Bathrooms, Bullets, Inconsistency, and the Criminal Mind

[Chase]

Here's a couple of memes to illustrate the point of the title:

The political cartoon on the left is obviously a conservative perspective on "Gun Control" laws. The argument being made by the cartoonist appears to be that the only people that suffer from gun control laws is good people because the bad people will hold no regard for the law either way. Essentially - Criminals don't care about gun control laws.

The meme on the right is a liberal perspective on transgender restroom usage using the tool of sarcasm. In order to provide context - it should be known that the social conservative perspective on transgender bathroom usage is that trans people should use the bathroom that is indicated on their birth certificate as opposed to their preferred restroom because it would invite sex-offenders to self-identify as the gender on the sign and proceed to harm the other inhabitants in the restroom. The argument being made by the meme artist appears to be that the only people that suffer from conservative bathroom policies are - again - law-abiding people, because bad people would not hold any regard for the legislation. Essentially - Criminals don't care about bathroom laws.

Who said it? Both the liberal and the conservative - and this is what I really don't like about "purist" liberalism or conservatism. When one tries to be as polar as possible, they end up making logical inconsistencies that are held in place for self-serving purposes as opposed of actually trying to do right by the country they live in. Centrism isn't a very popular or exciting position to hold, but it does better at avoiding the logical inconsistency of the situation above.

A "moderate" position would be to apply the rule - criminals don't respect laws and therefore that shouldn't be the angle used to defend trans bathroom preference OR the right to bear arms. - OR - it's inverse. Criminals don't care about the law either way, but for reasons beyond criminal activity, gun control and conservative bathroom policy should be enacted at the same time.

As a moderate-conservative, I ascribe to the first moderate position with regards to these two "criminals don't care" scenarios. I am very much not a fan of what North Carolina and several other states are doing in the name of "religious liberty" and "common sense" against transgender individuals - and while the rapist argument holds water, I believe in order to hold that position you have to pre-suppose that every trans person is a sex offender and that you have to be very much uninformed of what transgender people actually go through, what many of them look like, and how this is damaging to a country's social build-up. However, in the gun scenario, no amount of gun purging and registration legislature is going to remove the guns from the criminal scene. The laws only make the people that in many countries have the right to bear arms as a staple a bit more defenseless in a pinch only because they truly adhere to the law of the land.

I realize that not everyone lives in America and deals with the same kinds of "conservatism" and "liberalism" ideas. Perhaps the political landscape in those areas is more accommodating to the center than the USA seems to have. I still do want your input.

Where do you guys stand on these issues? Are you logically consistent? If so, do you think that is important when it pertains to political identity? If not, what's the overriding reason for being illogical?

[Deleted User]

[Commander]

I'm just being theoretical here, but a gun control law would more or less only hurt the gun business. That's it. So what if weapons are purged from everyone, that doesn't mean they aren't available to people. Marijuana is illegal so does that mean nobody smokes it? Alcohol was illegal during the prohibition, but did that mean citizens rightly obeyed? Guns are still going to be obtainable through black markets and other means. I suppose that in a murder case a gun could be "easier" to look for due to less guns in the area, but since it wasn't bought legally, you couldn't use stores or anything from buyers as evidence. I could go all economics on you if you don't believe me in that this will not solve the problem at all and possibly make it worse.

The whole transgender thing is probably going to end up being a big mess for me just a spoiler. Well considering in band there have been girls who go into the men's bathroom due to the whole line thing, this is already going to be a problem to control. For every cop in the area, there has to be about 100 bathrooms. That's not an exact amount, but you get the idea. It's about as effective as jay-walking in the long run.

Now let's get into gender. What is gender? There's the obvious physical approach with the genitals and organs, but the mental approach is another way to describe it. Males carry mostly masculine traits and women carry more feminine traits but it's not always the case. If a female is more masculine to the point she looks and is almost considered a guy, it would be more comfortable for her to be in the men's restroom as the women's may have people give glares mistaking their gender. Why should these people be punished for a law that can't be enforced very well?

Here's the thing that's puzzling me: if trans were the main problem with bathroom rapes, wouldn't a female who became a male have an easier time rapping them then? If it's based on birth instead of current gender or looks, someone who clearly does not resemble a female in any way could actually use that as a way to not even be questioned why they're doing in the bathroom in the first place.

[Amethyst]

It is quite easy to dismiss more tangible evidence and logic under banner of the double standard, isn't it?

This is the fallacy we call 'false equivalence' in action:

a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.

Indeed, both of these arguments are similar. That does not mean the conditions of each are similar:

• In the issue of gun control, we start with a crime/problem that already veritably exists (the US's escalated rates of gun violence), and the solution is argued to possibly prevent such a thing.
• In the issue of bathroom usage, we start with a problem that could exist but currently does not, and the proposed remedy to which has caused more problems instead.

Next up: Do your opinions on two very different issues have the same number of syllables? If not, you may be rhetorically inconsistent!

