3 ms·

> The reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch. Because the anti-firearm crowd won't budge an inch eith

> The reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch. Because the anti-firearm crowd won't budge an inch either. All the evidence points towards gun-free zones failing to reduce violence. Will the anti-gun crowd work with gun owners to expand where law abiding citizens can carry? > If people can't get sensible gun regulation Without making this partisan - you can't have strict gun control without strict border control. Should we try and meet the conservatives in the middle and help them secure our southern border?

chillwaves 9y ago
> you can't have strict gun control without strict border control. The irony of your statement when guns flow from the US to Mexico, not the other way around. Maybe the Mexicans should build a wall to protect them from illegal US guns? https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2018/02/06/u-s-guns-used-majority-crimes-mexico-center-american-progress-report-says/301238002/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/...
- sheepmullet 9y ago
  > The irony of your statement when guns flow from the US to Mexico, not the other way around. Does it make my statement any less true? Does the current direction of gun flow matter when we are talking about a future US gun ban?
  - chillwaves 9y ago
    I'm not sure how guns flowing from the US to Mexico hurts the prospect of gun control in the US. The logic that makes more sense to me is gun control in the US would result in less guns going over the border to Mexico.
    - sheepmullet 9y ago
      > I'm not sure how guns flowing from the US to Mexico hurts the prospect of gun control in the US. With strong gun controls in the US what will stop guns from traveling in the other direction from Mexico to the US? The only reason they don't today is because nobody in the US wants lower quality firearms from Mexico.
      - sheepmullet 9y ago
        To expand upon my above comment: Basic firearms are significantly less complex than you would think. Any one of the cartels is big enough and rich enough to make hundreds of thousands of firearms/year. But why do that when you can get them dirt cheap and higher quality from the US?
        chillwaves 9y ago
        Because the US doesn't have a cartel problem so they are not going to have the same demand Mexico does. I really do not know where you are trying to go with this. Mexico has a demand for guns. US has a supply. The guns go south. US cutting its supply will not increase the demand internally to the level of Mexican cartels, and even if it did it is a stretch to think Mexican cartels can run guns as effectively in the US as they do in Mexico. We have much more enforcement and LEO structure all around than Mexico. If your solution is a wall at the border you have completely lost me.
        sheepmullet 9y ago
        > so they are not going to have the same demand Mexico does The US has a higher demand for firearms than Mexico does - it's just local manufacturing more than meets the local demand. > it is a stretch to think Mexican cartels can run guns as effectively in the US as they do in Mexico. They do just fine running drugs and people. I don't see why guns would be any harder. > If your solution is a wall at the border you have completely lost me. Gun bans at the city and state level have been found utterly ineffective at reducing violence - in large part because people run guns over the state/city border. Why would you expect a nationwide ban to be any more effective? It would still be easy to run guns over the border - just the border now is a national border instead of a state/city border.
kevhito 9y ago
This isn't a game or a horse trade, I win one, you win one. "I'll agree not to shoot your kids today, but only if you let me beat up your cousin instead." That's more or less what your argument sounds like to me. Can we agree that gun violence is a problem in the US, on a level vastly higher than many other parts of the world? Can we talk about how to move towards a society with less gun violence? Let's work together to find things that will help reduce gun violence. I'm willing to give up a lot of things I care about to move that way. You seem to only be willing to head that direction if you get something else you want in return. And it's especially jarring when the thing you want in return seems a to always move things back in the exact opposite direction, expanding access to and availability of guns.
- sheepmullet 9y ago
  > Can we talk about how to move towards a society with less gun violence? Yes - by implementing proven policies and removing ineffectual ones. > You seem to only be willing to head that direction if you get something else you want in return. Because we don't trust anti-gun people. > expanding access to and availability of guns. ^ and this is why we don't trust anti-gun people. Like I said above gun free zones have been shown to be ineffectual. Yet you don't want to remove this ineffectual policy and try a different approach. You just want stricter and stricter gun control. > I'm willing to give up a lot of things I care about to move that way. Are you? So if the evidence supports arming teachers and reducing the number of places that qualify as gun free zones will you support these changes?
  - kevhito 9y ago
    You don't trust "anti-gun people" so you therefore don't want to enact policies that you think will reduce gun violence? You seem to be saying you'd rather have more gun violence than work together with "anti-gun people". I don't understand that, on a fundamental level. I never said anything about "gun free zones". I'm not sure what they are, I don't know how effective they are, but I don't see how they hurt either. To me, it seems like more guns, easier and cheaper availability of guns, more destructive guns, less strict and less comprehensive / universal background checks are all things that lead pretty clearly to more gun violence. That's why I'm against those things. I'm willing to change my mind. But the NRA is too busy disparaging victims of gun violence. I really don't see how arming teachers helps. I've heard arguments for it, but those arguments really just don't ring true to me, and it seems that more guns will lead to more violence. I haven't read studies that seem credible and support what you are saying. Do you have any? I've looked, and there is a lot of really contradictory stuff out there. I'm willing to support anything that will reduce gun violence, in general. I've been thinking about this thread for a while, and I think what bothers me is this. If you think expanded background checks (for example) will help reduce gun violence, why will you only support it if you get something else in return? Why can't we find things both sides thinks will help, and enact those things? Why must you hold those things hostage until you get some other thing that the other side fears will make the situation worse?

