Are you saying that there aren’t people who were relatively ambivalent about gun control until Sandy Hook when they suddenly wanted to ban guns?
My larger point was a criticism of people using anecdote in their argument for gun control.
Either you can point out examples of what you said, or you can’t. I don’t have to disprove your claim-that’s not how it works.
I wonder what simile that might evoke …
Well, if he’s not saying it, I will. I’m a liberal, with liberal friends and associates, and I’ve never met anyone who wants to “ban guns across society,” either before or after a mass shooting.
Close gun show loopholes, yes. Limit the size of magazines, yes. Restrict access of people who have been formally declared to be too mentally ill to be fully responsible for themselves FFS, YES!!. But a total ban, never.
I don’t deny that there are people who want a total ban, but I would guess that they are a very small minority, and I find it very hard to believe that they were ambivalent about gun bans, let alone gun control, before Sandy Hook.
An experiment I wish we could see happen.
Let me get off the planet, first.
Gun laws similar to Australia’s should help. It would get most guns off the street and people serious about it with clean records could still purchase weapons. Some people would stockpile but that would just demonstrate they were never responsible law-abiding gun owners to begin with. Eventually the price of an illegal gun would be more than a common thug or nut job could afford.
Would you care to describe your definition of the difference between “Collecting” and “Stockpiling?”
One should be in a museum?
Actually, I don’t particularly care about the feelings of collectors. If your source of income is “collecting” guns, with the quotes, perhaps you should find another line of work.
Ah. I see. So, what you’re telling me is that you are not, in fact, interested in a reasonable debate on the subject - you just wish to inflict your preconceptions on others, IRT firearms.
Gotcha.
This thread is is over 150 pages. Enough debate for me. I’m kinda past debate. Neither side is going to change their mind much. The gun rights side will never change its mind. Not one iota. When a gun rights type says’ “let’s have a reasoned discussion” it’s just another stall tactic. I used to say, and believe, “no one is taking your guns” but I’ve moved beyond that. Sooner or later, we’re going to have to take (most of) your guns.
Item one: You’re applying a broad-brush fallacy. Item two: There are absolutely “want to take your guns;” If you actually don’t believe that, you are remakably gullible. See Op-Ed pieces in places like the *“New Republic”**, if you want your evidence. Until such time as you’re willing to admit you’ve been pushing a falsehood, no one on the other side of the argument will listen to a thing you say.
Willing to predict what might happen?
At this point, any libtard politician pushing to ban guns is either incredibly stupid or running a false flag operation. If this means I’m calling Hillary out — fine!
The insipid manufactured controversy over whether all women should be allowed to use women’s restrooms put the hideous alliance of Ignorati and Kleptocrats into power. The damage they do to ACA will kill more people than all the guns in North America; and the desecration of the EPA may kill even more.
To pursue gun banning or even gun control will mean the Evil-doers dominate U.S. politics into the foreseeable future.
Wake up, libtards! Your fellow citizens are extremely stupid, but if you stop triggering their Pavlov reflex to salivate (masturbate?) whenever they hear “Guns!”, they might end up pulling the Rational lever in the polling booth, if only by a fifty-fifty random chance.
Well, let’s take a look at what’s happened before:
[ul]
[li]Rural areas where people realize the nearest deputy could be half an hour or more away, and so guns are ubiquitous: bloodbaths and chaos? No.[/li][li]“Shall Issue”, took away local authority to deny carry permits without cause: bloodbaths and chaos? No.[/li][li]“Constitutional Carry”, eliminate requirement for carry permits altogether: bloodbaths and chaos? No.[/li][/ul]
I’m seeing a pattern here…
After all the talk about how Trump wouldn’t have won if only The Dems had talked purdy enough to them, there aren’t enough :rolleyes: in the whole internet for this post.
Wait. What?!?!
What exactly do you think the Australia gun laws say?
You know then licensing procedure is not just a matter of not having a record. You have to satisfy the local authority that you need a gun for some reason.
Trump won by a relative handful of votes in a handful of states. One of the reasons Hillary lost those states was because she beat the drums on gun control during the general election. Something that her own husband warned the Democrats about.
Now we have Trump.
Thanks Hillary.
Gun control is the political third rail for the democrats. Bill Clinton admitted in 94 that the assault weapon ban cost the democrats dearly in the midterm election turning both the Senate and Congress over to the republicans.
Hillary stomping on the gun control platform in 2016 played no small part in her defeat and again making the Congress and Senate republican.
‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’ - George Santayana
“There’s a sucker born every minute.” - anonymous