[Tomas Elliot]

Leaving aside all the other reasonings, debates, petty squabbles over how logically inconsistent your post that points out my logical inconsistencies is, and all the other only-on-Reborn stuff that is inevitably going to happen in this discussion (and has already started), I would like to go on record and state that this picture right here, this image Chase posted, summarizes perfectly why I despise America as a country. Every time I have to face one of the many problems of my country, I console myself thinking "welp, at least I wasn't born in the U.S.A", and this is why.

In Italy we do this crazy little thing called law enforcement. Basically, what we do is to make laws and then (get this) we punish those who break them. And mind you, I am talking about ITALY, the country that invented mafia, the country whose level of fiscal evasion is higher than its PIL, the country that had Berlusconi as president for 20 years, so it's not like we are a shining beacon of morality. But even we managed to grasp this concept: you make the laws, and then you punish those who break them.

"Criminals don't care about laws, so might as well not have laws" is tied with "we are going to war to protect peace" as the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. And they have one little thing in common: both were said by an american. So yeah, american people please don't take this too personally, but your country is the one I loathe even more than my own, which is saying A LOT. And no amount of sophisticated arguments you may make, to prove that I am an evil logic twister whose arguments meet some obscure definition of some equally obscure fallacy quoted from some equally obscure wikia, is going to change my mind: if anything, you'll prove my point even more.

While you keep on making your exquisite arguments about gun control, people keep getting shot down in the streets of your country. Which can be said for my own country as well, but at least we give free medical assistence to the wounded.

[Personthing]

Essentially - Criminals don't care about gun control laws.

You do understand that laws are meant to be enforced, right? Like, you break the law and you get punished for it? Compare the gun violence in any country with strict gun control laws to America and the difference is astounding.

[Neo]

You do understand that laws are meant to be enforced, right? Like, you break the law and you get punished for it? Compare the gun violence in any country with strict gun control laws to America and the difference is astounding.

It's lowkey a way of saying that they also find the police/govt. too incompetent to enforce anything. Not that I trust a cop to do their job as far as I can throw 'em.

[Except when black people get shot then the police are excellent :^) ]

As far as bathrooms go, Ame's already done most of the lifting for me. Don't act like y'all care about criminals harassing folks in the bathroom. It's a nonexistent problem. Also, news flash trans people exist. Which fucking restrooms do you think they've been using? If you hate trans folks, then just come out with it, don't wrap that hate up with faux concern and try to sell it, because just about everyone can smell the bullshit inside the box.

[NickCrash]

While you keep on making your exquisite arguments about gun control, people keep getting shot down in the streets of your country. Which can be said for my own country as well, but at least we give free medical assistence to the wounded.

Not sure whether it is appropriate to use the phraze "shots fired" here...

Personally, I wouldn't care less about the weapons industry or the rifle association. Your funds are better spent otherwise, and your taxes collected by different forms of industry than guns for 'civilian use'. It is shocking to read people admit that police is insufficient in its role, in a country where the criteria to join the force are just a step lower than becoming an MMA fighter. Go all economics on me, and then repeat the same procedure on your country. Obviously, without free healthcare, the issue of funding hospitals to deal with the victims of gun violence is nonexistent. Ask yourselves what those businesses provide for your country besides increasing bullet victims. You may come up with arguments about civilians protecting themselves, but if you intend to focus your preventive measures on vigilante initiatives, you might as well introduce your people to a crime preventing system that countries like Somalia or Yemen have established.

As Ame has already mentioned, people dismiss tangible evidence because they are used to operate in an inherently flawed system that prefers the absense of laws to their enforcement. In other fields, prevention solves more problems than 'tackling the problem after its appearance' does. The concept is similar to immunization; you establish a frame in which the [problem] may enter, will be tackled by your preventive measures, will be punished by your 'police force' before the results appear on a big scale, and it will be discouraged from trying to enter again. If you still do not accept the comparison, you may want to look at some statistics that explain how a big percentage of gun violence stems from accidents or civilians who snapped and started shooting around, with high-school shootings becoming No.1 news in international TV.

Obviously, you cannot take a single measure and expect the problem to simply vanish. Your whole approach towards gun should be altered if you wish to have less victims in the future. I understand that those businesses back your politicians and so they fail to be unbiased towards them, but you are not even considering what the results will be in either case. Currently the problem is increasing and you hold firm to your established system, which apparently does not work to prevent anything, rather increases the cases of murders within families, accidents due to lackluster children's care and so on. If the message you are trying to convey is that your police force is also incompetent, then there you have a 2nd field you need to work on. Demonizing gun control because your preventive measures are nonexistent is similar to cursing the rain because you didn't plan ahead and take an umbrella with you.

Criminals definitely won't obey the laws, but with gun free legislation, you are turning any civilian into a potent criminal, as you provide them with unlimited access to guns. Sure, you won't collect data from gun dealerships, but you wouldn't in the case of black market, since most resort to illegal guns anyway. For a country famous for being conservative, this is a weird model of anarchy that you inspire there. Less access immediately equals fewer incidents, but it also leads to better surveilance of such transactions. Registered gun owners are much less threatening than non-registered ones, and further restrictions can be applied. Examples include forbidding having guns in public, being forced to keep them at designated spots in your house, being allowed to carry a gun only under very specific circumstances like being part of a shooting club or with tangible evidence that your life has been threatened etc.

