Current Events > Taking away people's rights won't stop mass killings

(+) Yeah! (+)

SOLID_SNAPE posted...

Guns are tools of death and destruction.

So are most types of motor vehicles, lawn fertilizer, a number of household chemicals, and any sort of fire accelerant. What's your point?
---

ClunkerSlim posted...

@philsov posted...

Perfect is the enemy of good.

It's either naive or a strawman to think restrictive laws will stop mass killings. The goal is to reduce both their frequency and severity.

Thread over.

Maybe the world will be better if guns are banned. BUT. You still cannot ban them, for it is a human right enshrined in the Constitution and ordained by God to be able to shoot firearms.
---

Malcrasternus posted...

No, you completely ignored the post, merely saying it's irrelevant without being able to explain why.

So there are two reasons I don't want to get into the specifics of what you said.

The first is, it doesn't actually impact the "benefit to risk factor" the way that you want it to. Just because a person can in theory be more judicious in using a bullet than a nuclear device doesn't mean they will be -- and in any case, my point is that whether or not we allow a rights violation is contingent on exactly that, the "benefit to risk factor." Rights aren't sacrosanct, so we already essentially agree that what matters is the practical implications of ownership. Where we disagree is to what extent rights should be abridged.

Second, what you said isn't actually true? You can buy explosives legally, just not nuclear devices. And what you said applies to explosives generally. So even though I agree with you in principle, it already isn't how we regulate firearms and explosives. I'm not sure what else to say about that.
---

It is amusing to me, people like Malcrasternus who say they are for the Second, but think the right to bear arms stops at firearms.
---

ClunkerSlim posted...

SOLID_SNAPE posted...

ClunkerSlim posted...

@philsov posted...

Perfect is the enemy of good.

It's either naive or a strawman to think restrictive laws will stop mass killings. The goal is to reduce both their frequency and severity.

Thread over.

Maybe the world will be better if guns are banned. BUT. You still cannot ban them, for it is a human right enshrined in the Constitution and ordained by God to be able to shoot firearms.

Show me the part where the Founding Fathers were pro-Assault Rifle. I'm all for you being able to carry a single fire ball and musket.

Look it up. It is called the Second Amendment.
---

SOLID_SNAPE posted...

Look it up. It is called the Second Amendment.

doesn't mention assault rifles anywhere in there. :v I don't think they even had them at that point in history, right? so you're assuming that the founding fathers would have wanted us to have those weapons even though they didn't exist yet?
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

SOLID_SNAPE posted...

Look it up. It is called the Second Amendment.

doesn't mention assault rifles anywhere in there. :v I don't think they even had them at that point in history, right? so you're assuming that the founding fathers would have wanted us to have those weapons even though they didn't exist yet?

Ask @Malcrasternus he will tell you the same. The right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed.
---

I always feel like people are so dishonest when it comes to gun debates in the US.

Pro gun guy: "Nothing wrong with gun ownership. Every nation has violence and there are attacks all over the world."

Sane person: "But the US is the only developed nation that has this problem, uncontrolable gun violence/crime and literally annual mass shootings. Shouldn't we look at the rest of the world and chan-"

Pro Gun guy: "MY RIGHTS! NOTHING HAS TO CHANGE! EVERYTHNG IS FINE! Don't take away people's rights!"

Where are the pro-gun guys who can least admit that America has a big gun problem even if they themselves love guns and want everyone to have one? Why is "My rights, The rights. RIGHTS!" the go to clause like Diplomatic Immunity from Lethal Weapon 2 as if the people saying it actually think what they are saying is wrong or foolish but if they scream "rights" loud enough no one will continue to question them?

I mean Switzlerland has looser gun laws than the US and doesn't have this problem. There are potential solutions that don't touch your rights.

I think the problem is Americans as a generalization no longer view guns as tools or instruments. They view guns with supersititous awe. Like it is a religion. "the Gun caused US freedom and guns prevent all crime. We must give thanks to the gun as it is our rights!" or "The gun is evil and dangerous! We need to ban the gun from corrupting us!"

Replace gun with hammer and it's so absurd. The Worship and Fear is so absurd.

If people stopped worshipping guns and people stopped mass panicking about guns, things would change.

When people refuse to do that and just worship guns MORE or fear guns MORE. Nothing will ever change and people including women will be murdered round the clock every year.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Where are the pro-gun guys who can least admit that America has a big gun problem even if they themselves love guns and want everyone to have one? Why is "My rights, The rights. RIGHTS!" the go to clause like Diplomatic Immunity from Lethal Weapon 2 as if the people saying it actually think what they are saying is wrong or foolish but if they scream "rights" loud enough no one will continue to question them?

