To be fair, the expectation of banning guns isn’t that all violent crime will go away, it’s that the amount of casualties will go down. A murderous Brit with an AR-15 in London could mow down dozens of victims. A murderous Brit with a knife can only stab, most likely with fewer deaths and an inability to wound anyone who’s not in his immediate vicinity.
And if all knives were banned and murderous Brits turned to screwdrivers next, the amount of casualties you can inflict with a screwdriver is even more limited.
It’s all well and good to feel righteous in your use of petty insults against political opponents. That’s fine. Whatever. But it’s unreasonable to then expect cooperation from the people you’re insulting.
The only “fetishism” I see here is those that fetishize their hatred and phobia of guns, often caused by ignorance.
No one is trying to "loosen restrictions on gun ownership … to mentally ill people, ".
And other suggestions have been made but the gun grabbers dont care. The gun grabbers dont care about trying to prevent the murder of schoolchildren- they just want to ban guns as they have Hoplophobia.
“I regard the lives of my fellow citizens as being more important than whatever those needs might be…they are objectively pro-massacre…Well, as long as you feel your ‘rights’ are more important than people routinely getting gunned down on our streets and in our schools, then fuck yeah, you have it coming to you…”.
I completely agree that this is the only “fetishism” you see.
This is incoherent nonsense.
Given that I was closely paraphrasing something another poster on your side of the issue recently wrote in this thread just before your own contribution on the matter, yes, the hypocrisy does burn.
I don’t ‘feel righteous’; I’m stating a straightforward relationship. Not very sorry if you feel insulted by the truth.
And no, there’s nothing moronic to be telling hard truths in the present those I had hoped for cooperation from in the past (expecting was too strong a word even then), when there’s not the least sign of the remotest possibility of such cooperation in the present or foreseeable future.
Rick Scott, John Kasich, and I believe I already mentioned Chris Christie: I’m sure they’d be surprised to be called California anything.
Well, I didn’t think you had a response that involved the actual merits.
Biathlons in the Winter Olympics is a sport and damned hard one but they are not out of breath from the shooting.
Straight up shooting events in the Olympics are events, sporting events, but not a sport in the sense of hockey being a favorite sport of Canada. Which is what I was talking about and not entirely seriously, I might add. Though I didn’t think I’d have to.
I’m not trying to gun grab the Olympics. You can relax.
Reading all this, it occurs to me- why are we here playing the same old game, trying to figure out exactly what a Dem politician means to say, and why?
I think it’s a fair (and very important) question to ask at this point: why is it so taken for granted that Dem politicians always have to leave so much to the imagination? This behaviour, easily observable for decades, seems to be a problem hiding in plain sight - while it’s become generally recognised that Dems have a great deal of difficulty ‘getting their message across’ to the electorate, I believe the problem goes deeper.
In the case of Beto’s public statements here, would the ‘crown fall off his head,’ or would he really risk losing that much support if he actually made it clear where he’s coming from, and if he simply changed his mind after the El paso shootings, could he not just say so?
It seems that the Dems, including Beto, are still adhering to an old playbook that dictates that this type of politesse-oriented behaviour, which simply doesn’t work anymore.
The GOP has the luxury - and has, over the years, exploited it like ‘playing a fine violin’ - of saying exactly what their supporters and potential believers want to hear, with no equivocation necessary (while knowing how inept the Dems are at effectively refuting them). This includes, by now, everything short of saying that the earth is flat- and they’re really not very far from that, are they? In the case of their poisonous stands on climate matters for instance, they will, hopefully, be properly judged in the not too distant future- in 2020 if we’re lucky, or Dems quickly wake up and learn something about effectively communicating in these times.