Democrats: Compromise. Give up guns.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@The_Hamster_King

And yet, many Republicans still act as though the battle were going on.

You don’t walk away from the fire just because you don’t see any flames. I’m not convinced yet. And why should I be? Because you say so?

Get back to me after 2016 and we’ll talk. Expecting me to take it on faith right now is absurd. Lame-duck Presidents propose a lot of things that they never would when they have to face re-election. Let’s see about Obama’s second term first, shall we?

Incidentally, you don’t have to be a Republican for guns to be an issue that concerns you. I’m not.

[ExTank]

@Balance

You are simply incorrect on this issue. Many hunters carry pistols. The purpose is generally not to shoot game animals–they carry rifles and shotguns, or even bows, for that–but for protection against dangerous animals at close range, where it’s not practical to aim and fire a long gun. There are parts of the US where a walk in the woods (or even along the road) can result in an encounter with one or more critters that may try to kill you.

I have a profound personal loathing for guns, but this is a bad argument.

Hunting with handguns is an admittedly small niche of the greater hunting community, but there are those who practice it.

All those .454, .460 and, .500 revolvers are not, contrary to snark, about penis size and compensation for lack thereof.

[ExTank]

@Der_Trihs

But very rarely; usually the people with guns get shot like anyone else, typically without drawing their weapon.

This isn’t GD, but I’d like you to back that up with some factual evidence.

@Lightnin

Where do you draw the line? Churches, public buildings, preschools? Because unless guns are everywhere, and I mean everywhere, you’ll still have rampages. Just like terrorism- they don’t attack where we’re strong, they attack where we’re weak. And it’s impossible to harden every location.

Criminals and other wrongdoers always have the initiative to pick their time and place, and that’s true whether every swinging’ Richard is armed or just a select police unit like London Metro.

But still, legalized concealed carry allows someone, somewhere, to be armed, and at least defend themselves against lone criminals and mass-shooters alike, and saying since we (armed citizens) can’t be everywhere/stop all of these shootings that that’s cause to prevent us from being able to stop some of them, some of the time, when they happen around us, is the intellectual and moral equivalent of saying since we can’t stop all illegal drugs we shouldn’t even try to stop any.

Would you say that since we can’t prevent all fires, we shouldn’t have a fire department?

Since we can’t prevent all crime, we shouldn’t have a police department?

Since we can’t prevent all heart attacks, we shouldn’t research cardiac medicine?

The difference is, you see a legitimate need and purpose for fire & police departments, and for cardiac specialists, but not for guns.

*I can see a legitimate need and purpose for all four. *

And honestly, I doubt shooters say, “Well, I WAS going to shoot up that mall… but there might be people with guns there, so I’ll go somewhere else.” By definition, once someone decides to shoot up a public location to make a statement, they’ve already abandoned rationality.

Don’t be so sure that they’re entirely irrational. In most of the cases of mass shooters I’ve read about, they’ve shown considerable cold-blooded rationality in planning and equipping themselves for their heinous acts. The Colorado Theater shooter purchased body armor, which indicates that on some level, a self-preservation motivation was at work.

Or perhaps a rational appreciation of the threat a potential concealed carry holder might present to his plan to kill as many people as possible.

[Johnny_L.A]

@The_Hamster_King

Seriously, Johnny L.A., I don’t know what you expect the Democrats to do.

[ul][li]As we have seen with the Republicans, ‘common sense laws’ means ‘laws that push forward our agenda’. The Democratic Party can come out and say, ‘No number of new laws will stop gun crime. Rather than to restrict access by the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens, we propose that the various agencies tasked with enforcing those laws be better coordinated with one another to reduce the number of guns getting into the hands of criminals and mentally unstable individuals.’[/li][li]Stop trying to, or suggesting that, we bring back the ‘assault weapons’ ban. Scary Black Guns are functionally identical to many non-scary, non-black guns.[/ul][/li]The DP can offer something like ‘You stop opposing progressive taxes, and we’ll stop trying to ban SBGs.’

[DMark]

@August_West

Yes, I go hunting with a handgun.

@Balance

You are simply incorrect on this issue. Many hunters carry pistols.

@ExTank

Hunting with handguns is an admittedly small niche of the greater hunting community, but there are those who practice it.

Right.
And some women actually use their 12 inch personal vibrators to massage their necks.

And guys in dorms actually smoke pipe tobacco in those bongs.

