUI has been dropped to .08 from .10 and .02 for "minors"?
Posted on 8/4/19 at 7:32 am to udtiger
It's kind of sad how few people are in this thread. I guess they just tend to avoid threads that aren't based on pure emotion
Posted on 8/4/19 at 7:34 am to TigerBait1971
quote:Still up to their same bullshite. Every time the BAC gets lowered, they start all over again and demand it get lowered more. There’s also a 99% chance if you see a checkpoint that they’re behind the funding for it - either directly or by influence of government funding programs.
haven't heard about MADD since the 80's.
What's up with them today?
They tried to, and came closer than anyone else, to get some midwestern state to require interlock devices on all vehicles.
Posted on 8/4/19 at 7:35 am to ShortyRob
shite.
My son (who's over 18, but still a "minor" when it comes to DWI law) could pop the breathalyzer if he gets stopped within 15 mins of using Scope.
My son (who's over 18, but still a "minor" when it comes to DWI law) could pop the breathalyzer if he gets stopped within 15 mins of using Scope.
Posted on 8/4/19 at 7:41 am to ShortyRob
Good post Shorty. I don't put a lot of stock into someone who espouses they have no problem with aborting a potential human being and in the same breathe chastise people who might possess an instrument that can take that potential human being once it is a human being.
Those people have zero credibility of consistency when it comes to the importance of a human being.
Those people have zero credibility of consistency when it comes to the importance of a human being.
Posted on 8/4/19 at 7:50 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:Of course you do not, and the very fact that you are unable to see the parallel rather proves the point.
Good post Shorty. I don't put a lot of stock into someone who espouses they have no problem with aborting a potential human being ...
People tend to focus upon their idea of the “good,” and to dismiss all those who disagree with their personal assessment or who consider other variables as well.
As to the abortion debate, you have identified your defined “good,“ just as gun grabbers have identified their “good“ and MADD has identified their “good.”. All of you respond identically to competing viewpoints.
Posted on 8/4/19 at 7:50 am to ShortyRob
Spot on, Shorty.
Many people can’t wrap their heads around the fact that removing a specific weapon will only result in the use of another type of weapon. Not to mention that compliance would be practically zero.
The bottom line is that we have a sick society, especially when it comes to this 20 something generation whose single mother raised them on ADHD meds, video games and liberal thinking.
Many people can’t wrap their heads around the fact that removing a specific weapon will only result in the use of another type of weapon. Not to mention that compliance would be practically zero.
The bottom line is that we have a sick society, especially when it comes to this 20 something generation whose single mother raised them on ADHD meds, video games and liberal thinking.
Posted on 8/4/19 at 7:51 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Of course you do not, and the very fact that you are unable to see the parallel rather proves the point.
For frick's sake if you guys turn this shite into an abortion thread...…..
Posted on 8/4/19 at 7:51 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Liberals fall for the single variable "do something" line of thinking because to them there is zero benefit to having guns available to citizens in a society.
Those aren’t liberals. Those are progressive totalitarians.
Liberals value freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and right to own guns.
Posted on 8/4/19 at 7:52 am to ShortyRob
This past week, there was a guy with a sword in Germany...
Posted on 8/4/19 at 7:53 am to LSUwag
quote:
Many people can’t wrap their heads around the fact that removing a specific weapon will only result in the use of another type of weapon. Not to mention that compliance would be practically zero.
This isn't really my point.
MY point is that the goal of "eliminating gun violence" isn't some stand alone result.
There are solid and valid reasons that are less visible for having an armed society that would disappear were one to achieve their single variable goal.
Posted on 8/4/19 at 7:53 am to ShortyRob
quote:I will do everything in my power to avoid that.
For frick's sake if you guys turn this shite into an abortion thread...
I saw the danger when I made my first post, but that issue made such a perfect example of the broader application of your OP that I simply had to raise it.
The American political spectrum is full of such issues. I thought that MADD was also quite a good example
This post was edited on 8/4/19 at 7:55 am
Posted on 8/4/19 at 7:54 am to AggieHank86
Nice post Shorty.
I was talking with my wife about living in Florida during the cocaine cowboy days and the head of the DEA in Florida said "we probably capture 10% of the drugs and thats optimistic". He then said, we can increase that dramatically if you are willing to have us board your boat with several officers and drug dogs every time you take it out....
I was talking with my wife about living in Florida during the cocaine cowboy days and the head of the DEA in Florida said "we probably capture 10% of the drugs and thats optimistic". He then said, we can increase that dramatically if you are willing to have us board your boat with several officers and drug dogs every time you take it out....
Posted on 8/4/19 at 8:08 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I saw the danger when I made my first post, but that issue made such a perfect example of the broader application of your OP that I simply had to raise it. The American political spectrum is full of such issues. I thought that MADD was also quite a good example
MADD doesn't even consider, AT ALL, that there are any benefits to not going full totalitarian to stop every last possible drunk driver.
This will be my ONE post on this subject but, it is just false to say that pro-life people do this also and I'll explain as a pro-lifer.
Killing another person in America is ALREADY illegal.
To compare this to MADD. Recklessly driving is already and was already illegal. Then, hell. DUI became illegal. But THAT wasn't good enough! Nope. Now, we have to randomly stop you on the street. Oh, and now, we have to call it "murder" if you kill someone. Oh, and if you blow .08, we want to damned near ruin your life as much as humanly possible! If it were up to MADD, we'd jail your arse for it!
In other words, it's gone FAR beyond "illegal". What they are willing to do in the name of getting to "zero"(an impossible goal" is the problem.
Same for anti-gun people. There are pretty much zero laws that might reduce gun death that they wouldn't support because, "zero" is their goal and "zero" is impossible, and they've decided that there are no negatives to chasing zero.
The pro-life crowd hasn't even scratched the surface of that. Will they? I mean. MADD seemed rational in the 70s. So, maybe they will. But, that's a future discussion and if they do, you can be assured that I'll see them just like I see MADD.
Keep in mind. I'm obviously ANTI-drunk driving. And, I'm obviously ANTI-mass shootings. I want BOTH illegal.
My problem with them has nothing to do with that they want illegal. It's with what they're willing to do to chase "zero".
Posted on 8/4/19 at 8:16 am to ShortyRob
Out of respect for you, and to keep your thread on point, I will not spend five or six paragraphs outlining all of the ways in which the pro-life folks have taken incremental steps nearly identical to those undertaken by MADD. The way they ignore competing viewpoints, and competing notions of “the good,“ is obvious to any objective observer.
To get back to your more general point, zealots on any issue invariably tend to focus upon a single element of the analysis. Sometimes it is for the reasons outlined in your OP… they genuinely are incapable of seeing the competing variables. Sometimes, it is for purely rhetorical/political reasons.
To get back to your more general point, zealots on any issue invariably tend to focus upon a single element of the analysis. Sometimes it is for the reasons outlined in your OP… they genuinely are incapable of seeing the competing variables. Sometimes, it is for purely rhetorical/political reasons.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News