4 ms·

Surprisingly, I have not lived at the time of the American Revolution. Neither have you. Who we are contemporary with are the parents of a lot of dead kids; ma

Surprisingly, I have not lived at the time of the American Revolution. Neither have you. Who we are contemporary with are the parents of a lot of dead kids; maybe you should explain to them the necessity of guns to protect them from harm. But keep on living in the past. If events like Sandy Hooks can't change your collective opinion, I doubt that anything will. It's all on your hands, you proud all-american weekend warriors.

nyolfen 8y ago
we also have every country the US has gone to war with in half a century
nate_meurer 8y ago
> Surprisingly, I have not lived at the time of the American Revolution. I think you misunderstand. I'm asking you to imagine, or in other words, pretend for the sake of argument, that you lived at that time, and then ask yourself whether you'd join the loyalists in calling for the colonists to be disarmed. Does that make sense? If you cannot understand why many Americans are unwilling to discard a right that was fundamental to the very existence of their nation, then you'll never be able to debate this topic productively. > maybe you should explain to them the necessity of guns to protect them from harm. Certainly, just as I have (gently) tried to convince people who have lost loved ones to drunk driving or alcoholism that criminalizing alcohol would not be a moral response to their loss. Would you disagree? Keep in mind that alcohol kills tens of thousands of people every year, including thousands of children killed by alcohol-impaired drivers. Is this also a problem that needs to be solved by criminalizing all alcohol? If not, what's the difference in your opinion?
- shakna 8y ago
  Australia didn't criminalize guns, we regulated them. Alcohol hasn't been criminalized, but it has been regulated. Regulation, in Australia's case at least, works. We went from several large public shootings, to next to none. We currently have more guns than when regulation was brought in [0], but by preventing those who too unstable from gaining access, we've prevented many attacks on the public. Regulation isn't a ban. It isn't suppressing a right. It's protecting the populace from those who bring harm, and themselves would be harmed, by access. And when they find a way to recover in those areas of concern, access is available. [0] https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/04/28/australia-s-gun-numbers-climb.html https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/04/28/australia...
  - nate_meurer 8y ago
    > Alcohol hasn't been criminalized, but it has been regulated. Yes, and that clearly isn't enough. That's my whole point. Alcohol is still killing tens of thousands of people. Way more than firearms do (apart from war). > Regulation isn't a ban. It isn't suppressing a right. It's protecting the populace from those who bring harm, and themselves would be harmed, by access. No kidding. You seem to assume that you're arguing with absolutist libertarian gun-nuts here. I'm all in favor of sensible regulation. I'm merely pushing back a bit on craigsmansion's brainless knee-jerk "But Sandy Hook!!!" reflex, which is as useless here as it is in similar debates over other dangers like drugs and alcohol.
    - craigsmansion 8y ago
      Yeah, I'm not "misunderstanding" anything. We're not living in the past. "Fundamental to very existence of the nation" is simpleton claptrap. Eradicating Native Americans was also fundamental to the very existence of the nation. It has no bearing on the present, no matter how much your kind would like to obfuscate the matter with jingoist bombast. > which is as useless here as it is in similar debates over other dangers like drugs and alcohol Not talking about drugs or alcohol, but sure, change the subject. "But what about...?" > "But Sandy Hook!!!" reflex That's not a reflex. That's a shrug: there's simply no event terrible enough that will evoke change. Apparently this actually is what you want. It's sad for the children, because they never got the chance to vote, but for the rest of you: just stay afraid, wave that flag, and polish the caskets.
      - nate_meurer 8y ago
        I know this topic attracts emotional debate, but you're so emotional that you're inventing enemies. I personally am very much in favor of sensible, even strict, gun control. If you insist that everyone who disagrees with you is a blood-lusting gun-nut, then I think it is you who will appear crazed in the end. I think your language bears that out here. > "Fundamental to very existence of the nation" is simpleton claptrap. This is a bit ironic coming from someone who then says, "Apparently this actually is what you want", and, "wave that flag, and polish the caskets." You're not really interested in hearing or saying anything that's not claptrap, are you? Be honest. > Eradicating Native Americans was also fundamental to the very existence of the nation. I agree! However this is a strawman. No one would argue that genocide should be continued for the good of America. However you will find many, like myself, that say the Bill of Rights was and continues to be critical for democracy in the U.S. Would you disagree? Would you say that fighting for freedom of expression (1st amendment) is "living in the past"? If not, how do you justify treating it so differently from the 2nd amendment? The parallels between firearms and other highly dangerous substances such as drugs and alcohol are highly instructive. Or at least they could be if you were willing to consider them rationally. Again, by any measure you care to take, alcohol is a greater danger than civilian gun ownership. Why should we not criminalize alcohol? Why not consider criminalizing every dangerous substance or activity? You appear to think this thought process is irrelevant, but you're unable to articulate why. I really think you haven't thought this through very well.

