"Where a rational conversation about guns ought to start"

[Kilgore Trout]

I've got an easy rule of thumb when it comes to esmith: he is never joking.

Your rule of thumb is a corollary of the axiom: one must have a sense of humor in order to make jokes.

 

[Alceste]

Your rule of thumb is a corollary of the axiom: one must have a sense of humor in order to make jokes.

You nailed it.

 

[Reverend Rick]

If you have to demonise your opponant to debate that speaks volumes. This is soooo typical Liberal. What really escapes me is all the Canadians who want to change the States. I really could care less what another country does so long as it does not affect my country.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I really could care less what another country does so long as it does not affect my country.

Your gun laws do affect my country. Where do you think our illegal guns come from?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Your gun laws do affect my country. Where do you think our illegal guns come from?

Jeff, you want stricter ownership. I understand your position. Suggesting getting rid of the second amendment is not only silly, it is inflamatory. To even suggesting such a thing is like lighting a powder keg.

 

[Father Heathen]

Or just allow the kind of guns for the general public that the FF had when they wrote the 2nd: single-shot muzzle loaders. Frankly, if the FF were still around today, I gotta feeling that they would say something like "You guys are idiots to have all these powerful guns put into the hands of just about anybody and everybody!". After all, they would be worried about our general security, but of all the industrialized nations, we are the least secure from violent crime, especially homicides, by a large margin. The proof is in the stats.

Nah, The Founding Fathers rather favored personal liberty and personal responsibility. Benjamin Franklin himself stated "he who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

 

[Revoltingest]

Or just allow the kind of guns for the general public that the FF had when they wrote the 2nd: single-shot muzzle loaders.

By this rationale, the 1st Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press would only apply to newspapers & books.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, boy! Meryl Streep wants to help rational discussion now....
MILLER: Harvey Weinstein and Meryl Streep making movie attacking NRA - Washington Times

Movie producer Harvey Weinstein announced for the first time on Howard Stern’s radio show that he is making a full feature drama to try to destroy the National Rifle Association.
Mr. Weinstein then revealed his secret project about the gun rights group. “I shouldn’t say this, but I’ll tell it to you, Howard,” he said. “I’m going to make a movie with Meryl Streep, and we’re going to take this head-on. And they’re going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them.”

I think we'll survive another salvo from the constitutional scholars in Hollywood.
After all, MJ survived Reefer Madness.

 

[metis]

Nah, The Founding Fathers rather favored personal liberty and personal responsibility. Benjamin Franklin himself stated "he who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

But putting guns into the hands of just any man, woman, or child has proven to not enhance our security but, instead, has very much threatened it. 30,000 gun-related deaths per year speaks too loudly to ignore even though some prefer to do just that.

 

[Father Heathen]

But putting guns into the hands of just any man, woman, or child has proven to not enhance our security but, instead, has very much threatened it.

But no one is saying that "just anyone" should have a gun. Only those who are informed, trained, and responsible should own one.

30,000 gun-related deaths per year speaks too loudly to ignore even though some prefer to do just that.

kind of like how you and others ignore the fact that alcohol, tobacco, cars, swimming pools, and junk food each individually kill more than firearms - the screeching and squealing to have those banned is mysteriously silent. What is this really about?

 

[metis]

But no one is saying that "just anyone" should have a gun. Only those who are informed, trained, and responsible should own one.

But the above ignores the fact that many states do not require background checks or have any required training. Also, the proliferation of guns makes it so much easier for the criminal element to get their hands on one or more guns, and getting caught with an illegal gun is typically penalized with a tiny slap on the wrist.

kind of like how you and others ignore the fact that alcohol, tobacco, cars, swimming pools, and junk food each individually kill more than firearms - the screeching and squealing to have those banned is mysteriously silent. What is this really about?

What a convenient but disingenuous stereotype, and who says I'm ignoring that? And the minute someone would propose banning these, how do you think this would be "welcomed"?

What you're essentially implying is that we should not label theft as a crime because we don't catch most thieves. Or that we should make running red lights legal because most who do it don't get caught.

And, btw, I am not anti-gun. Let me repeat that: I am not anti-gun. So, I guess I have to repeat this from time to time to keep some from continuing to stereotype some of us.

 

[McBell]

But putting guns into the hands of just any man, woman, or child has proven to not enhance our security but, instead, has very much threatened it.

Who is advocating "putting guns into the hands of just any man, woman, or child"?
I mean, other than those who use this line of bull **** because they think this blatant lie helps their "argument"?

30,000 gun-related deaths per year speaks too loudly to ignore even though some prefer to do just that.

Only 30,000 gun-related deaths a year in a country with how many people?
How many guns?

So what is it about the gun-related numbers that gets people all fired up?
Why is there no out cry, no hyped up media attention, no call for worthless regulations over the things that cause a much higher death rate per year?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

But no one is saying that "just anyone" should have a gun. Only those who are informed, trained, and responsible should own one.