Take a moment to observe the situation in European countries, which have strict gun control laws and minimal cases of gun violence. Take note that I am speaking of a continent that had two world wars fought almost exclusively on its ground, which could hint that people would be more lenient towards gun ownership around here. On the contrary, it appears that people do not have such problems. Law enforcement and constant observation of gun movement can prevent more crimes than a vigilante mentality ever could, for the simple reason that you do not provide the criminals with a front, rather you take everything that could help them away from them. At least here I can walk down the street, even in gheto neighborhoods, without the fear that at any moment I might get shot, but even if that (cthulhu forbid) may happen, I'll know that the shooter, his family and all his friends would be apprehended, all guns confiscated, and they would spend a significant part of their lives in prison.

[Ice Cream Sand Witch]

I don't like the "Criminals don't care about laws" argument for similar reasons to what Tomas/Catherine said. If it's considered a legit argument, than we might as well get rid of every law and let people set towns on fire for fun. I also hate the similar "We'll never get rid of bullying, so let's just tell people to grow a thicker skin!" argument. The purpose of a law isn't to stop people from doing an activity in the first place, since that's impossible (unless they've made mention they want to do it and someone tips the police off before they have a chance to go through with it, but not all criminals are that incompetent). The purpose is to stop the person once the crime has been committed. Using an example with Reborn: someone joins to post links to R7 sites. Because there's a rule against R7, the links will be deleted and the person will likely be banned. If Reborn didn't have rules, they could just spam every topic with the links.

I'm not sure how to feel about guns yet (I've been on both sides before), but a misunderstanding I used to have is that I thought gun control = taking guns away from everyone, which I now know isn't true. Some people are against both banning and regulating, but I thought it was worth mentioning because of how many people think they're the same. Right now I lean towards control because something can and should be done about the shootings that happen here on an almost daily basis, and from what I've heard the U.S. is the only country where this happens so often. Some people say "If they don't have access to guns, they'll use something else" but I think fists and knives and such are a lot easier to escape from than a gun. Bullets are faster than most people, but if someone has to be near you in order to attack, it's easier to outrun/get away from then than it would be if they were shooting you with a super powerful pointy thing that's gotta go fast. Plus in the ideal scenario where the aggressor didn't get a gun because they failed a background check and someone who passed and has a gun is nearby, the one with the gun can shoot down the aggressor before they can hurt anyone.

For bathrooms, I personally think public restrooms are gross and I would never ever ever ever ever use one under any circumstances ever, but people should be able to use whichever corresponds to the gender they identify with. For assault, assaults happen in bathrooms already (it's a VERY common place for bullying at schools, from what I've heard) and I haven't heard anyone care unless it has to do with transgender people wanting to use the bathroom they're most comfortable with.

[Tomas Elliot]

I should also point out that I own a gun. I live in a country with significantly stricter gun control (and significantly less shootings) than USA, and I still have access to "ways of defending myself", to put it in terms pro-weapons people like.

Having said that, in an ideal world, nobody would need weapons at all, it is clear that we don't live in an ideal world: still, it is perfectly possible to create a system that allows citizens to arm themselves if they so desire, but only after they have proved that they subscribe to a strict set of rules and respect a strict set of criteria.

Basically, in Italy (and in many other european countries) you need to be in possession of a very specific document, if you want to own a weapon. And proving that you are eligible for said document requires you to go through quite a lot of bureaucracy which, if nothing else, gives you time to reconsider your decision (and most importantly, gives the authorities time to make sure that you aren't a murderous psycho). And even then, you are restricted on how and where you can carry/use it, it's not like you can go around with a gun in full display at your side, like those cowboys in western movies. Meanwhile, in America, any emo high school student, who is sooooooo depressed because life is pain and nobody understands, can go to a shop, buy a weapon, then go to school and start gunning down his classmates and teachers.

European systems are not perfect, they do not prevent criminality/mafia, but they do prevent Columbine. It's better than not having any rules.

[Eviora]

The conservative fear-mongering argument that allowing transgender people to use the bathrooms matching their gender identity invites sexual assault isn't just completely unsubstantiated by evidence, as Ame pointed out, but is also intrinsically discriminatory in multiple ways. The premise is basically that allowing transwomen to use the women's bathroom opens the door for random perverts to assault women while claiming to be trans. Let's look at some of the problematic ideas promoted by that assumption.

• Right off the bat, it focuses on painting men as predators and women as victims. No mention of female predators or male victims are made.
• It assumes all predators are strictly heterosexual, and would never dream of assaulting someone of the *same* gender. Supporters of laws like HB2 claim to be trying to protect little girls from being alone in the bathroom with dangerous men... by sending those dangerous men to be alone in the bathroom with little boys. I guess little boys don't matter to them? If we're actually worried about predators in bathrooms, maybe we should make enforceable laws that actually address that rather than targeting minorities.
• And, of course, the main victims of the bigotry are transgender people themselves, who supporters of HB2 characterize as being of their sex at birth despite all evidence provided by medical professionals. Also...