America has a gun problem possibly, but, it is unconstitutional and sinful to take away the rights of people to have guns.
---

ClunkerSlim posted...

SOLID_SNAPE posted...

ClunkerSlim posted...

@philsov posted...

Perfect is the enemy of good.

It's either naive or a strawman to think restrictive laws will stop mass killings. The goal is to reduce both their frequency and severity.

Thread over.

Maybe the world will be better if guns are banned. BUT. You still cannot ban them, for it is a human right enshrined in the Constitution and ordained by God to be able to shoot firearms.

Show me the part where the Founding Fathers were pro-Assault Rifle. I'm all for you being able to carry a single fire ball and musket.

show me the part where the founding fathers were pro-internet, mass media, etc. I'm all for you being able to let your feelings be known via parchment and carrier pigeon.
---

if you think self defense and firearm rights are in any way comparable to individual ownership of nuclear weapons, you're not really a serious individual worth anyone's time

adults can understand the difference between the right to bear arms for sport/hunting/hobby/home defense and individuals owning a nuclear weapon

UnfairRepresent posted...

I mean Switzlerland has looser gun laws than the US and doesn't have this problem. There are potential solutions that don't touch your rights.

This is the heart of it right here. See, I think "rights" are just a code word. Look how many people claim to be Constitutional experts when it comes to the 2nd Amendment who couldn't tell you anything about unreasonable search and seizure, or practically anything else. What they really care about is culture.

Sane person: I'm just saying maybe we should take a hard look at how these other countries have approached the issue of gun ownersh-
Pro gun guy: No! None of that shit works in America! The culture is totally different. Take those other countries and shove it.

As if culture is this static concept that never ever evolves, but that's exactly the logic at work. "It should be X because it's always been X."
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

if you think self defense and firearm rights are in any way comparable to individual ownership of nuclear weapons, you're not really a serious individual worth anyone's time

adults can understand the difference between the right to bear arms for sport/hunting/hobby/home defense and individuals owning a nuclear weapon

see, this is what I'm talking about

you're saying rights matter, and then plead to common sense to show that they do

yes, it's exactly my point that adults can understand the difference between bearing arms and the right to own any arms you want. You're the one who is arguing otherwise, you just need a hyperbolized example to understand what you're actually arguing because you don't think deeply about these issues.
---

furthermore, you're only now invoking self defense which is totally tangential to your right to bear arms

rights aren't based on anything, you simply have them. the fact that everyone needs to invoke these contingent, empirical arguments to justify their rights rhetoric is very telling
---

posting nonsense about nuclear weapons as if it's some deep or sophisticated argument doesnt prove you think deeply about gun ownership. it just proves you're a child who doesnt really want to have a serious discussion.

Balrog0 posted...

rights aren't based on anything, you simply have them. the fact that everyone needs to invoke these contingent, empirical arguments to justify their rights rhetoric is very telling

are you an anti gay marriage fundie

UnfairRepresent posted...

I always feel like people are so dishonest when it comes to gun debates in the US.

Pro gun guy: "Nothing wrong with gun ownership. Every nation has violence and there are attacks all over the world."

Sane person: "But the US is the only developed nation that has this problem, uncontrolable gun violence/crime and literally annual mass shootings. Shouldn't we look at the rest of the world and chan-"

Pro Gun guy: "MY RIGHTS! NOTHING HAS TO CHANGE! EVERYTHNG IS FINE! Don't take away people's rights!"

Where are the pro-gun guys who can least admit that America has a big gun problem even if they themselves love guns and want everyone to have one? Why is "My rights, The rights. RIGHTS!" the go to clause like Diplomatic Immunity from Lethal Weapon 2 as if the people saying it actually think what they are saying is wrong or foolish but if they scream "rights" loud enough no one will continue to question them?

1. Historically gun control never works. California and Illinois have among the most strict forms of gun control in the U.S. Chicago even had an outright handgun ban that was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2010 (McDonald v. City of Chicago). If there was any semblance of credibility to gun control, L.A. and Chicago wouldn't have been taking turns switching as the poster cities for inner city shootings for the past 4 decades. In 2015, Texas and California had the same homicide rate despite being on radically different ends of the gun control spectrum.

