Guns

[LeMansAid]

I suppose the question for me is: is practical freedom better than an unattainable ideal freedom? This considers psychology and it's real world effects.

@RC45 gave his young daughter a gun as a birthday(?) gift, but I don't remember any mention of her expressing the want for one. Just as stage mothers bother me, gun dads do also. Faux execution of freedoms can give way to enslavement.

If I could grant you guys the freedom of guns being a non-issue I would, but I really don't think you'll ever have that. Sometimes one needs to cut off their nose to respite their face.

@LMSCorvetteGT2 I look forward to the next fantasy (non) occupation you give me.

 

[a6m5]

While I'm not a fan of parents/grandparents buying young kids guns, I do know a few who has done just that(not judging either way). I have to say though, every single one of those gift recipient, according to the stories I'm being told, said kids been begging for one, and they enjoy the heck out of going shooting outdoors with their dads/granddads.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@LMSCorvetteGT2 I look forward to the next fantasy (non) occupation you give me.

What the heck are you talking about?

 

[LeMansAid]

What the heck are you talking about?

There was an imagining of an occupation put forward by you in the SOPA thread, now I'm some sort of (not) journalist. Both written about me, but not to me. I find it odd.

While I'm not a fan of parents/grandparents buying young kids guns, I do know a few who has done just that(not judging either way). I have to say though, every single one of those gift recipient, according to the stories I'm being told, said kids been begging for one, and they enjoy the heck out of going shooting outdoors with their dads/granddads.

In the example I noted above (RC45) it seemed very much that it was a statement against those seeking gun reforms rather than for his daughter. That's how it came across to me anyway. Several other gun rights proponents on here ultimately called him out on actually being anti-freedom on other gun-related issues. The responsibility rather than right to own guns is part of the attitude that prohibits resolution being found.

For the record, I also find most of the arguments from anti-gun people that surface in here ridiculous.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

There was an imagining of an occupation put forward by you in the SOPA thread, now I'm some sort of (not) journalist. Both written about me, but not to me. I find it odd.

Can you show me the quote where I gave you some occupation on the SOPA thread? I never said you were a journalist I said you seemed to have this motivation of one to seek out guns, at least that's the implication you give in your post. As if you weren't visiting the States to visit but seek some truth or backing, clearly from my post I doubt this and think you were just visiting and happened to come upon a trinket or two that you misconstrued into a wide gun culture here.

We also have a wide car culture and what not and I'm sure you can find trinkets in relation to that too, it doesn't mean if you go out on the street and ask people you'll find too many who care about cars. Same goes for guns, I'm sure you'll find plenty that don't own nor care to talk about guns even if they do own. That was my point.

You find things odd all the time when it doesn't go the way you want, not sure what else I can say. I saw something that @a6m5 said and I agreed with it due to like experiences, your frequency on this thread allowed me to deduce/reason that you'd be back and read my post in relation to you even if I didn't directly quote you. Don't see the problem.

 

[Exorcet]

RC45 gave his young daughter a gun as a birthday(?) gift, but I don't remember any mention of her expressing the want for one.

That's not terribly strange. I've received a lot of gifts I never really asked for. But I see where you're coming from given how he presented himself.

I suppose the question for me is: is practical freedom better than an unattainable ideal freedom? This considers psychology and it's real world effects.

What exactly do you mean?

 

[Danoff]

@RC45 gave his young daughter a gun as a birthday(?) gift, but I don't remember any mention of her expressing the want for one. Just as stage mothers bother me, gun dads do also. Faux execution of freedoms can give way to enslavement.

I received a gun as a wedding present - I never asked for it but it was a very thoughtful gift. Actually almost all of my guns were unsolicited gifts.

 

[Joel]

@LeMansAid

I got a shotgun for Christmas when I was 12. I don't see what's so odd about people who hunt and shoot giving hunting or shooting equipment to their kids as gifts. I don't know why giving guns as a gift makes you feel so uneasy, it's not shocking that parents expose their kids to what they enjoy to do. The problem is viewing the gun itself as a moral issue. Nobody buys a gun for their 12 year old to defend themselves from the government with, people buy them as sports equipment and use them for hunting or sport shooting.