chillwaves 9y ago

> you can't have strict gun control without strict border control. The irony of your statement when guns flow from the US to Mexico, not the other way around. Maybe the Mexicans should build a wall to protect them from illegal US guns? https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2018/02/06/u-s-guns-used-majority-crimes-mexico-center-american-progress-report-says/301238002/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/...

sheepmullet 9y ago
> The irony of your statement when guns flow from the US to Mexico, not the other way around. Does it make my statement any less true? Does the current direction of gun flow matter when we are talking about a future US gun ban?
- chillwaves 9y ago
  I'm not sure how guns flowing from the US to Mexico hurts the prospect of gun control in the US. The logic that makes more sense to me is gun control in the US would result in less guns going over the border to Mexico.
  - sheepmullet 9y ago
    > I'm not sure how guns flowing from the US to Mexico hurts the prospect of gun control in the US. With strong gun controls in the US what will stop guns from traveling in the other direction from Mexico to the US? The only reason they don't today is because nobody in the US wants lower quality firearms from Mexico.
    - sheepmullet 9y ago
      To expand upon my above comment: Basic firearms are significantly less complex than you would think. Any one of the cartels is big enough and rich enough to make hundreds of thousands of firearms/year. But why do that when you can get them dirt cheap and higher quality from the US?
      - chillwaves 9y ago
        Because the US doesn't have a cartel problem so they are not going to have the same demand Mexico does. I really do not know where you are trying to go with this. Mexico has a demand for guns. US has a supply. The guns go south. US cutting its supply will not increase the demand internally to the level of Mexican cartels, and even if it did it is a stretch to think Mexican cartels can run guns as effectively in the US as they do in Mexico. We have much more enforcement and LEO structure all around than Mexico. If your solution is a wall at the border you have completely lost me.
        sheepmullet 9y ago
        > so they are not going to have the same demand Mexico does The US has a higher demand for firearms than Mexico does - it's just local manufacturing more than meets the local demand. > it is a stretch to think Mexican cartels can run guns as effectively in the US as they do in Mexico. They do just fine running drugs and people. I don't see why guns would be any harder. > If your solution is a wall at the border you have completely lost me. Gun bans at the city and state level have been found utterly ineffective at reducing violence - in large part because people run guns over the state/city border. Why would you expect a nationwide ban to be any more effective? It would still be easy to run guns over the border - just the border now is a national border instead of a state/city border.

kevhito 9y ago

This isn't a game or a horse trade, I win one, you win one. "I'll agree not to shoot your kids today, but only if you let me beat up your cousin instead." That's more or less what your argument sounds like to me. Can we agree that gun violence is a problem in the US, on a level vastly higher than many other parts of the world? Can we talk about how to move towards a society with less gun violence? Let's work together to find things that will help reduce gun violence. I'm willing to give up a lot of things I care about to move that way. You seem to only be willing to head that direction if you get something else you want in return. And it's especially jarring when the thing you want in return seems a to always move things back in the exact opposite direction, expanding access to and availability of guns.

sheepmullet 9y ago
> Can we talk about how to move towards a society with less gun violence? Yes - by implementing proven policies and removing ineffectual ones. > You seem to only be willing to head that direction if you get something else you want in return. Because we don't trust anti-gun people. > expanding access to and availability of guns. ^ and this is why we don't trust anti-gun people. Like I said above gun free zones have been shown to be ineffectual. Yet you don't want to remove this ineffectual policy and try a different approach. You just want stricter and stricter gun control. > I'm willing to give up a lot of things I care about to move that way. Are you? So if the evidence supports arming teachers and reducing the number of places that qualify as gun free zones will you support these changes?
- kevhito 9y ago
  You don't trust "anti-gun people" so you therefore don't want to enact policies that you think will reduce gun violence? You seem to be saying you'd rather have more gun violence than work together with "anti-gun people". I don't understand that, on a fundamental level. I never said anything about "gun free zones". I'm not sure what they are, I don't know how effective they are, but I don't see how they hurt either. To me, it seems like more guns, easier and cheaper availability of guns, more destructive guns, less strict and less comprehensive / universal background checks are all things that lead pretty clearly to more gun violence. That's why I'm against those things. I'm willing to change my mind. But the NRA is too busy disparaging victims of gun violence. I really don't see how arming teachers helps. I've heard arguments for it, but those arguments really just don't ring true to me, and it seems that more guns will lead to more violence. I haven't read studies that seem credible and support what you are saying. Do you have any? I've looked, and there is a lot of really contradictory stuff out there. I'm willing to support anything that will reduce gun violence, in general. I've been thinking about this thread for a while, and I think what bothers me is this. If you think expanded background checks (for example) will help reduce gun violence, why will you only support it if you get something else in return? Why can't we find things both sides thinks will help, and enact those things? Why must you hold those things hostage until you get some other thing that the other side fears will make the situation worse?