2. All discussion regarding firearm ownership has been horribly skewed by the mainstream media to prevent any honest discussion on the subject. "Assault Rifles", "Silencers", and "Gun Violence" are genuinely dishonest terms meant to sway the discussion against firearm ownership before any actual talk even happens. "Assault Rifles" are a blanket term to describe anything that even remotely resembles an AR-15 but has no connotation to semi-auto/full-auto. "Silencers" imply a soundless gunshot when anything larger than a .22 will still easily break 130 decibels even with sub sonic ammo. "Gun Violence" tends to include defensive gun uses, police justified shootings, and suicides together with criminal acts involving a fire arm. Good luck having honest discussion when the terms used to talk about the subject already demonize one side.

3. There are already a tremendous amount of laws and regulations that severely restrict firearm ownership. Suppressors as well as anything capable of full-auto fire are so heavily taxed and regulated by the ATF that they are unattainable for the vast majority of the population. Likewise we already have background checks for any purchases from a licences dealer. Convicted felons are prohibited from owning firearms.

4. Nobody is saying that there aren't serious problems that need addressing in the U.S. The issue is that too often gun control is the only offer brought to the table. Nobody talks about the mentally ill. Nobody talks about how utterly broken inner cities are. Nobody talks about the political climate that has become so toxic that these shootings have only increased in frequency and severity. This country was founded on an idea of an armed citizenry so why is it that only the past 40 years have these incidents been occurring when the kind of firearms required for such tragedies have been around for at least 150 years?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

posting nonsense about nuclear weapons as if it's some deep or sophisticated argument doesnt prove you think deeply about gun ownership. it just proves you're a child who doesnt really want to have a serious discussion.

it's not deep or sophisticated, your inability to respond to it just shows your lack of sophistication or deep thinking

childishly throwing a tantrum and saying it doesn't belong in the discourse because it isn't serious isn't instructive at all. I've absolutely shown my seriousness in this discussion so respond appropriately.

I personally think that you can't because you've already retreated from rights-based arguments to contingent arguments about shooting game or self-defense, neither of which have to do with rights. But I am open to the discussion.
---

DrunkenPilot72 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

4. Nobody is saying that there aren't serious problems that need addressing in the U.S. The issue is that too often gun control is the only offer brought to the table. Nobody talks about the mentally ill. Nobody talks about how utterly broken inner cities are. Nobody talks about the political climate that has become so toxic that these shootings have only increased in frequency and severity. This country was founded on an idea of an armed citizenry so why is it that only the past 40 years have these incidents been occurring when the kind of firearms required for such tragedies have been around for at least 150 years?

As someone who is open to gun control, but also not super educated on the topic (and normally stays out of the debates because of it), I appreciate this post. And one question I pose to anyone not in favor of stricter gun control, what can we do instead? The problem is the US always get in these debates, including Politicians, but no one ever counters gun control with an argument or a plan on how to stop people getting killed like this. It's always "take away guns!", and "no, it's a right!". And it's never, "take away guns!", "well, this will work better!", and "ok, let's discuss it!". The two sides always want to battle and never come together to come up with an actual solution.

So people in this topic- I'd love to hear suggestions. And not in a "I'm going to counter them" kind of way, and not in a contrary "I'm calling you out because I know you don't have a better suggestion" kind of way. But in a legit, let's hear some alternative suggestions kind of way.
---

I imagine only the especially deluded think stricter gun control would STOP shootings, but rather cut down on them more than "good guy with gun" will pop up with looser control.
---

AlCalavicci posted...

DrunkenPilot72 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

4. Nobody is saying that there aren't serious problems that need addressing in the U.S. The issue is that too often gun control is the only offer brought to the table. Nobody talks about the mentally ill. Nobody talks about how utterly broken inner cities are. Nobody talks about the political climate that has become so toxic that these shootings have only increased in frequency and severity. This country was founded on an idea of an armed citizenry so why is it that only the past 40 years have these incidents been occurring when the kind of firearms required for such tragedies have been around for at least 150 years?

As someone who is open to gun control, but also not super educated on the topic (and normally stays out of the debates because of it), I appreciate this post. And one question I pose to anyone not in favor of stricter gun control, what can we do instead? The problem is the US always get in these debates, including Politicians, but no one ever counters gun control with an argument or a plan on how to stop people getting killed like this. It's always "take away guns!", and "no, it's a right!". And it's never, "take away guns!", "well, this will work better!", and "ok, let's discuss it!". The two sides always want to battle and never come together to come up with an actual solution.

So people in this topic- I'd love to hear suggestions. And not in a "I'm going to counter them" kind of way, and not in a contrary "I'm calling you out because I know you don't have a better suggestion" kind of way. But in a legit, let's hear some alternative suggestions kind of way.