Sure, you could also turn a handgun around and use it to hammer a nail in your shoe. And most certainly people use handguns for target practice - correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t there PEOPLE on many of those paper targets?

Than anyone is trying to sell me on the idea that the purpose of handguns is to hunt moose or shoot a dangerous raccoon that might sneak up on them in the woods is ludicrous bullshit.

The purpose of a handgun is to shoot people.
Don’t insult our intelligence by pretending it is anything different.

[ExTank]

@DMark

Right.
Don’t insult our intelligence by pretending it is anything different.

Don’t insult great swaths of people with your blithering ignorance.

[Johnny_L.A]

@DMark

correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t there PEOPLE on many of those paper targets?

My local range does not allow human-shaped images on targets.

[Ludovic]

[quote=“Johnny_L.A, post:64, topic:632493”]

[li]Stop trying to, or suggesting that, we bring back the ‘assault weapons’ ban. Scary Black Guns are functionally identical to many non-scary, non-black guns.[/list][/li][/QUOTE]
This is something concrete. Do you have a cite that this is a prominent part of many prominent Democratic politicians positions?

[Johnny_L.A]

@Ludovic

This is something concrete. Do you have a cite that this is a prominent part of many prominent Democratic politicians positions?

I’m talking about the party. See post #4:

@Democratic Party

We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements – like… reinstating the assault weapons ban…

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Johnny_L.A

I have been registered as non-partisan for as long as I can remember. I consider myself pretty liberal. I’ve always wanted to live in The Future, and the only way to get there is to progress. UHC? You bet. It’s probably my ‘main issue’. Gay marriage? Yes. It has no effect on me, and why shouldn’t everyone enjoy the same rights and privileges? (<= Rhetorical question.) Keep science in schools, with the scientific method, critical thinking, and so on? Oh, yes. Progressive taxes? Yep. Acceptance of different cultures? Check. Freedom from religion? I don’t want a Christian Taliban. Capital punishment? OK, I admit some ambivalence; but for various reasons I come down against it.

But there’s one issue upon which I disagree with many other liberals, and the Democratic Party. Gun control. Yes, there are a lot of crimes committed with guns. Yes, there are people who obtain them who shouldn’t. But looking at the percentages of guns used in crimes vs. ones used legally, many proposed gun control laws would punish the many for the actions of the few. Plus I like my collection, even if I rarely get to the range anymore.

There are a lot of calls for compromise nowadays. The compromises seem to me to focus on single issues. In the case of taxes, for example, Democrats want to raise them for people and virtual people who are most able to afford to pay more. Republicans are willing to let the majority pay more, unless the rich get to pay less. The obvious compromise is to raise taxes on the upper echelons and keep taxes the same (or lower them) for the majority, and to make spending cuts where they would do the most good and do the least harm. With both sides entrenched, it’s difficult for either side to budge.

Single-issue compromises are not the way to go. President Obama said, rather impolitically, that certain people ‘cling to guns and religion’. These people tend to vote for Republicans. Ironically, these people are the ones who would be helped most by UHC and a more progressive tax code.

There are many things that decide one’s vote, but isn’t there room to give a little? Which is more important: People being able to get medical care before their conditions progress to the point where they are extremely expensive to treat, and ensuring people will not lose their homes due to high personal medical bills; or restricting access to the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners to their hobby? I think the former. I think the Democratic Party should come out and say, ‘We are fine with the background checks, the prohibitions on certain people to own guns, and the state laws regulating guns in those states. We will drop the issue. In exchange, Republicans can give us some of the things we want.’

Some people hate guns. However there are more important things in life, and for the country. Let’s drop the issue and concentrate on what’s important.

I’m confused. What precisely is the compromise offered up here?

All I see is “Well, this issue isn’t particularly important to me, so let’s drop it from the platform.”

As for your invitation to [del]compromise[/del] capitulate on this point: my regrets … I must decline the offer.

I have been registered as non-partisan for as long as I can remember.

Care to hazard a guess as to how much input non-Democrats get to have in the Democratic party platform?

[Johnny_L.A]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

I’m confused. What precisely is the compromise offered up here?

Compromise is giving up something you want in exchange for something else you want. Is it more important to take something away that is important to millions of Americans, or is it more important to give something to Americans that they need?

[Ludovic]

@Johnny_L.A

I’m talking about the party. See post #4:

I agree that that should be taken out of the platform. But there are times when a Tu Quoque (or, someone Quoques, at any rate,) becomes so egregious as to be impossible to avoid. In this instance it would be the support for making all abortion illegal in the Republican platform. People actually take this language to believe that individual GOP members are working toward a total abortion ban, despite any individual Republican’s beliefs or pragmatic politics.

