4 ms·

Ok, how about we set up a fund to give an AK47 and 1000 rounds of ammo to every homeless person in the country. That people seriously consider more guns to be

Ok, how about we set up a fund to give an AK47 and 1000 rounds of ammo to every homeless person in the country. That people seriously consider more guns to be a solution to anything let alone this problem shows the profound level of insane indoctrination and delusion in the country more than anything else.

gozur88 11y ago
>That people seriously consider more guns to be a solution to anything let alone this problem shows the profound level of insane indoctrination and delusion in the country more than anything else. I'm going to jot that sentence down in my "how to make friends and influence people" notebook.
- whybroke 11y ago
  >...influence people... Is there some possibility of convincing a gun rights advocate that he is wrong? Only as much as there is to convince a climate change denier or creationist they are wrong. So for all three I'm afraid the above adjectives are accurate. I am only guilty of the sin of posting ridicule rather than psychotherapy.
  - gozur88 11y ago
    >Is there some possibility of convincing a gun rights advocate that he is wrong? When you use that kind of rhetoric there's no possibility of common ground. People who believe in gun rights, as I do, used to be much more open to restrictions on the margins - things like magazine size restrictions, say, or background checks. But there's no better way to engender intransigence than to ridicule someone without even attempting state your own position. Given the shift in public opinion toward gun rights, you're really just marginalizing yourself and your co-restrictionists.
    - whybroke 11y ago
      Is the gun control position unknown? It's the same as has been recited ad nuasum for 50 years: there is no right to bear arms in the same way as speech or religion and increased availability of firearms doesn't reduce violence. Only one portion of one country one earth seems to think otherwise, amounting to roughly 1% of mankind. If two generations of discourse has had no effect then certainly nothing I could ever post will change even one member of that 1% any more than I could change a creationist's view which has been demonstrably invalid 150 years now. But I might challenge a gun advocate's consistency this way though: why not establish a charity to hand out guns to poor inner city kids so as to reduce crime in those areas or at least give them too the opportunity to exercise that alleged fundamental human right; gun ownership?
      - balls187 11y ago
        > and increased availability of firearms doesn't reduce violence Conversely, the decreased availability of firearms doesn't reduce violence either. Turns out there are no hard links one-way or the other. Crime rates correlate strongly with poverty rates.

gozur88 11y ago

>That people seriously consider more guns to be a solution to anything let alone this problem shows the profound level of insane indoctrination and delusion in the country more than anything else. I'm going to jot that sentence down in my "how to make friends and influence people" notebook.

whybroke 11y ago
>...influence people... Is there some possibility of convincing a gun rights advocate that he is wrong? Only as much as there is to convince a climate change denier or creationist they are wrong. So for all three I'm afraid the above adjectives are accurate. I am only guilty of the sin of posting ridicule rather than psychotherapy.
- gozur88 11y ago
  >Is there some possibility of convincing a gun rights advocate that he is wrong? When you use that kind of rhetoric there's no possibility of common ground. People who believe in gun rights, as I do, used to be much more open to restrictions on the margins - things like magazine size restrictions, say, or background checks. But there's no better way to engender intransigence than to ridicule someone without even attempting state your own position. Given the shift in public opinion toward gun rights, you're really just marginalizing yourself and your co-restrictionists.
  - whybroke 11y ago
    Is the gun control position unknown? It's the same as has been recited ad nuasum for 50 years: there is no right to bear arms in the same way as speech or religion and increased availability of firearms doesn't reduce violence. Only one portion of one country one earth seems to think otherwise, amounting to roughly 1% of mankind. If two generations of discourse has had no effect then certainly nothing I could ever post will change even one member of that 1% any more than I could change a creationist's view which has been demonstrably invalid 150 years now. But I might challenge a gun advocate's consistency this way though: why not establish a charity to hand out guns to poor inner city kids so as to reduce crime in those areas or at least give them too the opportunity to exercise that alleged fundamental human right; gun ownership?
    - balls187 11y ago
      > and increased availability of firearms doesn't reduce violence Conversely, the decreased availability of firearms doesn't reduce violence either. Turns out there are no hard links one-way or the other. Crime rates correlate strongly with poverty rates.