Addressing mental illness and the utter trainwreck of inner cities would be a great start. Both are very complex issues and will require millions, if not billions, of dollars to adequately address but that is only after the root causes of each have been properly identified. Anything less would just be wasting more money on resources, the problems need to be very carefully handled.

Mental illness is a huge one but a good start would be talking about why the system is so broken in this country. In terms of "gun violence" suicides can account from anywhere from a quarter to a third of gun deaths depending on source. A taboo topic that nobody wants to go anywhere near is how much of that number is made up of veterans. Shine the light there and start a discussion. I'd be amazed if progress wasn't made on the issue if even a fraction of the money that went to the gun debate (super PACs on both side contribute millions to campaign elections) went towards mental illness.

Inner cities have been on the radar for decades but the talk always breaks down into the same BS - "the system is racist" and "we need more gun control". Neither suggestion brings anything to the table - the police precincts within these cities are cut from the same population so the "officers of oppression" are employed from the very hood they are "oppressing". Likewise gun control in those cities has a track record of failure stretching back decades (again see Chicago handgun ban repealed in 2010). Why not look into why the school systems are so broken and why so many children those areas come from broken homes? If the gang culture is so damn terrible, why isn't there a push to make that culture as unappealing and repulsive as possible? Again, focus the efforts and cash into real solutions that can make those areas less terrible.
---

DrunkenPilot72 posted...

the police precincts within these cities are cut from the same population so the "officers of oppression" are employed from the very hood they are "oppressing"

This does not prove the point you think it does.
---

Fuck anyone who wants to take my freedoms away.

Fuck you all.
---

Antifar posted...

DrunkenPilot72 posted...

the police precincts within these cities are cut from the same population so the "officers of oppression" are employed from the very hood they are "oppressing"

This does not prove the point you think it does.

it also happens not to be true

edit - most police don't even live in the city they work in: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-police-dont-live-in-the-cities-they-serve/

I actually do not think that is a bad thing (because of the typical gains associated with trade, basically -- the same logic that makes open borders efficient makes intercity trade efficient, even when it comes to labor) but it is just not true that most police patrol areas in which they live
---

Antifar posted...

DrunkenPilot72 posted...

the police precincts within these cities are cut from the same population so the "officers of oppression" are employed from the very hood they are "oppressing"

This does not prove the point you think it does.

And which point would that be? If an institution in question is comprised of the very same race as the population they are serving, chanting "racism" doesn't seem very viable. Now a chant of "police brutality" on the other hand, that is one that can lead to constructive change.

Let's take Chicago for example. Only half of the CPD is white. The Cook County District Attorney is a black woman. The cries of racism are from the black community of the inner cities of Chicago. I have a very hard time believing that half of the CPD, as well as their DA, would be fine working side by side with racists.
---

The thing I never understood is people who claim gun ownership protects them from their government.

Most people talk big, but in reality would be far too apathetic to form a group and rally against their government.

Even if that did happen, they'd get absolutely steamrolled. You may have guns, but you would never be able to match the resources, knowledge and reach of the US government.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Antifar posted...

DrunkenPilot72 posted...

the police precincts within these cities are cut from the same population so the "officers of oppression" are employed from the very hood they are "oppressing"

This does not prove the point you think it does.

it also happens not to be true

edit - most police don't even live in the city they work in: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-police-dont-live-in-the-cities-they-serve/

I actually do not think that is a bad thing (because of the typical gains associated with trade, basically -- the same logic that makes open borders efficient makes intercity trade efficient, even when it comes to labor) but it is just not true that most police patrol areas in which they live

That chart actually did prove true for Chicago (nearly 90%), still read high for New York (62%) and St. Louis (59%), but failed for just about everything in California. That said, a "racist" PD doesn't sound believable for something like Chicago but it could hold weight for the other precincts if the demographics were equally skewed.

For that article, the focus was on Ferguson with only a 11% black police force so yes, that was a department that needed to be looked into.
---

MrOnionHead posted...

The thing I never understood is people who claim gun ownership protects them from their government.

Most people talk big, but in reality would be far to apathetic to form a group and rally against their government.

Even if that did happen, they'd get absolutely steamrolled. You may have guns, but you would never be able to match the resources, knowledge and reach of the US government.

Did you not pay attention to the horrible cost of American lives during the Civil War or the War on Terror? We had the opposition horribly out gunned, going against "uppity country boys" armed with whatever rifles they could carry and we were still mangled in the process.
---

DrunkenPilot72 posted...

