"You have a red dot on your forehead," said a child. Then a man shot his nephew.

[dead0man]

Evolution-DOH, that's probably the worst one
Vaccines-is it really up for debate, yeah, there are a handful of people on the "other" side, but they are tiny minority AFAIK
Global warming-I mentioned that
Fluoridation-yeah, there is a lot of ignorance there....but it's got fewer people on the "ignorant" side than the gun issue does...probably by a lot
GMOs-up there with AGW and guns
The gas tax-perhaps I'm in the ignorant camp here, it seems there are good arguments from both sides
the balanced budget amendment-meh
Foreign aid-perhaps I'm in the ignorant camp here, it seems there are good arguments from both sides
Medicare Advantage-meh
The gold standard-I'm certainly in the ignorant camp here!
Benghazi!!!!1!-isn't everybody ignorant about that?
Nuclear energy-I'll put that right below the AGW,guns and GMOs as far as one side being very ignorant goes
"Chemicals"-?
Alcohol-?
Poverty-plenty of ignorance on both sides here too
"Hip hop culture"-there is debate?
Censorship in school and public libraries-is that still a thing?
Marijuana-plenty of ignorance on both sides here too
Kevin Bacon-don't get me started!


edit-so evolution, GMOs, AGW and guns are the front runners.  I'll rank 'em as:
1.evolution
2.GMOs
3.guns
4.AGW

[bedstuy]

I suppose it's cute that you think that.

But, putting aside the desirability of an armed revolution, it's not realistic as a public policy.  I can't imagine explaining that to a mother who lost her son to random gun violence.

Regardless of your hackneyed emotional appeals and even discarding my revolutionary socialism for a moment, to blame the gun rather than the shooter represents the worst of the paternalistic white liberal attitude of "solving" a problem with a solution that barely scratches the surface and has negative consequences of its own.

You can't be a shooter if you don't have a gun.  I don't understand how that can escape you. 

So, I'm paternalistic for not taking into account the poor black people who like gun shot wounds and being murdered?  I think I'm safe in thinking that nobody likes being shot.  And, honestly, I'd rather be paternalistic than indifferent to the loss of human life. 

You know that the gun control movement started with white Southern racists in the 1960's who were afraid of blacks, right?

I don't know that because it's not true.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The original point of gun control was for privileged southern white conservatives to feel "safe" from the scary black people; ergo, an armed proletariat is a threat to the powers that be and said powers recognize that. Why do you think the ultimate paternalistic plutocrat, Michael Bloomberg, is the biggest advocate of gun control?

The world's insane while you drink champagne
And I'm living in black reign
You try to ban the A.K.
I got ten of them stashed
With a case of hand grenades

[bedstuy]

The original point of gun control was for privileged southern white conservatives to feel "safe" from the scary black people; ergo, an armed proletariat is a threat to the powers that be and said powers recognize that. Why do you think the ultimate paternalistic plutocrat, Michael Bloomberg, is the biggest advocate of gun control?

The world's insane while you drink champagne
And I'm living in black reign
You try to ban the A.K.
I got ten of them stashed
With a case of hand grenades

People oppose gun control because they want guns to protect themselves from scary black people.  That's the situation right now in America.

In reality, black people suffer from gun violence more than anyone and largely support gun control.  It's easy for suburban white people to ignore the suffering of black people because nobody seems to care if black kids get shot. 

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The original point of gun control was for privileged southern white conservatives to feel "safe" from the scary black people; ergo, an armed proletariat is a threat to the powers that be and said powers recognize that. Why do you think the ultimate paternalistic plutocrat, Michael Bloomberg, is the biggest advocate of gun control?

The world's insane while you drink champagne
And I'm living in black reign
You try to ban the A.K.
I got ten of them stashed
With a case of hand grenades

People oppose gun control because they want guns to protect themselves from scary black people.  That's the situation right now in America.

In reality, black people suffer from gun violence more than anyone and largely support gun control.  It's easy for suburban white people to ignore the suffering of black people because nobody seems to care if black kids get shot. 

Then why not fight the conditions that draw people into crime? An increased minimum wage, increased unionization, more and better public education funding, and a universal basic income will do far more than gun control to reduce social ills.

[bedstuy]

The original point of gun control was for privileged southern white conservatives to feel "safe" from the scary black people; ergo, an armed proletariat is a threat to the powers that be and said powers recognize that. Why do you think the ultimate paternalistic plutocrat, Michael Bloomberg, is the biggest advocate of gun control?

The world's insane while you drink champagne
And I'm living in black reign
You try to ban the A.K.
I got ten of them stashed
With a case of hand grenades

People oppose gun control because they want guns to protect themselves from scary black people.  That's the situation right now in America.