1. The assumption encourages people to view trans individuals as potential predators.
2. The assumption directly endangers trans people by forcing them to choose between avoiding the bathroom, thereby risking infection, and risking assault in the bathroom they don't identify with, which is empirically more likely.
3. A study has found that being denied bathroom access increases the likelihood of attempts at suicide by 45%. Forty. Five. Percent.
4. The assumption encourages violence against trans people who are unfairly equated to threats, I've already read about one woman (a lawyer working at some conservative group) who claimed she'd be taking a gun into the bathroom with her so she could take matters into her own hands if she encounters anyone she deems male.

Meanwhile, the underlying assumption of gun control arguments is... guns are dangerous. Not just in the hands of hardened criminals. In the hands of someone who might commit a crime of passion. In the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it and accidentally fires. In the hands of someone other than the owner of the gun, such as a child who feels that they've been wronged by their peers at school. All things that we see happen time and again.

Trying to equate the assumption that a type of weapon is dangerous to the premise of HB2 and its ilk is not only mindlessly shallow, it's opportunistic. It's using the plight of a minority you claim to support as a bargaining chip to get your way on some other issue. I don't have particularly strong feelings on gun control, but if you want to argue against it, just do that. Don't you dare use our struggle for civil rights as an excuse to smuggle in your personal agenda. And drop the fear tactic arguments. You're better than that.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Eviora

[Shamitako]

TL;DR I agree with Hunter

[Chase]

Things that have already occured in this thread.

• A wrong assertion that the two scenarios are of false equivalence. Sorry Ame - while it's not directly trans individuals themselves that are to blame for several bathroom instances, the defense has been used by people who are not trans or identify with transgender people due to holding the dysphoria that is responsible in many cases for such transition. I'm not equating the scale of each issue, but both issues do exist and both arguments have been employed by liberals and conservatives alike. Finally, taking a certain weapon out of a household does largely increase the importance of police response time or viability of other household objects to be used in self-defense. ICSW has a fair point when talking about gun control measures that are not purging weapons away - but that's very clearly been a part of liberal agenda all the same. Not being armed can be an issue and particularly having a right being limited is indeed as much of an issue in both cases. Seems fairly equivalent to me. A gunowner that stands their ground to protect their family is no more a criminal than a transgender person using the restroom identify with. The only credible point made here is that America is forcing more problems then necessary in one case while we don't know the results of the other.
• A possible assertion or insinuation that I hate transgender individuals. Eric, there's a chance I'm misunderstanding your last bit - but if you're talking about other conservatives - then yeah, your point stands and I agree that it's better to just admit transphobia and own it rather than use a front to hide behind. If you were pointing that at me specifically... I don't think you know me very well or read my thread.
• An assertion that Columbine scenarios are a direct product of gun ownership. This argument isn't baseless, as America is five times more likely to experience a school shooting than countries with gun control measures - however, another thing that can be pointed at is that school zones are notoriously gun-free areas, where in the event of a school shooting, the only weapon on campus might be in the hands of the shooter. I don't personally see an issue with teachers packing heat in the classroom so long as the gun is kept safely.
• An assertion that I'm trying to be opportunistic in equating the two issues. Eviora - this is beyond unimpactful in any way. I'm preaching to an audience I expect to be mostly opposed and who has no sway whatsoever over gun control at all. There is no opportunity for me to even try to capitalize on. It may be surface-level critical thinking in your opinion, but you're just completely off base when it comes to making anything but discourse out of it. If you want people to be unsympathetic to your cause, jump down people who genuinely have questions' throats.

Neo clearly pointed out the unreliability of law enforcement for me. Yes, it's intended to fight crime - but it's not in everyone's pocket the moment they need protection in service - and often holds an unfortunate bias in some cases.

I'm glad nobody answered my questions and this got off-topic.

[Tomas Elliot]

Neo clearly pointed out the unreliability of law enforcement for me. Yes, it's intended to fight crime - but it's not in everyone's pocket the moment they need protection in service - and often holds an unfortunate bias in some cases

Those in charge of enforcing laws are uneffective, so the solution is no laws.

#logic

EDIT: to clarify, using the (alleged) inefficiency of police as an excuse for not regulamenting weapons, thus allowing everyone to make justice for themselves, is a very dangerous mindset. It is one step away from "hey, it's ok to kill people, as long as you have a solid reason for doing it!" and two steps away from full-on anarchy. If a governor realizes that laws in his country are not enforced properly, he should invest in improving the police, not allow common citizens to take matters in their own hands. And he certainly shouldn't use it as an excuse to not have rules on such a delicate matter.

EDIT EDIT: something I just realized. Hunter you used to be an auth in this forum, right? What is the thing auths tell people all the time, in all forums? "Don't attack other users just because they break rules, if you see someone misbehaving report them to the mods". If that should apply to a silly forum, where the worst that can happen is a flame war, why shouldn't it apply to a situation where lives are at stake?