That chart actually did prove true for Chicago (nearly 90%), still read high for New York (62%) and St. Louis (59%), but failed for just about everything in California.

62% of the cops living in the city means 58% don't even have the potential to live in the precinct they patrol. It is very unlikely a majority of those 62% actually live in the precinct in which they patrol.

DrunkenPilot72 posted...

That said, a "racist" PD doesn't sound believable for something like Chicago but it could hold weight for the other precincts if the demographics were equally skewed.

The Chicago PD is much whiter than the city overall, though.
---

MrOnionHead posted...

The thing I never understood is people who claim gun ownership protects them from their government.

Most people talk big, but in reality would be far to apathetic to form a group and rally against their government.

Even if that did happen, they'd get absolutely steamrolled. You may have guns, but you would never be able to match the resources, knowledge and reach of the US government.

They'd argue most of the military would side with the people. That just raises the question of why would the government ever try to go tyrannical then? Are they both infinitely evil and infinitely stupid?
---

Balrog0 posted...

DrunkenPilot72 posted...

That chart actually did prove true for Chicago (nearly 90%), still read high for New York (62%) and St. Louis (59%), but failed for just about everything in California.

62% of the cops living in the city means 58% don't even have the potential to live in the precinct they patrol. It is very unlikely a majority of those 62% actually live in the precinct in which they patrol.

DrunkenPilot72 posted...

That said, a "racist" PD doesn't sound believable for something like Chicago but it could hold weight for the other precincts if the demographics were equally skewed.

The Chicago PD is much whiter than the city overall, though.

All true points, and easily something that can be tabled for another topic in it's entirety. I think we can both agree however that the Police Departments for these problem areas need to be looked at in further detail and the answer isn't going to be something as simple as "the police department was ran by a bunch of racists". Personally I think it has more to do with general abuse of authority that can be corrected by proper oversight (body cameras, stricter punishment for ethics violations, etc).

Either way, the little back and forth exchange just now could actually be productive if had by people in real positions of power to make these changes instead of the only two talking points of "more gun control" followed by "racist police".
---

MrOnionHead posted...

Most people talk big, but in reality would be far to apathetic to form a group and rally against their government.

most people wouldn't do anything, but you dont need most to start a revolution nor to keep going. if only 1% of gun owners stood up thats potentially a million strong insurgency. thats a million car bombs, hit and runs, assassinations. the list goes on and no matter how much firepower you have or the tech or man power at your disposable its exceptionally difficult to fight an enemy thats mixed in with the general populace.
---

DrunkenPilot72 posted...

All true points, and easily something that can be tabled for another topic in it's entirety. I think we can both agree however that the Police Departments for these problem areas need to be looked at in further detail and the answer isn't going to be something as simple as "the police department was ran by a bunch of racists". Personally I think it has more to do with general abuse of authority that can be corrected by proper oversight (body cameras, stricter punishment for ethics violations, etc).

Either way, the little back and forth exchange just now could actually be productive if had by people in real positions of power to make these changes instead of the only two talking points of "more gun control" followed by "racist police".

In my experience, these conversations do happen but it is hard to generate political interest from people who actually care about finding solutions to problems
---

i just really don't get this "we can't completely stop people from murdering so we may as well do something to try and limit it" logic
---

I am not convinced that gun owners are going to be a unified and active front in response to government oppression in the United States.
---

Balrog0 posted...

should I be able to purchase a nuclear weapon because my right to bear arms should not be infringed upon?

Yes
---

Antifar posted...

I am not convinced that gun owners are going to be a unified and active front in response to government oppression in the United States.

guerrilla warfare is extremely effective

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Antifar posted...

I am not convinced that gun owners are going to be a unified and active front in response to government oppression in the United States.

guerrilla warfare is extremely effective

Oh, I agree. But this country has had government oppression in its history without much of a peep from its gun owners. Are the gun owners you're thinking of going to be the first line of defense when government oppression comes first (as it has throughout this country's history) for minorities and the poor?
---

Antifar posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Antifar posted...

I am not convinced that gun owners are going to be a unified and active front in response to government oppression in the United States.

guerrilla warfare is extremely effective

Oh, I agree. But this country has had government oppression in its history without much of a peep from its gun owners. Are the gun owners you're thinking of going to be the first line of defense when government oppression comes first (as it has throughout this country's history) for minorities and the poor?

the idea is that citizens need a fighting chance. otherwise widespread oppression occurs. gun owners were in fact the only reason america exists.

drugs don't kill people
they should spend money educating kids on safe drug use and legalize heroin and ice while regulating safe production
---

Why do people think assault rifle means anything different than handgun, other than the shape of the weapon?