My dad got me a golf club and took me to practice golf when I was 7 or 8, I grew up playing it during the summers and I still enjoy it and play regularly. I likely wouldn't have started playing golf if I wasn't exposed to it when I was young, does that mean I'm now psychologically enslaved by continuing to play? I'm now an adult and I choose to continue playing golf because I enjoy it. I wouldn't consider that psychological slavery, people like to do the things they were exposed to when they were young more than things they've never tried.

I don't understand the equivalency to stage moms, to me that's more akin to the dads who think their son is going pro because he's the best player on his high school football team. The problem there is that winning and going pro becomes a goal in and of itself and it's usually the parent's goal rather than the child's. Wanting to play sports as a kid doesn't mean you devote yourself to the sport and going pro. Wanting to go sport shooting as a kid doesn't mean you'll devote yourself to the NRA and worship guns. It means you enjoy shooting guns or hunting.

It has nothing to do with guns or gun parents. The parents I know who are crazy hockey moms are crazy dance moms too, they believe their kids are entitled to every opportunity to go pro. My parents were under no delusions that I'd be the next star goalie for Team Canada, and sports were always about fun and physical activity. Same thing with guns, hunting and sport shooting has always been a hobby. There's no mystique about guns and sport shooting, when my dad took me hunting it was the same sort of experience as the times I went fishing.

 

[Azuremen]

@RC45 gave his young daughter a gun as a birthday(?) gift, but I don't remember any mention of her expressing the want for one. Just as stage mothers bother me, gun dads do also. Faux execution of freedoms can give way to enslavement.

If I could grant you guys the freedom of guns being a non-issue I would, but I really don't think you'll ever have that. Sometimes one needs to cut off their nose to respite their face.

I started shooting when I was 4 years old, both pistols and shotguns. Went through hunting safety at that time and was taught how to maintain the family guns and so on. At no point did I feel enslaved to guns as a hobby, but I certainly appreciate the deeper understanding my father gave me on how they work and what they can do.

What is interesting to me is when people who have zero experience with guns, only seeing them used in movies, speak volumes against them. Which happens often in this thread, and reminds me of those bike nuts that condemn cars and claim everyone should ride a bike while having never owned nor driven a car.

 

[Tornado]

Which happens often in this thread, and reminds me of those bike nuts that condemn cars and claim everyone should ride a bike while having never owned nor driven a car.

Wait, that's a thing?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Wait, that's a thing?

The ones that are super into their personal being and self reliance on a simple bike and see cars as eco terrors that try to invade their lane while commuting to work. Thus not a very big group.

 

[Danoff]

Wait, that's a thing?

The ones that are super into their personal being and self reliance on a simple bike and see cars as eco terrors that try to invade their lane while commuting to work. Thus not a very big group.

Reminds me of the manual transmission guys.

 

[Zenith]

Wait, that's a thing?

Hi, I'm from California.

 

[a6m5]

The responsibility rather than right to own guns is part of the attitude that prohibits resolution being found.

With all due respect, I really don't see that. At least not in the States. Sure, the push for the "gun rights" is pretty hard, but IMO, the voice in this country that wants every American armed is as small as that of the KKK. I think it's totally irrelevant.

For the record, I also find most of the arguments from anti-gun people that surface in here ridiculous.

