The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

I have no real problem with your posts so don't take it personally. If both of my parents were klan members, MAYBE I would be a racist. There's certainly a greater chance. But that does not make the viewpoint more palatable. It would explain its origin, but does not mean we should not as a society come to an agreement that racism should be discouraged because it undermines important values.

The failure of regulation to get rid of every problem is not an argument against it (you do actually make this argument unfortunately). Regulation would only be a bad idea if it caused more harm than good.

I would argue gun nuts are more wrong than different. If their obsession with guns and their paranoia about the country descending into civil war causes them to block policies that could have positive public health consequences, they're wrong. It does not matter to me that their accent is different, that they eat certain foods, or whether they come from a long line of gun nuts. These would explain how they became gun nuts but would not mitigate the damage their views do or justify their position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

My point is if you lived in Georgia your handle would be Falconfan!

---

So then you probably assume I'm from Colorado:)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

So then you probably assume I'm from Colorado:)?

---

You probably bought your car at John Elway Chevrolet! HOMER!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I would argue gun nuts are more wrong than different. If their obsession with guns and their paranoia about the country descending into civil war causes them to block policies that could have positive public health consequences, they're wrong. It does not matter to me that their accent is different, that they eat certain foods, or whether they come from a long line of gun nuts. These would explain how they became gun nuts but would not mitigate the damage their views do or justify their position.

---

The majority of pro-lifers don't think doctors should be jailed for murder, and I'm guessing you don't think gun nuts are wrong enough to be swept up in FBI dragnets.
Most people who resort to gun violence are guys who are up against the wall in the worst way. Not a bunch or redneck gun collectors.
Would you hire a ni**er that would carjack people? That kid who shot up the Sandy Hook School killed his Mom to get the key to the locked up guns. She probably didn't want him doped up in some overpriced mental institution. What's the solution for people hanging on to their last thread? These are real problems. Regulate them away? When I lived in a bad neighborhood some black kids broke in and stole my .22 revolver!!

Obviously, I don't think the people I call gun nuts should be locked up. In fact, if there were regulation they would not be adversely affected imo. As you say, many people who resort to gun violence are up against a wall in the worst way. If they have a history of violence or a history of psychoses, maybe you should not own guns. If not, maybe there should be waiting periods for purchasing guns anyway. It's not going to fix the problem of gun violence, but it may reduce the murder and suicide rates.

I've joked around about guns. I had a friend who loved them and would go target shooting and hunting (is this anecdote the equivalent of I have a black friend?). If he had ever asked me to shoot targets or whatever I probably would have tried it. My snobbery doesn't run that deep. I can understand it becoming a hobby in the same way anything can become a hobby. I can understand people wanting basic protection for their families. I can't understand the paranoia that comes with thinking the government is coming for all the weapons because they want to ban the most dangerous kinds or keep them out of the hands of the most dangerous people. So there is a limit to my metropolitan liberal snobbery; I try to reserve it for unhinged excess.

It’s unclear whether Nancy Lanza had her guns locked up. Some reports say she didn’t, others claim she did. She was shot with her own Bushwacker which supports the theory that she didn’t, or if she did she wasn’t shot for the key.

She lived with her deeply disturbed son who was being treated for a neurological disorder with accompanying psychological issues. Yet she chose to keep an arsenal of high caliber, semi-automatic weapons in that very home. She paid the ultimate price for that error in judgment as did twenty children and six other adults. For the latter I would not have sentenced her to death, but I would’ve considered giving her some time in jail.

Do I want to see the FBI sweep the homes of psychiatric patients checking them for arsenals. Number one: because as of this date, such arsenals are legal. Number two: I don’t think it’s the most efficient way to prevent future shootings.

Of course nothing will stop shootings from happening in the future. No amount of legislation can solve everybody’s problems or make the world as safe as a children’s ball pit. But as Bronco already indicated, appropriate regulation can bring the number of gun accidents, suicides and deliberate shootings down. That’s the whole idea behind laws of all kind. Right? No one believes that laws will eliminate all crime, prevent all accidents or protect all innocents from all harm: but we do believe that well designed laws appropriately enforced will reduce crime, reduce accidents and often protect citizens from harm or at least mitigate the harm done.

Let's spin this wheel around to it's logical conclusion and then set it on fire. I can't remember the comic's name, and I'm repeating myself, but "Democrats like to be right, Republicans like to win"
As a Democrat I think saner laws address problems better than shotguns over the hearth or poison gas in the showers, but the way I see it, neither Republicans, Democrats, or Nazis are going to fix the world's problems. The world is fucked. The other guy is always wrong. I may not be right but I'm never wrong. Preachy? Goddam right.
If you see the world as a whole you have to see past the differences in it. There's more to wisdom than morality. And yes, I see the irony here that I am claiming I know more than you two. That I am claiming I know more than you know-it-alls.
We're all going to leave this world one way or another. Looks like the only way I'm going to get out of this thread is to admit you guys are right about everything. You believe me, right?

I said it was unclear. I told you what I want. And I agreed with you that nothing will stop all crime. Did I say I was absolutely, without a doubt right? No. So what is it about what we say that strikes you as so outrageously unassailable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

And yes, I see the irony here that I am claiming I know more than you two. That I am claiming I know more than you know-it-alls.
We're all going to leave this world one way or another. Looks like the only way I'm going to get out of this thread is to admit you guys are right about everything. You believe me, right?

---

:) You could just take a hiatus without saying anything. Your presence is appreciated but nobody is demanding you remain until we find common ground.

I don't doubt that you're a knowledgeable man but what is it you're recommending we do? Not have the opinions we do and in a contest of ideas not present the ideas we hold as correct? I highly doubt that the reason Democrats have lost elections is because they believe they're right....we have no more of the market on self-righteousness than the righties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

So what is it about what we say that strikes you as so outrageously unassailable?

---

Well put question. I think that we state a view, which implies we think we're right, and also implies that we think any view we haven't stated is probably wrong. But isn't that a pre-requisite for any discussion? I could say, "I believe a, but b, c, and d are just as likely to be right." But that would really mean I didn't believe anything and couldn't commit to saying anything.