4 ms·

"I don't fault the antigun crowd for using any tactics that work. The progun crowd is certainly guilty of he same thing." I absolutely fault any movement that

by GVIrish 11y ago

"I don't fault the antigun crowd for using any tactics that work. The progun crowd is certainly guilty of he same thing." I absolutely fault any movement that refuses to use correct terminology in order to scare people and misrepresent reality. Because ultimately it makes it far more difficult to have a logical discussion about the issue at hand, and it often results in the focus being put in the wrong place. Rather than focusing on scary 'semi-automatic' weapons maybe if the focus were more on what leads to shootings we could develop better social programs and policing strategies. Maybe the focus would shift towards ending the drug war and reducing criminal recidivism. Instead many people focus on 'assault' weapons and there's never any progress because pro-gun people rightly point out that focusing on assault weapons is misguided.

sudioStudio64 11y ago
Do you fault the progun people who over emphasize the successful prevention of home invasion by a gun owner even though its a statistical anomaly compared to a wife being killed by her husband? Or any close associate or family, for that matter. So rather than remove some of the ease with which people obtain firearms, why don't we build a European style welfare state and decriminalize drugs? I'm all for it. How likely is that? Progun forces describe their opponents as actual traitors that are actively trying to destroy the basics of what makes us a free people... for regulating a dangerous consumer product. When you start policing their tactics I will take you seriously, until then I support anything that defeats them.
- GVIrish 11y ago
  Faulting one sort of nonsensical campaign doesn't mean I support the opposing nonsensical campaign. There are pro-gun that spout silly things like, "We need to arm every teacher!" and there are anti-gun people that say things like, "We should go door to door and confiscate every gun by force!" "When you start policing their tactics I will take you seriously, until then I support anything that defeats them." How am I supposed to 'police' anyone's tactics? People have a right to free speech and that means spouting nonsense to further their goals. My point is that spouting nonsense rarely results in meaningful progress.
  - sudioStudio64 11y ago
    I have never... and I mean this... never heard an anti-gun person say that we should go door to door and take guns from people. I'm just saying. I take your point, I really do, but I think that you are overestimating the desire to have a meaningful debate on the progun side. The two sides are not equally obstructive or vitriolic. They just aren't. Perhaps you have heard people like me... some guy on a forum... say something bombastic, but the progun leadership are purveyors of extreme fear mongering and slander of their fellow citizens that disagree with them. They equate compromise with appeasement and negotiation with collaboration. Gun control people don't go around threatening armed rebellion. I'm sorry for going on, but I get really tired of the way that no one seems to be able to change their mind. A large chunk of the vehement progun crowd are also fundamentalists who think the world is six thousand years old. I grew up around them. I'm very clear about their position. Joe the Plumber: "Your Dead Kids Don’t Trump My Constitutional Rights" I appreciate your point and what you are trying to say, please don't think I'm being disrespectful... In fact, I'm kind of typing out loud, if you will. I'm still coming to grips with my own changes of position on the issue. Its really difficult. Its such a foundational issue where I'm from. Its at least as big a deal as coming to grips with being an atheist. Its really about identity at a core level... and being able to really look at those deeply held ideas in the face of a life that contradicts them. My bad...i'll stop. Cheers.
    - GVIrish 11y ago
      I think it's just a case of the loudest voices tend to be the most extreme voices. There are a lot of sensible gun owners out there, as there are a lot of people who only wish for better enforcement of gun control laws or better background checks. As far as people who want to ban guns outright, there are certainly people who believe fervently in that, but I think a lot of those people don't necessarily think about the enormous financial and human cost of doing so. They look at a country like Japan and say, "See, if we ban guns like they did..." But ultimately if someone seeks to confiscate guns by force, they're advocating for violence because there are many, many people who would kill and die for the 2nd amendment. Most people don't see it that way, but in practice that is what it would come down to. I agree that a lot of extreme pro-gun folks are opposed to any and all sorts of compromise. And you're right that there is a significant contingent "Earth is 5000 years old" people in there. But there are a lot of liberal gun owners, white-collar gun owners, and everything in between. Either way the discourse is not helped by coming to the table with intentional falsehoods designed to scare people who don't know better. Whether it's 'Obama is trying to take over Texas' or 'Assault weapons are to blame for mass shootings'.

