Can you please explain what your first post here was about? You said my side isn’t willing to give anything up to get what we want, and when asked to elaborate, you said that I can’t have what I want at all. So, there’s really nothing that I can give up in order to get what I want, because you have what you want, and I can go fuck myself.
But, I’m the one who doesn’t want to debate, right?
Violent criminals. Home invasion robberies.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
So, you can’t defend your home? You can’t hunt either? 
Give up on the blanket ban. It’s not going to happen. See, whenever these “debates” come up everyone on the control side here tells us how nobody wants to take our guns. I’ll make sure to bookmark this page to prove that yes, an actual SDMB member wants to take away guns.
When I think of compromise, I think win-win. Before I tell you to go fuck yourself, how about you tell me where my win is by turning in my handguns and rifles because you say so.
And see, posters have claimed that no one is suggesting a widespread gun ban. But here it is.
Courts enforce laws. If we change laws, courts will enforce those laws.
I know, it’s a reach to expect laws to change with respect to RKBA. Certainly not in the case of a full on blanket ban. But I feel it’s important to keep reaching. All sorts of human rights and social justice reforms were achieved through reaching. Statistics show that when it comes to gun control issues, these aspirational hopes are no longer the minority.
But you go right on ahead and feel satisfied with the courts ruling in your favor right now. I’m going to go right on ahead and continue to insist that laws and court decisions be changed.
Yes, there it is. Don’t forget to reference that one post and use it as a shield whenever someone wants to discuss the issue, emphasizing the point that you have proof that “they” all really want guns to be banned.
Sounds good. Let me ask you this however, do you know the difference between the two types of firearms I mentioned earlier? I noticed you never answered me. See, when people threaten to take away my stuff, I would like to know that they have a f’ing clue what it is they are talking about first. I’m strange that way I guess.
Sorry, I missed that.
Without looking it up?.. Nope.
Without looking it up… still don’t care.
I’m an equal opportunity gun grabber. I’ve made the exception in the case of hunting rifles and target pistols. If I’m pressed to specify which type, I’ll say the type with a capacity of 5 or 6 rounds in case you happen to miss the first 4 times. Don’t ask me about caliber. Big enough to bring down a rabbit or a deer, if you must. Personally, I’m against killing animals in the wild for sport, but I am willing to offer this as a compromise for those who feel they must.
Thanks. I’ll bookmark this post too.
Well, the other side’s retort is always “nobody really wants to take away yer guns” so there’s that.
Have at it. 
If QuickSilver had come back and told you the difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle, would it have made any difference? Would you then have considered his proposal?
Let me repeat again the statement from Rebecca Peters, a former Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence: “If you have a country saturated with guns – available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed – it’s not unusual guns will be used more often. This has to be treated as a public health emergency.”
So all you have to do to fix the gun violence problem without any need for gun control legislation is prevent people from ever being intoxicated, angry, depressed, hateful, jealous, vengeful, or any of the other emotions that people sometimes experience because they’re human. Just replace people with robots running verified emotion-free error-free software. Problem solved.
On the first point, it’s not a “preference”.
On the second point, no one has claimed gun control is the “only” path to a solution to gun violence. But when you’re talking about a country that is up to its metaphorical ass in guns, it seems both futile and rather comical to be looking at “other” solutions (see the Rebecca Peters quote above). There are more than a dozen major democracies in the world with cultures and economies comparable to that of the US, and they have many of the same societal problems. Not one of them has anything even remotely similar to the same rate of gun violence. Whereas the number of countries that have a US-style gun culture that have no major gun violence problem because they’ve solved all their social issues is exactly zero.
Every time I point out that a great deal can be learned by trying to understand the gun laws and, more importantly, the gun culture and gun-related behaviors in the advanced nations in the rest of the world, the response from the gun side is always some variant of “I don’t give a shit about other countries”. Is that the sort of example of disinterest in learning that you were thinking of?
For example, the CDC once studied the rates of gun violence against children, both intentional and accidental, in a dozen advanced nations including the US. The childhood death rate from gun violence in the US was far greater than in the 11 other countries combined. Surely someone, somewhere, on the gun side must have an honest interest in understanding why there is such an incredibly dramatic disparity in the rates of gun violence between the US and any other country on earth that is even remotely comparable.
I probably would have passed out on the floor in shock.
How about an honest answer?
Glad you’re alright. FWIW, I looked it up for shits and giggles. Mostly because I wondered where Czarcasm was going with that question, and partly to fight my own ignorance.
It will not shock you to learn that I would like to stick with my original answer.
Feel free to bookmark this as well. Wouldn’t want you to run out of ammo.
I think there is much to be said for such studies. I think that the differences between the US and other countries are too quickly waved away however whenever the US is compared to other nations. It happened in this thread already and a poster was called a racist for noting a statistic. I think there is far more at play regarding gun violence than simply the number of guns available.
I tried to make the point that this country has been awash with guns for generations and only in the last 30-40 years have school shootings become a thing. Since WW1 and even to an even greater extent after WW2, millions of guns have been added but somewhere along the way, something began to change and the value of life seems to have lessened.
I’d like to know what that something was.
Consider a blanket ban of all semi auto handguns and rifles? You don’t know me, and I am not one of the more prolific posters here, but you know the answer to that question.
I would try to continue the discussion short of a complete ban however. I think that there are a few proposals floating around that gaggle of Democratic Presidential hopefuls that could be modified into some win win proposals for both sides towards the common good.
I offer the following as a possible (likely?) explanation.
That something that has happened in the past 30-40 years is not happened uniquely or exclusively in the US. It has happened everywhere. The difference is, the US has an abundance of guns while other places (who have also seen a rise in violence to be sure) do not.