As a responsible gun owner, we as a country need to fix this gun violence problem!

[Magiver]

@Bullitt

ETA so what else besides age limits?

Go after the root cause and work on repairing the social damage that’s occurred in the last half of the 20th century.

[chela]

What is the root cause your trying to root out it sounds to me like an incels alpha male lament. Technology? Pornography? The Pill? Abortion rights? Feminists? Immigration? Violent media? Losing our religion? What what?

Root cause imo is when gun manufacturers appealed to fear and states rolled back their bans on carrying weapons in public and the rise of the NRA.

[Cheesesteak]

@Magiver

Go after the root cause and work on repairing the social damage that’s occurred in the last half of the 20th century.

Do we do this before or after curing everyone of mental illness?

[Dinsdale]

@Bullitt

I meant in addition to that. I favor age limits at 25, not just 21.

ETA so what else besides age limits?

Including penalties for anyone over 25 who buys a gun for an underage person, or makes their guns available to underaged persons - such as in the 2 instances I mentioned above?

@Magiver

Go after the root cause and work on repairing the social damage that’s occurred in the last half of the 20th century.

Please expound. What is the “root cause” of what specific “social damage” and how do we “repair” it?

[Omniscient]

@I_Love_Me_Vol.I

The important part is he is a gunowner who is willing to discuss some sensible ideas for lowering the amount of gun violence. I just can’t see how that makes him a villain.

Because it’s a bad faith discussion. As you peel back the onion more and more unreasonable excuses will be offered until we land right back at the status quo. If he thinks being armed, alone, in a state or national park, miles from anyone is reasonable and prudent, I can’t imagine any restriction which he’d agree to. He’s drawn his line in the sand, and there’s no room for discussion. That’s why we don’t let “responsible gun owners” dictate this debate.

[puzzlegal]

Moderating:

This is attacking the poster:

@Omniscient

Because it’s a bad faith discussion. As you peel back the onion more and more unreasonable excuses will be offered until we land right back at the status quo. If he thinks being armed, alone, in a state or national park, miles from anyone is reasonable and prudent, I can’t imagine any restriction which he’d agree to. He’s drawn his line in the sand, and there’s no room for discussion. That’s why we don’t let “responsible gun owners” dictate this debate.

You are claiming that the OP is arguing in bad faith, and that there’s no room for discussion with him.

Which you’ve previously been mod-noted for in this very thread:

@What_Exit

@Omniscient

This person is delusional

Modnote: this is an example of attacking the poster and not the post. Do not do this again.
This is borderline for a warning.

It’s not as egregious as the first example, but you need to discuss things civilly in IMHO. If you can’t contain yourself, you will be banned from the thread, and the mods will discuss a topic ban. This will be a formal warning.

[Czarcasm]

At what cost to you personally?
Are you willing to pay higher taxes for effective programs?
Will you actively support candidates that want to push through those programs, even if they are not of your political persuasion?

[puzzlegal]

Moderating: This thread seems to be drifting into pit territory in general. I’m going to close it until I can discuss with the other mods. It may stay closed, as we have some less ranty threads elsewhere.