And it’s been pointed out to me that I was doing that too much for a GD thread. I apologize for getting heated like that, UltraVires, that wasn’t appropriate or fair to you.
This topic was automatically opened after 30 minutes.
[To keep this impersonal I’m responding to all “you’s” as the general “you”, not anyone specific]
Because people opposed to a laissez-faire attitude towards gun are trying to change that situation, while people who support it are enabling it to continue.
He.
And, that’s a silly question. I DON’T trust @Miller or anyone else not to go buy a gun, then misuse it or have it fall into the wrong hands. That’s why I think it should be much harder to buy a gun.
It’s not some Catch-22 situation where I think guns should be freely available to anyone who doesn’t actually want them. I think guns should be restricted for everyone.
It happens, and I accept your apology. We all do it and it really isn’t appropriate when we look back. I shouldn’t have done it either and the debate is all good. I have deleted paragraphs from my brief when I asked if a judge would like such and such thing. It’s just an argument that you WANT to make, but shouldn’t. 
80% of American disagree. Almost no one wants a repeal or gun bans.
However, a slim majority are like me- wanting more sensible gun laws to make it harder for criminals to get them.
So, the vast supermajority of Americans are "complicit in gun violence’. although that word doesn’t mean what you think it does. Many Aericans have died due to the lies spread by Fox news and Conservative Talk radio, by one estimate about 2/3rd of American covid deaths were preventable- 922K to date, so something like 600k American have died, needlessly from covid- mostly due to lies. So, let us repeal the 1st Ad, it is killing people almost 100 greater than handgun murders.
Smoking kills 500000 Americans a year, Covid more. Guns are a tiny drop in the bucket.
Argument from popularity.
The distinction is, the first amendment serves a vital role in the functioning of our society, and protects a major human right.
The second amendment does neither of those things.
And, FTR, I’m 100% on board with banning Covid, too.
Almost no one in this thread does either.
Right, but any action on that part is screamed as wanting to repeal or ban guns.
No, just those that fight against laws or regulations that would make it harder for criminals and the irresponsible from getting them.
One does.
Oh, no- that is democracy. I believe in it.
Straw man.
See? This is what I am saying. Any attempt at doing anything about mitigating the damage done by guns to our society is automatically labeled as banning guns.
I don’t see in that post where Miller says he wants to ban guns, but you use it as an example of someone who wants to ban guns.
Now, the pro-gun argument that nothing can be done to mitigate the damage of guns without a repeal, neener neener neener, has as its only logical response that a repeal must be necessary, as the pro gun advocate just declared that to be the case. If there is anyone making the argument for repeal it is people like @UltraVires, when they claim that the second amendment prevents any measures from being taken to mitigate the damage done by having guns extremely easy to aquire in our society by criminals or the irresponsible.
So, I reiterate, any action taken is screamed as wanting to repeal or ban guns, while often impugning nefarious motives. It’s gotten to the point where pro gun advocates have nothing to bring to the table, just keep repeating the same screed over and over, eliminating themselves from any sort of productive conversation between rational adults.
If the people who want guns to stay prevalent in our society want to make suggestions on how to mitigate the damage they do to our society, ten by all means, share. If they just want to tell society that it just needs to accept that damage, and they just don’t care, then we already know that, and repeating it ad nauseum just points out how little they care about anyone but themselves and how much they are willing to let others bear their cost.
That’s fair enough, and I apologize. But I would bet that your gun control proposal would not be acceptable to me or anyone on our side. No, I shouldn’t need a permit to own a gun anymore than I need a permit to go to church or have privacy in the home.
And I know that I am going back on my word, but no constitutional right would otherwise be treated as if I have to justify my exercise of it. Why is this argument reversed to where I must justify my gun ownership because others misuse it? We typically talk about cars and pools and abortions and try to make analogies because, although imperfect, they show the open hostility towards this right, and some of us want to protect it, much like how some on the left are radically opposed to any restriction on abortion.
Further, I used the example of my ownership of a deer rifle and posters are saying I am contributing to “the problem.” What then is left of gun rights under your view and why should I not be suspect that the criticism of a deer rifle leads me to believe that such a thing would be restricted given such comments?