That's why I actually bother to read your post. When the poster is so radical, or pushy, I don't even bother to respond, and will skip over their post in the future. It's one thing to agree to disagree, but it can get pretty ridiculous in the opinions forum sometimes! Props to the posters like you, TenEightyOne, etc. 👍

 

[sammy neuman]

Hi everyone, cool thread. I have been unable to do more than skim most of this thread, so if I say something you've already worked out (), just let me know.
I had reason do some research on gun-control a while back, and I got so tired of looking at numbers and viewpoints that I finally reported that everyone is right if you use their viewpoint (and their statistics). This is not meant as a sarcastic statement, it is at the heart of the debate.
I do think that a total ban would be meaningless, because those who want a gun and do not care if it is illegal will still be able to get one. A study of US history will show that smuggling is our National Sport, and one need look no further than how successful we have been at curtailing the drug trade to see how that will turn out.
I am by nature, a libertarian, and take the second amendment (actually, all of the amendments) very seriously. The old bumper sticker says: "when guns are banned, only criminals will have guns". I'm equally concerned that when guns are banned, only the goverment will have guns. I do think that an armed citizenry has a stabilizing effect.

 

[FoolKiller]

I received a gun as a wedding present - I never asked for it but it was a very thoughtful gift. Actually almost all of my guns were unsolicited gifts.

Aren't most gifts unsolicited once you quit writing a letter to Santa? At least half.

And I can think of far worse unsolicited gifts than a gun, like underwear.

 

[a6m5]

Well, I think the question here is, these people gifting firearms to Danoff, were they aware that Danoff was into guns, or that he appreciated them? If the Americans were just giving anybody & everybody firearms left & right, it actually supports LeMan's point about how guns & gun culture is sort of in your face in this country.

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, I think the question here is, these people gifting firearms to Danoff, were they aware that Danoff was into guns, or that he appreciated them? If the Americans were just giving anybody & everybody firearms left & right, it actually supports LeMan's point about how guns & gun culture is sort of in your face in this country.

Then it's a really crappy gift and the giver is a horrible friend. We don't just hand out guns as party favors.

 

[a6m5]

Then it's a really crappy gift and the giver is a horrible friend. We don't just hand out guns as party favors.

I presented the point poorly. Let me try again:

Did those people know that Danoff liked guns? That he would have happily accepted guns presented to him? I wanted clarification because of this exchange:

LeMansAid - "@RC45 gave his young daughter a gun as a birthday(?) gift, but I don't remember any mention of her expressing the want for one. Just as stage mothers bother me, gun dads do also. Faux execution of freedoms can give way to enslavement."

Danoff - "I received a gun as a wedding present - I never asked for it but it was a very thoughtful gift. Actually almost all of my guns were unsolicited gifts."

I'm pretty sure that these people gifting knew Danoff liked/owned guns. But how it was presented in the response to LeMan's post about how Americans may be pushing guns to people who may/may not even want a gun, that made me want a clarification.

 

[LeMansAid]

Yes @a6m5 , it's really not about a young girl being gifted a gun. That fact has to be accompanied by the things that did, and things that I suspect, surrounded that.

@RC45 effectively stated that people had the responsibility to own guns. It's the use it or lose it mentality, and I do wonder if some people end up loving the fight as much or more than what the fight is meant to be for. That punishes average Joe gun owner.

It's not that people don't have the choice to go against the grain, RC45 junior included, it's just that if there's an immense wave of encouragement, expectancy, or even insistence, that's not always going to be a tangible or viable freedom. It's a universal concept and certainly nothing exclusive to guns, but some things have more sinister possibilities. Just as the idea of people getting drunk all the time as a pastime "just coz" is far more potentially damaging than watching movies "just coz", the equivalent attitude towards gun ownership and say electronic gadget ownership has a similar dynamic.

Australia has a huge problem with excessive drinking, but it's attitude and not laws that need to change. I think the US has a problem with gun ownership, but it's attitude and not laws that need to change. I've never consumed a beer in my entire life, but that's me, if anything I'm wired to go against the grain. Everyone else over here has that option also, but not so many take it. I think that there's a point where freedom of choice is actually the opposite in real world workings. In the beer scenario I'm the technical aberration that might suggest that freedom is there, so nothing need change. But I don't accept the real world that unfolds for my country and it's people.

I'd say his struggling music business is bias and something that has been around since the web bubble of the late 90s is a convenient excuse to blame it on.

I find it odd.