If your answer to this question is "because if you don't shoot the criminal first, he will shoot you", then we are back to square one: LITERALLY square one, the prehistoric world, the Natural State. Kill or be killed. But wasn't the concept of "state" created SPECIFICALLY to eliminate that?

EDIT EDIT EDIT: and besides yes, Columbine and all similar incidents ARE a direct consequence of the murderers owning guns. Had they gone to school armed with slings, they probably wouldn't have managed to kill that many people.

EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT: and the solution to "the only weapon in campus being the one of the murderer" is not "allowing teachers to pack heat". The correct solution is to have metal detectors and other such measures, to ensure NOBODY packs heat on campus. Because, again, if you being armed is a valid reason for me being armed, then everyone should go around armed all the time, and feel free to shoot down people whenever they feel threatened. Which doesn't sound like a healthy society to me.

[Eviora]

Unimpactful, huh? Then why bother posting? Why even make the argument? Certainly something motivated you to make this thread. Quite obviously the discussion isn't going to change policy, but it's conceivable that it might change minds, and whether that's your goal or you're just in it for giggles, it's silly to expect members of the group who you validate mixing up with predators to have a friendly reaction to the comparison. I'm not interested in your sympathy - but if you think I'm just going to read over your rude, special-pleading nonsense of an argument and not call you out on it, you must have forgotten our previous discussions.

Perhaps the reason this thread is going "off-topic", as you call it, is because it opens with an extremely dubious comparison and declares anyone who disagrees logically inconsistent. Then, when some of us took issue with the comparison, you ignored it all, including my point about not all gun-related problems being rooted in criminal intentions of the owner. There is no extension of your analogy to account for such circumstances, nor have you paid any heed to mentions of non-discriminatory means of making public restrooms safer.

Ame pointed out that there's no evidence that trans-friendly bathrooms will be exploited, and you said... something not particularly clear about many cases of something. I have no idea what you're talking about there, but I know of no well-substantiated cases of transpeople or anyone claiming to be one assaulting anyone in the restroom. If you have "many", provide evidence from credible, non-biased sources of at least 5 such incidents. If not, then it seems Ame's argument holds water. Not that it would matter much if it didn't. I bet we can find loads of situations where straight people have done criminal things in public restrooms, and no one is trying to kick them out.

In the face of all the problems with the comparison, I see no need to worry about logical inconsistencies within liberal or conservative thinking. You haven't established the premise yet.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Eviora

[Tomas Elliot]

About the trans-friendly restrooms thingy, that actually made national news in Italy at one point. See, there is a long-time career politician in Italy who is a trans (name's Vladimir Luxuria, YES SHE PICKED "LUST" AS HER OWN SURNAME WHEN SHE LEGALLY CHANGED HER NAME, I'm not sure that helps in changing the mind of those who think trans are perverts). Once she went to the (female) toilet of the house of parliament, and a female politician who was already in there threw a huge tantrum, even stating that she would quit her role (she didn't). In front of the cameras, she claimed that the mere presence of "the trans" (that she said, she didn't use the person's name, she simply said "the trans") in the toilet had made her "feel like someone was trying to rape her" (I am quoting the exact words). It is worth noticing that Vladimir Luxuria, as mentioned, is a career politician, so she had been sitting in the parliament for quite some time at that point (which presumably means she had been using the restroom for a while), and nobody had ever had a problem with that.

Then again, the female politician in question was from a party that was the direct competitor of the party the trans politician was from (I am tempted to say that the female politician was the granddaughter of Benito Mussolini, because yes, we actually have the granddaughter of Benito Mussolini sitting in our parliament, but I am not sure it was actually her, I might remember incorrectly), so I don't know how much she really felt that way, and how much she made it up to discredit her political adversaries. Either way, I thought you might be interested in hearing this anecdote.

[Kurotsune]

Okay.

Debates for the sake of debates are fine, but I feel like there's a recurring problem here where the debate always seems to boil down to a discussion of the ethics and morality of the debate and the poster themselves. While that's an expression of opinion and expressions of opinion are not only fine but absolutely necessary when it comes to a debate, this quickly derails and destroys whatever discussion is proposed.

The problem becomes that we have a group of intellectuals who would rather criticize the way the question is posed as opposed to answering and debating the question itself. A better way to phrase Chase's positioning is simply;

Do you personally believe center politics are better when opposed to radical right/left wing extremists? What's your position within the Right/Center/Left Liberalist/Conservative spectrum? Why?

Was it presented in the best way possible? No. Yet we are all equally flawed and prone to making silly mistakes. Intelligence is a dangerous thing. Whenever we show it, we're exposing ourselves to being branded ignorant or unintelligent. It is respectful to try and see beyond the words themselves and instead looking at their meaning, but it is also understandable to not do that. Personal understanding is also subjective and I even run the risk myself of having misunderstood Chase's original point with what I posit above.