That’s because nothing is acceptable to you or anyone on your side. The only thing that you will accept is to make it even easier for criminals and the irresponsible to have access to guns.
Do you think that your right to bear arms means you have a right to sell them as well? That’s kinda the whole point of permits and such, to keep people from allowing their guns to get into the hands of criminals and the irresponsible.
Does your right to own a gun mean that you have the right to bring it anywhere you want? Even onto private property that doesn’t want you to bring it there?
It’s not your ownership of a deer rifle that is how you are contributing to the problem, it is your advocacy to make it easier for criminals and the irresponsible to acquire guns.
Do you have a single suggestion that would be effective to keep guns away from criminals and the irresponsible? Do you have any ideas on how to mitigate the damage that the guns that you advocate for do to society?
If so, then let’s hear it, I’d love to hear from gun advocates how they think that they can work with us on reducing the damage that guns do. If not, then you really have talked your own way out of the conversation and have nothing to add.
The only thing that you have left is to do your best to derail and defeat anyone else who takes the ideas of preventing criminals and irresponsible from acquiring guns, and how to mitigate their damage to society, seriously. And that’s no longer a conversation, that’s just you trying to prevent conversation.
The issue, which your side consistently misses, is that it is not the gun that is the problem. It is the criminal that is the problem. Think of the 1920s when any felon just out of prison could order a Thompson sub machine gun out of the Sears and Roebuck catalog. There was no issue with school shootings. So when we problem solve, don’t we control for what has changed?
You want me to say that I am for this or that restriction on guns, even though we have had a lot of gun restrictions while the problem has increased. It is not the gun’s fault no more than the car’s fault because the driver is drunk or the gasoline can’s fault when some idiot pours it on his grill. That’s what we keep saying: It is not the object.
It’s funny but my cousin just called and we talked about this. I guess you are right that we don’t trust you and you probably don’t trust us.
He made a good point. If we could somehow come to some enforceable agreement that say assault weapons are illegal but you promise, pinky promise, that you aren’t coming back next year for pistols or deer rifles, then we could probably agree to that. An end of the debate. But we fear that you would just come back asking for more next time. A fair enough point.
Right, that criminal could order a gun that cost more than a car, wait 3-4 months, then go on a crime spree.
The cost of guns has gone way down, and the availability way up. Your comparison to the 1920’s is worthless.
No, I don’t want you to anything. However, if you want to be a part of the conversation, then give a suggestion for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and irresponsible, or how to mitigate the damage that guns do to society. Otherwise, all you do is try to derail and distract from those who are trying to have that conversation, and your contributions can safely be dismissed as having no productive value.
We have laws against drunk driving. We have worked to lower the fatality rate of having cars, coming from various angles. And it has worked, car fatalities have come down because we have taken action to reduce the damage that they do to society.
With guns, you don’t just refuse to try, you refuse to even let people have a conversation about how they want to try.
Yes, that’s what you keep repeating, over and over and over, but it has yet to make it true.
But, to some extent, you are right that it’s not the object, it’s who has the object in their possession, and you do everything in your power to ensure that the criminal and irresponsible are able to acquire it with ease.
And I’d leave guns alone if you would pinky promise to stop allowing them to be acquired by criminals and the irresponsible, but it’s not just a fear, as your paranoia suggests, it is an observation that that is exactly what you will do, as it is exactly what you are doing right now.
It is a federal felony for any criminal to buy a gun. What more would you like me to concede to? If I go to the gun store, I can use my CCW as proof that I am not a criminal.
But many arguments are pretty much “nobody is a criminal until they are” so that must mean no guns for anyone…or only shotguns but not repeating shotguns, or some other position you have that you tell me is not a complete gun ban.
This is a convenient strawman for dismissing gun control arguments, but it bears no actual reflection of what gun control proponents actually think. I’m not worried about guns, I’m worried about who has them.
What were the overall gun crime statistics in the 1920s, versus today? Higher or lower?
Okay. Great. I support the current laws outlawing criminals and young children from having guns (without parental permission for the children). But I suspect you want more.
Of course higher because of prohibition. That is not the issue we have today. There were (none as I recall) school shootings but a crazy guy did bomb a local school in Minnesota I think…