nyolfen 8y ago

we also have every country the US has gone to war with in half a century

nate_meurer 8y ago

> Surprisingly, I have not lived at the time of the American Revolution. I think you misunderstand. I'm asking you to imagine, or in other words, pretend for the sake of argument, that you lived at that time, and then ask yourself whether you'd join the loyalists in calling for the colonists to be disarmed. Does that make sense? If you cannot understand why many Americans are unwilling to discard a right that was fundamental to the very existence of their nation, then you'll never be able to debate this topic productively. > maybe you should explain to them the necessity of guns to protect them from harm. Certainly, just as I have (gently) tried to convince people who have lost loved ones to drunk driving or alcoholism that criminalizing alcohol would not be a moral response to their loss. Would you disagree? Keep in mind that alcohol kills tens of thousands of people every year, including thousands of children killed by alcohol-impaired drivers. Is this also a problem that needs to be solved by criminalizing all alcohol? If not, what's the difference in your opinion?

shakna 8y ago
Australia didn't criminalize guns, we regulated them. Alcohol hasn't been criminalized, but it has been regulated. Regulation, in Australia's case at least, works. We went from several large public shootings, to next to none. We currently have more guns than when regulation was brought in [0], but by preventing those who too unstable from gaining access, we've prevented many attacks on the public. Regulation isn't a ban. It isn't suppressing a right. It's protecting the populace from those who bring harm, and themselves would be harmed, by access. And when they find a way to recover in those areas of concern, access is available. [0] https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/04/28/australia-s-gun-numbers-climb.html https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/04/28/australia...
- nate_meurer 8y ago
  > Alcohol hasn't been criminalized, but it has been regulated. Yes, and that clearly isn't enough. That's my whole point. Alcohol is still killing tens of thousands of people. Way more than firearms do (apart from war). > Regulation isn't a ban. It isn't suppressing a right. It's protecting the populace from those who bring harm, and themselves would be harmed, by access. No kidding. You seem to assume that you're arguing with absolutist libertarian gun-nuts here. I'm all in favor of sensible regulation. I'm merely pushing back a bit on craigsmansion's brainless knee-jerk "But Sandy Hook!!!" reflex, which is as useless here as it is in similar debates over other dangers like drugs and alcohol.
  - craigsmansion 8y ago
    Yeah, I'm not "misunderstanding" anything. We're not living in the past. "Fundamental to very existence of the nation" is simpleton claptrap. Eradicating Native Americans was also fundamental to the very existence of the nation. It has no bearing on the present, no matter how much your kind would like to obfuscate the matter with jingoist bombast. > which is as useless here as it is in similar debates over other dangers like drugs and alcohol Not talking about drugs or alcohol, but sure, change the subject. "But what about...?" > "But Sandy Hook!!!" reflex That's not a reflex. That's a shrug: there's simply no event terrible enough that will evoke change. Apparently this actually is what you want. It's sad for the children, because they never got the chance to vote, but for the rest of you: just stay afraid, wave that flag, and polish the caskets.
    - nate_meurer 8y ago
      I know this topic attracts emotional debate, but you're so emotional that you're inventing enemies. I personally am very much in favor of sensible, even strict, gun control. If you insist that everyone who disagrees with you is a blood-lusting gun-nut, then I think it is you who will appear crazed in the end. I think your language bears that out here. > "Fundamental to very existence of the nation" is simpleton claptrap. This is a bit ironic coming from someone who then says, "Apparently this actually is what you want", and, "wave that flag, and polish the caskets." You're not really interested in hearing or saying anything that's not claptrap, are you? Be honest. > Eradicating Native Americans was also fundamental to the very existence of the nation. I agree! However this is a strawman. No one would argue that genocide should be continued for the good of America. However you will find many, like myself, that say the Bill of Rights was and continues to be critical for democracy in the U.S. Would you disagree? Would you say that fighting for freedom of expression (1st amendment) is "living in the past"? If not, how do you justify treating it so differently from the 2nd amendment? The parallels between firearms and other highly dangerous substances such as drugs and alcohol are highly instructive. Or at least they could be if you were willing to consider them rationally. Again, by any measure you care to take, alcohol is a greater danger than civilian gun ownership. Why should we not criminalize alcohol? Why not consider criminalizing every dangerous substance or activity? You appear to think this thought process is irrelevant, but you're unable to articulate why. I really think you haven't thought this through very well.