3 ms·

The problem is that we've already had this "real discussion" and your side has decisively lost for more than 2/3rds of the population. The history goes from at

The problem is that we've already had this "real discussion" and your side has decisively lost for more than 2/3rds of the population. The history goes from attempting to limit dueling, then disarming freedmen (black slaves after the Civil War), followed by new outside the Hajnal line immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe, to extending the list of undesirables to the entire population except for the ruling class' Inner Circle like Dianne Feinstein who at one point held one of the only two concealed carry licenses issued by San Francisco county. See my reply in this subthread for one stark bottom line: on January 1st, 2023 in half the states of the nation (25 out of 50 for our foreign correspondents) you will not need a licence to carry a concealed handgun. (The number today is 22: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry). The "discussion" is at the margins, from weak sauce administrative fiat Federal regulations, to Purple or newly Blue states moving (more) anti-gun like Washington state, to the modern 8 slave states where legal concealed carry is non-existent or at the whim and/or bribery of local officials, and in Massachusetts and New York City that extends to mere ownership, and perhaps de facto New Jersey as well. Your side will have to agree to disagree as the nation geographically further polarizes or try to force this with a civil war. I vote for the former option.

altacc 5y ago
I don't have a "side" in this, that kind of division further drives the toxic narratives in US politics and sees the only options as based on force or a civil war. That shows either a lack of imagination or bad faith in seeking a solution. I live elsewhere and, like the majority of the world, this isn't even a debate, even in a country where about 25% of households have firearms but the availability and controls are strict and there's near zero expectation of being a victim of violent crime, let alone with firearm. Large swathes of the world have figured this out without the cataclysm that gun fantasists in the US claim would result. Lastly, the winning, or rather the currently prevailing, side of anything does not necessarily mean that it is correct. What's wrong in the US appears to be the culture and so the solution would be to try to change the culture (cultures naturally form and change gradually over time). Unfortunately the current direction is for people to become ever more entrenched, leaving the nuanced middle ground virtually empty.

altacc 5y ago

I don't have a "side" in this, that kind of division further drives the toxic narratives in US politics and sees the only options as based on force or a civil war. That shows either a lack of imagination or bad faith in seeking a solution. I live elsewhere and, like the majority of the world, this isn't even a debate, even in a country where about 25% of households have firearms but the availability and controls are strict and there's near zero expectation of being a victim of violent crime, let alone with firearm. Large swathes of the world have figured this out without the cataclysm that gun fantasists in the US claim would result. Lastly, the winning, or rather the currently prevailing, side of anything does not necessarily mean that it is correct. What's wrong in the US appears to be the culture and so the solution would be to try to change the culture (cultures naturally form and change gradually over time). Unfortunately the current direction is for people to become ever more entrenched, leaving the nuanced middle ground virtually empty.