In reality, black people suffer from gun violence more than anyone and largely support gun control.  It's easy for suburban white people to ignore the suffering of black people because nobody seems to care if black kids get shot. 

Then why not fight the conditions that draw people into crime? An increased minimum wage, increased unionization, more and better public education funding, and a universal basic income will do far more than gun control to reduce social ills.

Why not do all of the above? 

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The original point of gun control was for privileged southern white conservatives to feel "safe" from the scary black people; ergo, an armed proletariat is a threat to the powers that be and said powers recognize that. Why do you think the ultimate paternalistic plutocrat, Michael Bloomberg, is the biggest advocate of gun control?

The world's insane while you drink champagne
And I'm living in black reign
You try to ban the A.K.
I got ten of them stashed
With a case of hand grenades

People oppose gun control because they want guns to protect themselves from scary black people.  That's the situation right now in America.

In reality, black people suffer from gun violence more than anyone and largely support gun control.  It's easy for suburban white people to ignore the suffering of black people because nobody seems to care if black kids get shot. 

Then why not fight the conditions that draw people into crime? An increased minimum wage, increased unionization, more and better public education funding, and a universal basic income will do far more than gun control to reduce social ills.

Why not do all of the above? 

Because the ruling class doesn't want that, and it's easier to implement and sell a solution like gun control that does little to solve the root issues that draw people to a life of crime and disarms the proletariat as our personal freedoms continually erode.

[Хahar 🤔]

The fact that poor minorities are disproportionately victims of gun violence is apparently beside whatever point is being made here.

[bedstuy]

The original point of gun control was for privileged southern white conservatives to feel "safe" from the scary black people; ergo, an armed proletariat is a threat to the powers that be and said powers recognize that. Why do you think the ultimate paternalistic plutocrat, Michael Bloomberg, is the biggest advocate of gun control?

The world's insane while you drink champagne
And I'm living in black reign
You try to ban the A.K.
I got ten of them stashed
With a case of hand grenades

People oppose gun control because they want guns to protect themselves from scary black people.  That's the situation right now in America.

In reality, black people suffer from gun violence more than anyone and largely support gun control.  It's easy for suburban white people to ignore the suffering of black people because nobody seems to care if black kids get shot. 

Then why not fight the conditions that draw people into crime? An increased minimum wage, increased unionization, more and better public education funding, and a universal basic income will do far more than gun control to reduce social ills.

Why not do all of the above? 

Because the ruling class doesn't want that, and it's easier to implement and sell a solution like gun control that does little to solve the root issues that draw people to a life of crime and disarms the proletariat as our personal freedoms continually erode.

It's looking a lot like the ruling class doesn't want to implement gun control because it's not happening.  Again, the people who are victims of gun violence are in favor of gun control.  They understand that most gun violence is not committed by people who are hardened career criminals.  Most gun violence ends up being just random stupidity committed by young, hot headed men. 

And, here's the bottom-line.  You have your beliefs based on your fantasy of a proletariat revolution.  Most people would consider that laughable, so why don't we just leave it there.

[krazen1211]

If cars are to be considered a necessity, naturally, guns will be a necessity to shoot car thieves.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If cars are to be considered a necessity, naturally, guns will be a necessity to shoot car thieves.

Thankfully, Washington State doesn't consider them such a necessity as to make shooting a suspected car thief a justification for homicide.  Even if they were considered a necessity, property theft should never be considered a justification for the use of deadly force.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

People that think guns only exist to murder are impossible to take remotely seriously.  


Is there ANY other political debate where one side is so overwhelmingly ignorant of the thing being debated as this one.  Perhaps AGW, but there is plenty of ignorance on both sides of that one (and that's not to say there isn't ignorance on the pro gun side as well, clearly there is, but nowhere near the level of ignorance on the gun control side).


I know I know..."we don't have to know a lot about a subject to know it's wrong and should be banned".....yeah....good luck with that.

It's true a lot of people who want to ban guns tend to be ignorant about them, but can they are any more ridiculous than people who openly state with a straight face the reasons they want to keep guns so they can carry out some type of socialist revolution or because they believe if the population wasn't armed all sorts of black helicopters would start swarming in with stormtroopers to take away their freedoms?

[krazen1211]

If cars are to be considered a necessity, naturally, guns will be a necessity to shoot car thieves.

Thankfully, Washington State doesn't consider them such a necessity as to make shooting a suspected car thief a justification for homicide.  Even if they were considered a necessity, property theft should never be considered a justification for the use of deadly force.

A jury has already acquitted Mr. Gerlach and ruled 10-2 that this was a justified shooting. As a result of the frivolous charges the state of Washington is out $300,000.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If cars are to be considered a necessity, naturally, guns will be a necessity to shoot car thieves.