 

[Exorcet]

Just as the idea of people getting drunk all the time as a pastime "just coz" is far more potentially damaging than watching movies "just coz", the equivalent attitude towards gun ownership and say electronic gadget ownership has a similar dynamic.

I'd say that depends heavily on manner factors. Getting drunk and staying at home while rambling at the TV doesn't sound harmful. Neither does owning a gun for no real reason. Using it in a stupid way is a problem, and that can fit in to the culture thing you're bringing up, but that is separate from owning a gun.

Drinking... Everyone else over here has that option also, but not so many take it.

That's fine. Freedom doesn't depend on how evenly split the results are. I refuse to drink and smoke just as much as I refuse to not have a car or computer.

 

[LeMansAid]

The broad question is about if we should be acting based on possibilities, or realities.

 

[Exorcet]

The broad question is about if we should be acting based on possibilities, or realities.

That doesn't make it any clearer for me. I like objectivity and that's what I try to use as much as possible when deciding what's right and what's not. You say that fevered gun culture is possibly dangerous. That doesn't impact my thinking on gun rights. It does impact my thinking on mentality towards guns though. This seems to be what you said before anyway:

I think the US has a problem with gun ownership, but it's attitude and not laws that need to change.

 

[FoolKiller]

if there's an immense wave of encouragement, expectancy, or even insistence, that's not always going to be a tangible or viable freedom.

But there isn't that wave. Quoting one average joe's thoughts of the matter means nothing. In fact, even though he thinks that, I highly doubt he goes knocking on the doors of friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers and say, "I would like to share with you the most amazing gun."

the equivalent attitude towards gun ownership and say electronic gadget ownership has a similar dynamic.

Really? Really? Are you sure you have ever been to the US?

I have never heard two people argue about the superior gun outside of movies, never seen people camping out for a new gun model release, or seen a street full of people bumping in to each other because they were busy playing with their guns. And no one has ever said to me, "Oh man, you have got to get a Glock! Why don't you have a gun yet?"

Those two things aren't remotely close.

In the beer scenario I'm the technical aberration that might suggest that freedom is there, so nothing need change. But I don't accept the real world that unfolds for my country and it's people.

Yeah, I remember when the peer pressure got to me and I shot my first gun.

The broad question is about if we should be acting based on possibilities, or realities.

Why or how does that matter? I mean, from a self defense angle possibilities and realities are the difference between "I want my wife to defend herself in case someone tries to rape her" and "I bought my wife a gun so she doesn't get raped again and feels safe enough to go outside again."

It should be up to the potential gun owner why they want a gun. If it is precautionary then that is their prerogative. If they wait until they need it, then it is too late. Acting on possibilities is insurance. Literally.

Imagine applying your logic to home owner's insurance. I don't need it until a wildfire is headed for my house, right?

And one could argue that possibilities are due to other examples of reality, just like insurance

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I find it odd.

I find it odd, that you think I'm that creative to tell a story about the music industry that was written by you...

"All too familiar" - I don't know how many times I have had the experience of: "Ah look, yet another pirate mob selling on ebay the album that I recorded, for a quarter of the normal price. Nice to know that someone is making some money out my blood, sweat, and tears". Also, as soon as an upload of a full album put on Youtube is removed, another takes it's place.

"Devastating results" - I will not use mine, but the most horrific official figures I know of. An artist that I knew ended up selling around 2% of what they had, pre modern piracy. That is based on official figures from the accountant, and juxtaposed with a dramatic increase in popularity. Imagining devastating results should not be difficult.

People like DK throw around their "All these measures do is screw over the average Internet user", but the human toll on the other side of that kind of selfish dismissiveness is something few would want to answer for. Presented with the real life fallout, only the most utterly cold hearted individual would not question their own actions, and certainly their attitude.

If people truly believe that SOPA is the wrong path to the right result, argue at least equally for the right path. Frankly though, I've not seen a lot of that in this thread.

I never gave you a false occupation, you wrote a post that seemed to tell the readers that you were in the music industry. Now you seem to be recanting that as potential flak to claim something and misquote me. I mean thanks I'm truly flattered but...it's just not reality.