by GVIrish 11y ago

sudioStudio64 11y ago

Do you fault the progun people who over emphasize the successful prevention of home invasion by a gun owner even though its a statistical anomaly compared to a wife being killed by her husband? Or any close associate or family, for that matter. So rather than remove some of the ease with which people obtain firearms, why don't we build a European style welfare state and decriminalize drugs? I'm all for it. How likely is that? Progun forces describe their opponents as actual traitors that are actively trying to destroy the basics of what makes us a free people... for regulating a dangerous consumer product. When you start policing their tactics I will take you seriously, until then I support anything that defeats them.

GVIrish 11y ago
Faulting one sort of nonsensical campaign doesn't mean I support the opposing nonsensical campaign. There are pro-gun that spout silly things like, "We need to arm every teacher!" and there are anti-gun people that say things like, "We should go door to door and confiscate every gun by force!" "When you start policing their tactics I will take you seriously, until then I support anything that defeats them." How am I supposed to 'police' anyone's tactics? People have a right to free speech and that means spouting nonsense to further their goals. My point is that spouting nonsense rarely results in meaningful progress.
- sudioStudio64 11y ago
  I have never... and I mean this... never heard an anti-gun person say that we should go door to door and take guns from people. I'm just saying. I take your point, I really do, but I think that you are overestimating the desire to have a meaningful debate on the progun side. The two sides are not equally obstructive or vitriolic. They just aren't. Perhaps you have heard people like me... some guy on a forum... say something bombastic, but the progun leadership are purveyors of extreme fear mongering and slander of their fellow citizens that disagree with them. They equate compromise with appeasement and negotiation with collaboration. Gun control people don't go around threatening armed rebellion. I'm sorry for going on, but I get really tired of the way that no one seems to be able to change their mind. A large chunk of the vehement progun crowd are also fundamentalists who think the world is six thousand years old. I grew up around them. I'm very clear about their position. Joe the Plumber: "Your Dead Kids Don’t Trump My Constitutional Rights" I appreciate your point and what you are trying to say, please don't think I'm being disrespectful... In fact, I'm kind of typing out loud, if you will. I'm still coming to grips with my own changes of position on the issue. Its really difficult. Its such a foundational issue where I'm from. Its at least as big a deal as coming to grips with being an atheist. Its really about identity at a core level... and being able to really look at those deeply held ideas in the face of a life that contradicts them. My bad...i'll stop. Cheers.
  - GVIrish 11y ago
    I think it's just a case of the loudest voices tend to be the most extreme voices. There are a lot of sensible gun owners out there, as there are a lot of people who only wish for better enforcement of gun control laws or better background checks. As far as people who want to ban guns outright, there are certainly people who believe fervently in that, but I think a lot of those people don't necessarily think about the enormous financial and human cost of doing so. They look at a country like Japan and say, "See, if we ban guns like they did..." But ultimately if someone seeks to confiscate guns by force, they're advocating for violence because there are many, many people who would kill and die for the 2nd amendment. Most people don't see it that way, but in practice that is what it would come down to. I agree that a lot of extreme pro-gun folks are opposed to any and all sorts of compromise. And you're right that there is a significant contingent "Earth is 5000 years old" people in there. But there are a lot of liberal gun owners, white-collar gun owners, and everything in between. Either way the discourse is not helped by coming to the table with intentional falsehoods designed to scare people who don't know better. Whether it's 'Obama is trying to take over Texas' or 'Assault weapons are to blame for mass shootings'.