But yet, we're extremely hesitant to enact regulations which would help ensure that this is the case. Curious.

It's sort of ironic that the thread title mentions a rational conversation about guns when, in reality, this issue has very little to do with rationality; opposition to firearm regulation tends to be one of those positions held absolutely irrespective of any facts or reasons, and as such is absolutely unshakable. Its also pretty silly when you consider that the sorts of regulations most people would like to see would not affect responsible, law-abiding gun owners in the slightest, so they really have no grounds for objection except as a misguided principled stand.

 

[McBell]

But yet, we're extremely hesitant to enact regulations which would help ensure that this is the case. Curious.

Really?
Like what, exactly?

It's sort of ironic that the thread title mentions a rational conversation about guns when, in reality, this issue has very little to do with rationality; opposition to firearm regulation tends to be one of those positions held absolutely irrespective of any facts or reasons, and as such is absolutely unshakable. Its also pretty silly when you consider that the sorts of regulations most people would like to see would not affect responsible, law-abiding gun owners in the slightest, so they really have no grounds for objection except as a misguided principled stand.

Perhaps if the proposed regulations would actually prevent criminals from getting firearms....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But no one is saying that "just anyone" should have a gun. Only those who are informed, trained, and responsible should own one.
kind of like how you and others ignore the fact that alcohol, tobacco, cars, swimming pools, and junk food each individually kill more than firearms - the screeching and squealing to have those banned is mysteriously silent. What is this really about?

In the US, the number of annual deaths due to firearms is slightly less than the number of deaths due to motor vehicle collisions. If your country had the same approach to firearms that it has to cars - i.e stringent licensing for both the people and the cars/guns, mandatory liability insurance, mandatory registration and regular inspection of every car/gun, and thousands upon thousands of professionals working full time to design and implement ways to make their use safer - this would be a tremendous change.

I'm a transportation engineer. I've dedicated my professional life to making roads safer. When it comes to guns, I mainly just gripe on the internet.

... but if it would make you feel better if I spent some time pointing out things about American roads and highways that could be improved in the name of safety, I can go on all day. Would you like me to?

 

[Revoltingest]

....pointing out things about American roads and highways that could be improved in the name of safety, I can go on all day. Would you like me to?

Actually, this interests me more than the gun stuff.
Proceed!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, this interests me more than the gun stuff.
Proceed!

Okay. I'll start a new thread omce I'm not posting from my phone.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Perhaps if the proposed regulations would actually prevent criminals from getting firearms....

Not much doubt they would. Of course, conservatives love throwing up the complete red herring that they wouldn't prevent all firearm-related crime- which is true enough, but irrelevant. Tightening regulations is a pretty obvious win-win, and there isn't even a defensible argument against it.

 

[Father Heathen]

But the above ignores the fact that many states do not require background checks or have any required training. Also, the proliferation of guns makes it so much easier for the criminal element to get their hands on one or more guns, and getting caught with an illegal gun is typically penalized with a tiny slap on the wrist.

I wouldn't be opposed to requiring more checks and some basic safety courses.

What a convenient but disingenuous stereotype, and who says I'm ignoring that? And the minute someone would propose banning these, how do you think this would be "welcomed"?

I meant the anti-gun crowd in general rather than you specifically. Surely you can understand why it seems rather inconsistent for people to point to deaths when they call for a ban, but you don't see these same people calling for aban of alcohol or tobacco, which have killed even more than guns. Doesn't this show that deaths aren't actually a genuine concern?

What you're essentially implying is that we should not label theft as a crime because we don't catch most thieves. Or that we should make running red lights legal because most who do it don't get caught.

I don't understand what these non-sequiturs are supposed to mean.

And, btw, I am not anti-gun. Let me repeat that: I am not anti-gun. So, I guess I have to repeat this from time to time to keep some from continuing to stereotype some of us.

Noted.

 

[Father Heathen]

But yet, we're extremely hesitant to enact regulations which would help ensure that this is the case. Curious.

What are these regulations in particular? I might not be in opposition depending on the details.

It's sort of ironic that the thread title mentions a rational conversation about guns when, in reality, this issue has very little to do with rationality;

When a call for "rational conversation" is immediately followed by "repeal the 2nd Amendment", then no, of course it has little to do with rationality.

opposition to firearm regulation tends to be one of those positions held absolutely irrespective of any facts or reasons, and as such is absolutely unshakable. Its also pretty silly when you consider that the sorts of regulations most people would like to see would not affect responsible, law-abiding gun owners in the slightest, so they really have no grounds for objection except as a misguided principled stand.

Again, I wouldn't necessarily oppose regulations if they're within reason (which I don't consider the OP to be). Also, I don't consider rights and freedoms to be misguided principles.