Just like your perspective and how you wrote a post here that would lead us to believe you made a long trek to seek out knowledge of gun culture in the U.S. which I wrote in the last post but you seemed more occupied with finding a meaningless quote from me that didn't do what you claimed it did (hence the idea of a misquote).

 

[Danoff]

I presented the point poorly. Let me try again:

Did those people know that Danoff liked guns? That he would have happily accepted guns presented to him? I wanted clarification because of this exchange:

LeMansAid - "@RC45 gave his young daughter a gun as a birthday(?) gift, but I don't remember any mention of her expressing the want for one. Just as stage mothers bother me, gun dads do also. Faux execution of freedoms can give way to enslavement."

Danoff - "I received a gun as a wedding present - I never asked for it but it was a very thoughtful gift. Actually almost all of my guns were unsolicited gifts."

I'm pretty sure that these people gifting knew Danoff liked/owned guns. But how it was presented in the response to LeMan's post about how Americans may be pushing guns to people who may/may not even want a gun, that made me want a clarification.

The first one had the least knowledge to go on - because my bride and I didn't own a gun at the time. But I think the answer is that yes they knew it would be well received. Not necessarily by me, but by my wife. It was her parents that gifted us the gun on our wedding, and I think they knew that she would welcome it. However, she hadn't participated in any real shooting prior to that. The gun wasn't the only part of the gift though, so were handgun lessons and trips to the targeting range.

So the answer is mixed. We didn't own any guns, she hadn't really done any shooting (I had but they didn't know), but they gauged our personalities and decided that they thought it would go well. And really that's the perfect gift giving scenario for any gift. The gift that you wanted but didn't know you wanted.

 

[LeMansAid]

That doesn't make it any clearer for me. I like objectivity and that's what I try to use as much as possible when deciding what's right and what's not. You say that fevered gun culture is possibly dangerous. That doesn't impact my thinking on gun rights. It does impact my thinking on mentality towards guns though. This seems to be what you said before anyway:

Yes, I very much believe that it's attitude and not laws that need to change. The problem comes when attitude just won't budge.

It's very much akin to the question posed in the homosexuality thread (me/Foolkiller) about whether or not attitude and discriminatory behaviour would have changed significantly without the intervention of law. 50 years ago your objectivity, geared towards freedom of private enterprise (read - no gays allowed), would have encouraged the status quo. It may be that without a push from laws, we wouldn't be where we are now in that respect. The idea is to get to a point where enough of the population is sensible enough that laws are clearly not needed.

My ideal situation is to have total freedom of ownership, for a population that truly knows what it wants. But freedom of choice in principle does not automatically give rise to freedom of choice in practice, and sometimes may indirectly compromise it.

Really? Really? Are you sure you have ever been to the US?

I have never heard two people argue about the superior gun outside of movies, never seen people camping out for a new gun model release, or seen a street full of people bumping in to each other because they were busy playing with their guns. And no one has ever said to me, "Oh man, you have got to get a Glock! Why don't you have a gun yet?"

Those two things aren't remotely close.

Electronic gadget was an arbitrary example of an item that people might own "just coz". Beer = gun, gadget = movie, in my examples of things that have different levels of risk when combined with a flippant attitude.

Why or how does that matter? I mean, from a self defense angle possibilities and realities are the difference between "I want my wife to defend herself in case someone tries to rape her" and "I bought my wife a gun so she doesn't get raped again and feels safe enough to go outside again."

Ah, that would be getting a gun for a reason actually.

No, possibilities like it was possible to use a vhs recorder for reasons not contravening copyright. Likely, the feature largely sold for reasons of illegal use, but ultimately existed and persisted via a loophole of possible legal use.

Of course it's possible to drink sensibly, and also possible to drink sensible amounts when drinking flippantly. But the latter remains a risky combination regardless. I started going to see bands play in pubs when I was only 14, and had to use a fake ID to facilitate that. I had no interest in drinking alcohol (and didn't), and was purely there for the music. Seeing that the age limit in these places were due to alcohol being served, I demonstrated that the law was not at all necessary based on possibilities. Realities, however.....?