My point here is to perhaps propose a shift in focus of this discussion, from the semantics of its point to its point itself. For that reason, I will refrain from voicing my own opinion on certain matters exposed here, and I ask that for the sake of argument, everyone who is willing to does the same.

If we're going to display immaturity every time a thread like this appear and start attacking each other, then these threads have no place here to begin with. Let's be honest - These threads always have the same frequent fliers, and you all greatly enjoy comparing brains among yourselves. If you want to keep doing it, play nice.

[Neronix]

Okay so we have responses of people who live in the country of the argument, people who live in countries that are better (In a way) because that argument isn't even had, so how about we have an opinion of someone who lives in a country where the argument is totally accepted and gun owning is a right in its constitution? so here goes:

Hey, you want an example of what might happen if you don't have as many restrictions on Gun Control?. Look no further, we're right here. your southern neighbors the Mexicans! (You know those who you keep calling criminals unintelligent and all of that) (I'm generalizing and in no way believe that all Americans are like that btw) (And not all of us are criminals please understand). We have a high level of crime, are afraid of going out alone (especially at night), are at risk of getting shot in a public space and the criminal getting away with it, etc. So like a lot of people, if not all who have replied to your post, I disagree with your opinion on gun control (Mostly from experience). Gun control doesn't mean banning it means regulating who can and can't possess a gun. While it can be said that people are more defenseless against someone with a gun, the law actually also hinders criminals in the process of getting guns easily, and of getting caught in the act of trying.

As for the bathroom thing, I don't really care (Mostly because that isn't an issue over here at the moment) but I'm going to quote Neo:

Also, news flash trans people exist. Which fucking restrooms do you think they've been using? If you hate trans folks, then just come out with it, don't wrap that hate up with faux concern and try to sell it, because just about everyone can smell the bullshit inside the box.

Also, do you really think someone who isn't trans would go through all of the procedures to become a woman/man just to enter a bathroom and rape someone?. Some would, maybe, but the fact you're assuming that everyone would do it reflects your knowledge on trans people.

Lastly, you could use the fact that people have used that defence on court you can just replace the trans thing with, like, I don't know saying that a crime isn't their fault because they or the victims were under the effect of some substance?.

But like everyone else I think Ame has done the best job of explaining without going into a rant.

EDIT: If you were trying to ask what Kurotsune is saying then my opinion is this: there shouldn't even be a scale we should just call them opinions.

P.S. Sorry for any grammatical errors Spanish is my native language.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Neronix

[Odybld]

Is this a gun in your pocket or is it something else?

I mean, god damnit. I could make my points about the examples in the OP but it would boil down to a big "you are idiots". Thank god Kuro came out of nowhere and swatted this draft away. Thanks Kuro!

Anyway, there are three broad categories of political issues, simply speaking:

Administrational-managing issues, well, being moderate or extreme, in the end of the day is inconsequential: what matters is how you manage the damn thing to go well.

Minor issues: here cometh the shitstorm of politics. The bathroom thing is THE PERFECT EXAMPLE: Draw everything to the extreme and make a huge issue out of which door a citizen should walk through to take a piss. My stance on these matters? Shove it down their throats if need be, I don't care, we're not gonna waste time and effort discussing the basics just to top each other and rally our fanatics and create debate and make asses out of everyone involved.

Larger issues: I believe there are right and wrong solutions to these. The gun control and the healthcare in America are great examples. But hell, let's continue to ignore logic, numbers, case studies, basic principles of democracy and the welfare state, examples from other countries, etc.

The last one, and most important of these categories of issues... is the larger, more crucial desicions. In which I believe that, whereas a moderate solution works best in parliamentary democracy for the bulk of the other issues, sometimes, for larger problem, strong desicions must be made and enforced. And a solution that tries to be moderate and consential more often than not does not solve big pathologies of a state.

To give a historical example: when Greece was evacuated by the german troops in the winter of 1944, the British and Americans brought back the king on the throne and recruited the troops that had worked together with the nazi occupation troops against the communist freedom fighters. The result was a) a civil war that lasted 5 years and left the country both in ruin and divided between the left and the right, many of the worst elements of the country never being purged away (like the nazi supporters in, well, most of the rest of Europe) but rather coming out on the fucking top, which c) led them in positions of power, both politically and in the army. This created a "state within the state" of far-right elements that kept society and politics derailed and divided. Where did it end up? To a military junta from 1967 to 1974, which pretty much acted as a puppet for the local CIA branch. There were numerous moments where political parties could have fought against the "state within the state" or purged the army, but between their lack of dare, the objections of the Palace (fuck you Queen Consort Friederike) and the tendency of these mechanisms to remain alive, they failed.

Sometimes radical solutions are required.

[Neronix]

So... basically we live in a complicated world in which being an extremist doesn't work anymore and solutions have to adapt to situations? be it radical or not?

[Chase]

Kuro, Ame, Ody...and maybe a few others. Thank you for at least reading my questions. The former two of you have further thanks for being engaging instead of jumping to baseless conclusions, attributing me to pushing some sort of agenda, and other nonsense.