Thankfully, Washington State doesn't consider them such a necessity as to make shooting a suspected car thief a justification for homicide.  Even if they were considered a necessity, property theft should never be considered a justification for the use of deadly force.

A jury has already acquitted Mr. Gerlach and ruled 10-2 that this was a justified shooting. As a result of the frivolous charges the state of Washington is out $300,000.

If you think the cost to the state for seeking to uphold the law is the sole criterion as to whether to prosecute then I presume you oppose ever seeking the death penalty.  It is a shame that the defense was able to successfully make this a trial not of the shooter but of the shot.  Hopefully, as often happens is these sorts of cases where the deceased is not available to rebut the claims of the killer, the civil trial will be able to redress the balance.

A car being stolen does not justify a shooting.  If the deceased had had a weapon, then likely he would have been able to fire first unless the killer came out of his house with his weapon already drawn.  Hence I think it is quite likely that in a civil trial they will find that the killer came out of his house intending to use his gun to at the very least intimidate whoever was stealing his car.  Even assuming he wasn't intending to kill the thief when he came out of the house, his use of the gun in that situation was not justifiable.

Still, I may be wrong about what a future jury may do.  At the time, I was convinced that OJ would not get off scott free at the criminal trial for killing his ex-wife.  At least in the civil trial where the scales of justice were not stacked in favor of the defendant, OJ received what his actions earned.

[MaxQue]

If cars are to be considered a necessity, naturally, guns will be a necessity to shoot car thieves.

Thankfully, Washington State doesn't consider them such a necessity as to make shooting a suspected car thief a justification for homicide.  Even if they were considered a necessity, property theft should never be considered a justification for the use of deadly force.

A jury has already acquitted Mr. Gerlach and ruled 10-2 that this was a justified shooting. As a result of the frivolous charges the state of Washington is out $300,000.

The law is bad then. Murderers shouldn't be allowed to steal taxpayers' money.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A jury has already acquitted Mr. Gerlach and ruled 10-2 that this was a justified shooting. As a result of the frivolous charges the state of Washington is out $300,000.

The law is bad then. Murderers shouldn't be allowed to steal taxpayers' money.

Call me a moderate hero, but I wouldn't go quite that far.  Still, it is a bad law that allows a jury to decide a civil tort on the basis of evidence in a criminal trial.  Since the evidence is quite naturally weighted in favor of the defendant in a criminal trial, a criminal jury cannot render an appropriate decision in a civil matter.  At most, the finding of the criminal jury should be determinative of whether the defendant can bring forward a civil tort under the presumption that if the defendant cannot convince the criminal jury to so find, he would have no chance of getting a civil jury to rule in his favor at a civil trial.

[krazen1211]

If cars are to be considered a necessity, naturally, guns will be a necessity to shoot car thieves.

Thankfully, Washington State doesn't consider them such a necessity as to make shooting a suspected car thief a justification for homicide.  Even if they were considered a necessity, property theft should never be considered a justification for the use of deadly force.

A jury has already acquitted Mr. Gerlach and ruled 10-2 that this was a justified shooting. As a result of the frivolous charges the state of Washington is out $300,000.

The law is bad then. Murderers shouldn't be allowed to steal taxpayers' money.

Interesting theory. The law abiding Mr. Gerlach merely got his legal expenses reimbursed. Given that there is only 1 felon and that is the auto thief, Mr. Gerlach should seek compensation from the thief's estate for damage to his vehicle.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If cars are to be considered a necessity, naturally, guns will be a necessity to shoot car thieves.

Thankfully, Washington State doesn't consider them such a necessity as to make shooting a suspected car thief a justification for homicide.  Even if they were considered a necessity, property theft should never be considered a justification for the use of deadly force.

A jury has already acquitted Mr. Gerlach and ruled 10-2 that this was a justified shooting. As a result of the frivolous charges the state of Washington is out $300,000.

The law is bad then. Murderers shouldn't be allowed to steal taxpayers' money.

Interesting theory. The law abiding Mr. Gerlach merely got his legal expenses reimbursed. Given that there is only 1 felon and that is the auto thief, Mr. Gerlach should seek compensation from the thief's estate for damage to his vehicle.

There may under current law only be one felon, but there clearly should be two. People who are technically law-abiding can still be wicked, selfish, greedy cravens. One's own car is not worth somebody else's life.

[Cassius]

Snowstalker, could you clarify, aren't you reasonably well off (or at least from a reasonably well-off family). I mean, I may be totally wrong about this, and forgive me if I am, but I'm just wondering what attracts you to the idea of a proleterian revolution?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Like all such people he likes the imagery.