So in this particular case, I agree. That line in the platform is not only counter to what I personally believe, but it cannot help the Democrats but can only hurt. But I feel the exact same way about the line about abortion. I sincerely believe that many Republicans do not want to enact a total abortion ban, but the insistence on this in their platform cannot help them, but can only hurt.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Johnny_L.A

Compromise is giving up something you want in exchange for something else you want. Is it more important to take something away that is important to millions of Americans, or is it more important to give something to Americans that they need?

Precious.

Not to mention that millions would prefer sensible gun control.

I’m not prepared to say “Hey GOP, we’re dropping this in hopes that your consciences will be moved to do the same on some things we want. Hope we don’t get fucked over!”

Particularly at the behest of someone who cannot even make a minimal gesture of support for the Democratic Party by registering as one.

[Johnny_L.A]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

Particularly at the behest of someone who cannot even make a minimal gesture of support for the Democratic Party by registering as one.

Remind me not to speak up for civil rights because I don’t belong to the ACLU.

[foolsguinea]

OP, you’re against the death penalty but for liberal access to guns? So the state can’t kill someone with a capital conviction, but a homeowner can shoot a trespasser (not a capital crime)?

Seems out of whack to me.

Oh, and if you aren’t for the Castle Doctrine, what are these guns for? Because Democrats aren’t really saying you can’t shoot at the range, are they?

[foolsguinea]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Along with issues like gay marriage and drugs, Americans have been moving toward a libertarian position on gun control for years including Democrats. It is the one battle conservatives will win on social issues.

Actually, considering the old-fashioned conservatives (before 1970) were pro-gun control, it’s one conservatives have lost.

The domestic arms race has created a lot of chaos. To have any credibility in poor urban communities, you ought to have an answer to gun violence. What’s yours?

[foolsguinea]

@scr4

Except it’s not a “compromise” because Democrats haven’t gotten anything in return. Democrats simply abandoned it as a political cause, for no good reason.

This. If we have given up on gun control as part of the Dems’ agenda, then it’s not something we can even use to negotiate with the GOP.

@Peremensoe

I think that’s exactly why Johnny L.A. is correct.

As a party, the Democrats are best served by flatly abolishing any hint of gun control from their platform, and indeed explicitly enshrining Second Amendment rights.

They can still tolerate the minority who want to actively break with the party on that issue. But identifying the whole party with gun control–or allowing it to be so identified by the other side–is a losing strategy. Meaningful work on health care and energy and the environment has already been lost.

Poppycock. If the Democrats give in to capitulate to the GOP, then the GOP will just demand capitulation on the other matters. There go health care, energy, and the environment.

Maybe that’s unfair, but–

Somebody has to be the party of grown-ups, and explain to the populace that they have to give some things up; and clearly it’s not going to be the GOP.

[foolsguinea]

@Chefguy

I take a small caliber pistol with me on RV trips, as not everyone outside your door means you well. In fact, it’s downright scary how many nutjobs are out there. This guy, for instance, should probably never have been issued a concealed carry permit. He shot the other customer because the guy was trying to prevent him from seeing his wife’s PIN as she entered it.

Thank you for making the gun control argument for us.

[jz78817]

@foolsguinea

OP, you’re against the death penalty but for liberal access to guns? So the state can’t kill someone with a capital conviction, but a homeowner can shoot a trespasser (not a capital crime)?

Seems out of whack to me.

it is out of whack, because it’s not remotely the case. "trespassing"in and of itself is not (TTBOMK) justification for anyone to use deadly force.

don’t know why I bothered responding to a strawman, but oh well…

@DMark

The purpose of a handgun is to shoot people.
Don’t insult our intelligence by pretending it is anything different.

Location: Chi NYC Berlin LA Vegas

there’s a shocker.

[Der_Trihs]

@Johnny_L.A

Compromise is giving up something you want in exchange for something else you want.

As opposed to what is being recommended here; to give up something for nothing.

And compromise requires both sides to be willing to compromise. The Democrats cannot compromise on this or anything else regardless of their desires, because the Republicans will refuse to do so. They can cave in and just give the Republicans what they want, but they can’t compromise, only surrender.

@Johnny_L.A

Is it more important to take something away that is important to millions of Americans, or is it more important to give something to Americans that they need?

Like not being shot?