Ame and I disagree as to what constitutes an "equivalence" here. Her approach - and those of those who praised her for her answer - is indicative of -only- transgender individuals, which absolutely and indefinitely have zero confirmed cases of raping another person in a public restroom. That's not a fabricated statistic - but it doesn't mean that conservatives are horrible people for having the train of thought when this issue arises.

What it does mean is that there are people - "Straights" as Eviora put it - that absolutely can be attributed to false identity. Those people ruin the situation for trans people just as much as laws such as HB2 do because they give conservatives a legitimate concern and hinder progress on the issue. I don't need to roll out a number of heterosexual males that rape people in the women's room. Nobody wants to see that here, and it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Finally, that answer, along with many other answers given regarding gun control, disregards how guns provide the most effective way for one to defend themselves in cases where the assailant also has a gun. The exchange Ame and I had ended in an ignorant quip about how transgender people have it harder than people who lose their family members or watch their students get shot up without the ability to defend them - making one category of life seemingly more important than another.

This isn't Ame being a horrible person - it's Ame - like many of you - holding one issue closer to the heart, and I expect nerves to be frayed when challenges are made too close to the vest. If you all would have participated in the conversation as I was trying to direct it, instead of bandwagoning and shouting over the premises and examples used, this would have not have devolved as quickly as it did.

To end the record - I very much detest HB2. There's no reason to hurt me because I legitimately challenged an argument EVERYONE on the spectrum likes to make in terms of logic. I'm on the same team most of you are with regards to transgender issues.

Geez.

---

Tomas - Because lives -are- at stake in this scenario, not everyone has a detail of secret service or guards on hand, response time is critical in preserving lives, and failure to act -DOES- result in the criminal shooting instead, the gun serves as an equalizer. Most people don't arm themselves with the hopes of using the weapon. Have you ever watched a movie where a homeowner flashes a gun at a burgler - without firing it - and the criminal runs away? That's the ideal goal of having a firearm as a means of security in that scenario - or at least I would hope.

I truly hope nothing terrible happens to someone in your family, because under the forum rule, you wouldn't be able to prevent it yourself and you would have to let it happen - whatever the case may be. Maybe I'm not an auth because I challenged the system where it wasn't logical. Kinda like how I can't get away with being conservative in a forum that is supposed to harbor all walks of life, ya know?

---

Eviora - Yeah, changing a few minds would be nice because the world needs people that apply logic to their political identity in my opinion - but if I wanted to do that I would hold a considerably stronger bias than I did in the original post. I wasn't trying to cause a laugher - although the outrage that followed was admittedly laughter inducing because so many of you missed the dartboard when you responded.

All my "special pleading" ever is - is to be treated as equally as the next person. In Reborn, that usually means being entitled to a substantial conversation without getting attacked for it due to not holding a popular opinion. It was in no way rude to give support to transgender individuals was it? It -is- a little rude to be ignorant of the effects of denying one right to another group and almost worshiping the rights of yet another, which you've done consistently. Here, I just wanted to talk about logic and political identity, and I used two topics that garner interest in doing so.

[Eviora]

If you think I'm arguing for gun control I'm not sure you're reading my posts. I don't have strong feelings on that issue. My posts have been pretty much about arguing that the "logical inconsistency" you assume isn't one at all; that the two issues aren't as closely comparable as you suggest. And the special pleading that HB2 supporters and your initial post engage in is only worrying about the danger people claiming to be trans present. Anyone sharing a bathroom with anyone else could pose danger to them. Male predators can wait in the men's room to attack little boys. No one seems to particularly care about that... probably because that isn't really what this issue is about. It's just an excuse bigoted politicians use to rile up fear in people.

And, yes, heterosexual males rape people in women's restrooms. Notice that's illegal. Not the "in women's restrooms" part. The "rape" part. Does every one of those men uses the excuse of being trans to get in? Not even close. Do any? I haven't seen them yet. That's the data I was asking you for, because if there is none, then the problem is speculative, as Ame suggests. And if someone actually wanted to present to be a woman to get into the bathroom, they wouldn't need to use the trans excuse. If you're willing to put in a little effort, it's not that hard to present as female sufficiently well to withstand the minimal scrutiny random strangers will show you and keep it up for a few hours. Unlike gun control laws, HB2 is all but completely unenforceable, meaning the only people it hurts are the law abiding ones.

If bathroom assaults are becoming an issue (hint: they're not becoming one any more so than they were before Charlotte passed their pro-trans law) then we should address the actual problem, not choose random scapegoats based on them being a bit different.

Obviously, I can't read your mind, so I'll just tell you what I think and you can decide for yourself if it's true. I think you knew this particular comparison would prove especially relevant to this community. I think that's probably why you chose it. It got you clicks. From the moment I entered this thread and saw those memes, I felt like I was being baited. Maybe that's all in my head. I'm a pretty paranoid person, but to be honest, I don't believe I'm imagining this. But only you know if it's true. I'm not expecting an answer.

[Chase]

Yes, it's all in your head - but look at what you just wrote and decide for yourself.

