4 ms·
I did not mean to be condescending. I was legitimately asking if you understood after rewording and explaining my conclusion. I didn't really expect to change
by gnarbarian 10y ago
I did not mean to be condescending. I was legitimately asking if you understood after rewording and explaining my conclusion.
I didn't really expect to change your view. Education, familiarity, and practice often dispel the sense of anxiety someone feels around something they are not comfortable with. Learning to drive a car is one example of this.
It's my hope that through reaching out to people who don't feel comfortable around guns and dispelling misconceptions in an even keeled way helps show that we aren't a bunch of reckless crazy rednecks engaging in sophistry to prove a point. I think it's important for everyone to reevaluate their assumptions regularly.
Guns are dangerous, But if you are following the rules[1], it's nearly impossible to have an accident. The vast majority of legal gun owners follow these rules.
[1] http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category4_750001_750051_757990_-1_757978_757978_image http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Catego...
- jacquesm 10y agoYou should try having that conversation face to face some time with someone who lost someone dear because of a stupid gun accident.
- gnarbarian 10y agoI've never met one. But if they were campaigning to infringe upon my gun rights I certainly would.
- mzw_mzw 10y agoThat's not an argument. Imagine having that conversation with someone who lost someone dear due to getting struck by lightning, and who is now demanding that we install lightning rods every twenty feet and legally mandate nonconductive clothing. Obviously you'd sympathize with them, but you can't base national policy on emotion. You have to look at the facts.
- jacquesm 10y ago> but you can't base national policy on emotion. As if the majority of the pro-gun ownership arguments aren't based on emotion.
- mzw_mzw 10y agoThen you shouldn't have any trouble using reason to defeat them. Go on, then.
- jacquesm 10y agoNo, on the contrary.
- Nadya 10y agoThey're based more-so on reality. You can argue there are appeals to emotion ("protect your family!") but they aren't completely devoid of fact and ignoring statistics. People hunt (some for game, some for sport) and need guns. People get robbed and would like a gun to keep in the home for self-defense. Some people live in criminal ridden areas where being mugged is a relatively common occurrence, having a gun helps there too.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> you can't base national policy on emotion Value propositions are all ultimately rooted in emotional responses to propositions which cannot be objectively supported, and all policy is ultimately rooted in value propositions; you can't not base policy (national or otherwise) on emotion.
- gnarbarian 10y agoThat is very interesting. In the strictest sense you are correct. It comes down to how I value the freedom to bear arms over reducing gun violence. Regardless of that, some arguments are more rational/illogical than others.