Oh, and your "Day in the life of Foolkiller, where he didn't think about guns" means nothing. The point the whole time was whether or not people in general have a viable option of indifference. Fact is, you have a view, and having a view in your country is probably less escapable than in any other country in the world.

It might be the right time to point out that if one were to check back, or recall and ponder, my posts in here over the last year or so have been not far off being exclusively about the attitude and appearance of gun rights people. That I've been seemingly pigeon-holed as an anti-guns person kind of gives credence to the idea that indifference is perhaps not easily recognised, or understood, despite every one of those people having had the freedom to recognise and understand. Interesting.

 

[Exorcet]

Yes, I very much believe that it's attitude and not laws that need to change. The problem comes when attitude just won't budge.

It's very much akin to the question posed in the homosexuality thread (me/Foolkiller) about whether or not attitude and discriminatory behaviour would have changed significantly without the intervention of law. 50 years ago your objectivity, geared towards freedom of private enterprise (read - no gays allowed), would have encouraged the status quo. It may be that without a push from laws, we wouldn't be where we are now in that respect. The idea is to get to a point where enough of the population is sensible enough that laws are clearly not needed.

My ideal situation is to have total freedom of ownership, for a population that truly knows what it wants. But freedom of choice in principle does not automatically give rise to freedom of choice in practice, and sometimes may indirectly compromise it.

All of that makes what you're saying more clear. I don't agree with everything though.

Laws come from people. Why is there an uproar about Gay marriage now, but not 100 years ago? Attitudes have changed. It's more complex than that in reality of course, how many think what, etc, but I feel that a change in laws can only really follow a change in attitude. Also even if the law did cause attitudes to change faster, it can become a problem later on (or immediately).

I don't think objectivity would have encouraged the status quo in the past and it's not geared towards anything. Objectively, people owning a business can do what they want within their rights, but bigotry makes little sense. Objectivity is only a method for making decisions. I would think an objective mind would not strongly support anti discrimination laws but would oppose needless discrimination. In the gay marriage case, that means heterosexual-marriage-only goes right out.

I guess you could argue that so many people would oppose the law that without it in place the oppressed minority would make no progress, but if that was the case I don't see the law being passed ever or being enforced if it is passed.

Oh, and your "Day in the life of Foolkiller, where he didn't think about guns" means nothing. The point the whole time was whether or not people in general have a viable option of indifference. Fact is, you have a view, and having a view in your country is probably less escapable than in any other country in the world.

Thing is I think "Day in the life of Foolkiller" could represent many, many people in the US on a day to day basis. People just don't care enough to give it a moment of thought out of the day, or at least enough people think that way that I can be in the US and forget that guns exist until I come to this thread. Can't say much is different to the north or the south.

Also on the people in here who have an opinion, that opinion doesn't necessarily have to do with guns directly, but might just be derived from a specific outlook. I'm pro-gun, but not for the sake of being pro-gun. I'm pro-gun because I've objectively decided that there's nothing wrong with gun ownership. Likewise gay marriage, racial equality, or believing in God.

 

[FoolKiller]

Electronic gadget was an arbitrary example of an item that people might own "just coz". Beer = gun, gadget = movie, in my examples of things that have different levels of risk when combined with a flippant attitude.

So, it's not alike at all, except I your mind?

No, possibilities like it was possible to use a vhs recorder for reasons not contravening copyright. Likely, the feature largely sold for reasons of illegal use, but ultimately existed and persisted via a loophole of possible legal use.

Oh, so guns are legal because they have a legitimate use but most of those sales are for murder and robbery? I think the reality is most guns are bought for legitimate, legal reasons and most forms of illegal use aren't sold through traditional channels.