"it got you clicks."

I don't make topics up just to hear myself speak. That's absurd. I want people to click on a thread I create, because they can't discuss it and it is a waste of time if people don't. It's literally as simple as that. Every thread that is ever made has that element to it. Nobody likes wasting time. I just felt like it would be a discussion that would be treated with the approach of an adult or older student, not that of a sheep.

"DO ANY?"

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Secret-Recording-Store-Mall-Antelope-Valley-Palmdale-Restroom-207541101.html - Jason Pomares

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/cross-dressing-man-arrested-for-exposure-at-walmar/nQddG/ - Norwood Smith Burnes

http://komonews.com/archive/police-man-in-bra-and-wig-found-in-womens-bathroom - Taylor Buehler

https://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008a/080331PoliceVPA.html - Unknown

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/rodney-kenneth-petersen_n_3496651.html - Rodney Peterson

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/92510/archives/2010/10/12/cross-dressing-peeper-infiltrates-cal-womens-locker-room - Unknown

The examples above are not of direct touching - but are not exactly merely using the facilities either. Most of them are for photography, non-contact sexual gratification, or peeping. Again, this wasn't relative to the topic - but I would be concerned in those areas. It also should be noted that none of the men claimed to be trans, but cross-dressing and using wigs is very indicative of trying to use drag as a method of obtaining access to areas they shouldn't have access to regardless. That would be enough to raise concern.

Not speculative.

This is damaging -to- the trans cause because if the loophole is left open, then it gives people who hear about these men ammunition. To say their concerns are lesser or greater than the trans person is special pleading because it ignores a group of concerned citizens either way.

If I wanted to make an irrelevant topic with regards to the community, I would be posting a bunch in the wasteland - not here.

[Eviora]

So you say it's all in my head then talk about how you did, in fact, want "clicks". It seems strange that you would say one thing, tell me to decide for myself, then post a paragraph hinting at the opposite. Other comparisons could have been made to make the point about political inconsistency. I feel this particular one was chosen for a reason.

Those links actually make my point, not break it. In my previous post, I mentioned that it's easy for a man to dress as a woman and get in the women's restroom without having to invoke the excuse of being trans. It sounds like in most of these cases, the guys went on to commit sex crimes and that's what got them found out and appropriately dealt with. Research done in cities where pro-trans bathroom laws have been passed show no evidence of an increase in such crimes. It's certainty disconcerting that some people are willing to do the things the people in the links did, but pro-trans bathroom laws open up no viable opportunities for crime that didn't already exist.

[Tomas Elliot]

I truly hope nothing terrible happens to someone in your family, because under the forum rule, you wouldn't be able to prevent it yourself and you would have to let it happen

Leaving aside how convenient it is that you ignored everything I said in my NUMEROUS posts, bar the bit about you being a former auth, I would like to address how cowardly of yours it is to play this card. Basically what you are saying is "you better arm yourself, or the bad guys will kill your family and it will be your fault". Instead of addressing my points, you are trying to play with my emotions...

... Which is without even mentioning the fact that I AGREE. People DO need ways of defending themselves in some extreme cases, and in fact I, since I live in one of those extreme cases, own a gun myself, as I have stated multiple times in the past, INCLUDING IN THIS VERY TOPIC. Not once in this topic have I ever stated that all citizens should be forbidden from owning any kind of weapon. What I DID say is that weapons are dangerous things, and thus there should be a strict set of rules to regulate who can own them, under what circumstances, and how they must handle them. Because, again, administering justice is NOT the duty of common citizens. You can NOT make yourself the judge, the jury and the executioner, killing a person because you felt threatened by them. And while there may be cases when that is inevitable, it is still a fact that a civil country should have a strict legislation on the matter.

I am not against people owning guns (I OWN ONE MYSELF), I am against people opposing all sorts of rules, and claiming that rules would equal common citizens being defenseless against criminals. THAT is the claim that pisses me off, because firstly, defending citizens is normally the duty of police (if you let everyone go around armed all the time and open fire whenever they feel threatened, that's pure and simple chaos), and secondly because, again, I live in a country with strict gun control, and yet I am not defenseless. Which proves that it is possible to enforce rules while still allowing citizens to defend themselves.

Now, Kurotsune is right in saying that we should address points, instead of engaging in purely dialectic squabbles. But the fact is: I DID. I eviscerated how and why I believe there should be rules on gun ownership, and how and why America is a terrible country for steadfastly refusing to enforce such rules. You, on the other hand, keep focusing on minor side aspects of what I say, addressing only one line out of one of the FOUR posts I made, all the while avoiding the crux of the issue: the very existance of a guy like me, a gun owner in a country with strict gun control, proves that it is perfectly possible to strike a balance, between the right to self-defense and the need to enforce rules to keep something as dangerous as weapons in check. Why is America so steadfastly refusing to pursue such balance? Why are you so strenuously defending the current lack of rules, despite the fact that it has caused, by your own admission, Columbine-like incidents to be five times more frequent in America than in Europe?