People are literally so ignorant of the difference between a semi-automatic pistol, and an AR-15...They are both semi-automatic...they are literally just shaped differently.

Maybe if we got down into specifics, i could understand wanting to ban spread shot ammo for semi-auto shotguns, or something. If we're talking about weapons that inflict certain amounts of damage or something.

Bottom line is, everyone seems to be ok with owning a pistol. Assault rifles that are semi-auto shoot at the exact same pace as handguns, and some even have smaller rounds (less damaging bullets) than some handguns! They just look more 'scary' to stupid people--literally.

There is a youtube video that shows people saying ''this should be illegal (looking at a fucking BB-gun) but this ones okay! (looking at a fucking .45ACP semi-auto pistol)''. People dont know what the fuck is going on when it comes to guns, and everyone in this topic who is saying guns should be banned--well, congratulations, you are a shill, who has been manipulated by the media.

If people actually picked up a gun, or did ACTUAL physical research on the subject, these topics of conversation wouldnt be so fucking cringey.

Talking about guns on gamefaqs is just like talking about fucking women. 99% of people here have never experienced it first hand, and are going off of what parents, friends, family, movies, music, etc are telling them, so they act/pretend to know.
---

N3xtG3nGam3r posted...

People dont know what the f*** is going on when it comes to guns

This isn't specific to guns, it is utterly terrifying when someone doesn't have the slightest clue on a subject but is put in a position of power where they can impact the subject in question.

We wouldn't let people who know nothing about medicine prescribe us medication yet we allow politicians who know nothing of a subject (firearms, reproductive health, education, etc) make laws about them.
---

DrunkenPilot72 posted...

N3xtG3nGam3r posted...

People dont know what the f*** is going on when it comes to guns

This isn't specific to guns, it is utterly terrifying when someone doesn't have the slightest clue on a subject but is put in a position of power where they can impact the subject in question.

We wouldn't let people who know nothing about medicine prescribe us medication yet we allow politicians who know nothing of a subject (firearms, reproductive health, education, etc) make laws about them.

Im completely shocked that the ''heated debate'' and shit flinging ended abruptly after my post.

I dont understand why more people dont try to address what i said in my last post, more frequently, because you are absolutely right.

It is NOT limited to just guns whatsoever. Just, in my opinion, its the most blatantly obvious out of all the topics that are discussed from a political standpoint.
---

N3xtG3nGam3r posted...

I dont understand why more people dont try to address what i said in my last post, more frequently, because you are absolutely right.

It is NOT limited to just guns whatsoever. Just, in my opinion, its the most blatantly obvious out of all the topics that are discussed from a political standpoint.

Cognitive dissonance would be my guess. Again it applies to literally every major political topic but general discussion always degrades to right vs left BS.

A politician spewing for a firearm ban should at least know something about the freaking guns in question. I'm willing to listen to a proposed ban on rifles within city limits "due to concerns on over penetration" or limits on CCW conditon 1 carry for handguns without an external safety outside the trigger guard. These proposal at least can be justified by real concerns that are understood by people who have actually handled firearms.

Garbage like "Assault Rifle ban because it looks scary" or "regulate silencers because they are silent" are as infuriating to firearm owners as talks of "what a Christian God would allow" are to the LGBT, pro choice, or environmentalist crowd.
---

DrunkenPilot72 posted...

N3xtG3nGam3r posted...

I dont understand why more people dont try to address what i said in my last post, more frequently, because you are absolutely right.

It is NOT limited to just guns whatsoever. Just, in my opinion, its the most blatantly obvious out of all the topics that are discussed from a political standpoint.

Cognitive dissonance would be my guess. Again it applies to literally every major political topic but general discussion always degrades to right vs left BS.

A politician spewing for a firearm ban should at least know something about the freaking guns in question. I'm willing to listen to a proposed ban on rifles within city limits "due to concerns on over penetration" or limits on CCW conditon 1 carry for handguns without an external safety outside the trigger guard. These proposal at least can be justified by real concerns that are understood by people who have actually handled firearms.

Garbage like "Assault Rifle ban because it looks scary" or "regulate silencers because they are silent" are as infuriating to firearm owners as talks of "what a Christian God would allow" are to the LGBT, pro choice, or environmentalist crowd.

Very well said.
---