Of course it's possible to drink sensibly, and also possible to drink sensible amounts when drinking flippantly. But the latter remains a risky combination regardless. I started going to see bands play in pubs when I was only 14, and had to use a fake ID to facilitate that. I had no interest in drinking alcohol (and didn't), and was purely there for the music. Seeing that the age limit in these places were due to alcohol being served, I demonstrated that the law was not at all necessary based on possibilities. Realities, however.....?

So, all tools are possibly weapons. How far do you want to take this until you point out a need to restrict everything?

Oh, and your "Day in the life of Foolkiller, where he didn't think about guns" means nothing. The point the whole time was whether or not people in general have a viable option of indifference. Fact is, you have a view, and having a view in your country is probably less escapable than in any other country in the world.

Because a bunch of a-holes won't stop creating a debate about the law. No one had an opinion on regulating the amount of soft drinks being served until New York made it an issue. It has nothing to do with our gun culture. It has everything to do with emotional, over-reacting, power hungry activists who think they need to control my life.

But that brings up a point. My opinion on guns is not specifically about guns. It is the same opinion I have on all things that face some form of prohibition, whether it is tobacco, drugs, alcohol, sugar, trans fats, or guns. I am indifferent on owning a gun. If my wife said she felt that we needed one I'd research it and buy one, but she hasn't and we never had a discussion on it, because I am indifferent and it never came up.

It might be the right time to point out that if one were to check back, or recalland ponder, my posts in here over the last year or so have been not far off being exclusively about the attitude and appearance of gun rights people.

And I addressed this. Gun rights people don't say a word until someone talks about removing those rights. They are reacting. Their attitude is in response to another attitude.

That I've been seemingly pigeon-holed as an anti-guns person kind of gives credence to the idea that indifference is perhaps not easily recognised, or understood, despite every one of those people having had the freedom to recognise and understand. Interesting.

You are pigeon-holed because you are pointing fingers at the gun rights folks, as if they started it. You should have stopped at saying both sides need to shut the hell up. But no, you ultimately end up blame gun rights supporters and gun owners' attitudes, while ignoring who starts it every single time.

 

[LeMansAid]

Oh, so guns are legal because they have a legitimate use but most of those sales are for murder and robbery? I think the reality is most guns are bought for legitimate, legal reasons and most forms of illegal use aren't sold through traditional channels.

Damn, you make this hard work. Which is great when it's because you question things, and understand a lot. Not so great when it's because you don't understand enough. Illegal/legal is not the point. The point is judging purely on possibilities as opposed to realities.

But that brings up a point. My opinion on guns is not specifically about guns. It is the same opinion I have on all things that face some form of prohibition, whether it is tobacco, drugs, alcohol, sugar, trans fats, or guns. I am indifferent on owning a gun. If my wife said she felt that we needed one I'd research it and buy one, but she hasn't and we never had a discussion on it, because I am indifferent and it never came up.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with your stance. In fact, I applaud it. But it's probably not going to get any easier. I think anti-gun sentiments will be increasing rather than abating. Going by conversation in here (let alone what I'd find "out there"), the marketing by gun-rights people in general is stuck in the dark ages. "Kill them with kindness" as @Nicksfix put it for example is stuck in the dark ages. Oh, and ironically it's the kindness bit that's the problem, and not the kill.

And I addressed this. Gun rights people don't say a word until someone talks about removing those rights. They are reacting. Their attitude is in response to another attitude.

You are pigeon-holed because you are pointing fingers at the gun rights folks, as if they started it. You should have stopped at saying both sides need to shut the hell up. But no, you ultimately end up blame gun rights supporters and gun owners' attitudes, while ignoring who starts it every single time.

It pretty much requires "Stop arguiiiiiiiiing.... now!" But that's not going to happen. It's the established tension that gives perpetual motion, and the anti people hold the cards, it's just a matter of time. What "you" do in the face of that is the only variable. I've presented opinions on what resounds with me as a non-gun person, but that was immediately lost amidst presupposition. Not by you specifically.

I've already stated that I think nearly every anti-gun argument I've seen in here has been idiotic, and I stand by that. It's not your fault, but the ball's in your court regardless.