New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The debate is lacking

Bo-4

Bo-4

Senator
Letter to Editor in Idaho Statesman this morning. I believe Tex has it about right!

~~~~~

The debate is lacking

Sadly, the conversation about gun violence is off to a lousy start. Debaters have shown mostly nonyielding, noncompromising attitudes. What a shame! This conversation shouldn’t be about you or me having it our way, or the NRA, or the gun industry or the Second Amendment.

It should be about reasonable people finding a way to reduce gun violence and sensible people owning sensible firearms. It should be about finding a way to make this country a safer place to go to school or anywhere else without fear of being attacked by some monster armed with weapons designed for rapid fire and high body count.

We all agree other factors like mental illness and entertainment violence contribute to our culture of violence. Ironically, though, the medical and entertainment industries are also protected by our Constitution and current law. That means any comprehensive solution to reining in gun violence will take cooperation, calm dialogue, compromise and sacrifice. We can do it if we have the will. But if we’re not willing, we have to ask ourselves: What kind of people are we when the choice is between the safety of our children and having it our way?

TEX B, Meridian
 
Look the reason for this is that gun ownership is not a rational thing. Owning guns, particularly handguns - makes you MORE LIKELY to have your household suffer a violent crime, not less. So given that the core issue is no more rational than whether or not prayer works, why do you think it might be possible to have a rational debate?
 
degsme said:
Look the reason for this is that gun ownership is not a rational thing. Owning guns, particularly handguns - makes you MORE LIKELY to have your household suffer a violent crime, not less. So given that the core issue is no more rational than whether or not prayer works, why do you think it might be possible to have a rational debate?
Click to expand...

It may not be a "rational thing" but i'm not in favor of taking away from hunters and/or those who feel the need to defend their home. They accept that risk when they bring a gun in their home.

What i call BS to is the extended clips and assault crap. People have NO right to own a weapon with no reasonable hunting or self defense application.

We're never going to eliminate the 2nd amendment. We can only hope to bring the laws in line with the advancements in technology in order to protect society.
 
I've tried rational debate here, and among friends who disagree with how I think. I have made concessions, which I do not agree with in hopes of having some sort of a rational debate on the issue and an attempt at some sort of compromise. While I have had some sensible conversations here about this issue, there are also common themes that tend to pop up.

1. My penis size (if you really want to know I guess I could take a picture for you, I wouldn't really want to but there seem to be some obsesive people here with it.)

2. Emotions get in the way of sitting down with "the other side" and having an actual discussion.

3. Paranoia, from both sides.

4. Name calling, I feel childish having to type that but the fact that it happens takes away from the conversation and further embeds each side in their own set way of thinking.


5. Respecting other peoples opinions. Rarely has that happened, or do I see it happening, in the debate of gun control. If you can't think objectively and put yourself in another persons shoes and try to see things from their perspective, you will be unable to come to any resolution on the issue and only believe what you want when you want to, which is EXACTLY why I canceled my membership to GOA (Gun Owners of America) quite some time ago.
 
People could be reasonable, but when you throw money making into the game, and they want to make sure their ability
to continue to increase profits is kept in tack, and are willing to spend million making people believe that someone is trying to take their ability to own guns of choice, it will be hard to change our thirst for such weapons that are made with one main purpose, the ability to kill as much as one can as fast as one can.

If we ever get past the idea of mass shooting and back on safety and protection we maybe can make some headway. But as long as some idiot can raise the ire of people with this crap about they are trying to take your guns away we will never stop idiots and sickos from creating havoc on our society.
 
"Feel the need to defend" is the precise problem. Where do you think the Sandy Hook shooter got his guns? The 2nd Ammendment has already effectively been eliminated. Go read McDonald it essentially says that if the government can muster enough data to show that a weapon is "dangerous" (ie causes more harm than good) it can be banned. And McDonald also states that the origninal state militia intent is no longer meaningful
 
Until people address the issue of assault weapons attacking people you will never get anywhere..since people dont kill people its guns we need to establish leash laws that keep guns from walking down the street and killing people.
 
degsme said:
"Feel the need to defend" is the precise problem. Where do you think the Sandy Hook shooter got his guns? The 2nd Ammendment has already effectively been eliminated. Go read McDonald it essentially says that if the government can muster enough data to show that a weapon is "dangerous" (ie causes more harm than good) it can be banned. And McDonald also states that the origninal state militia intent is no longer meaningful
Click to expand...

Nancy Lanza was a survivalist who gave her mentally unbalanced son (who "didn't play well with others") access to an assault rifle and pistols with expanded magazines.

Wouldn't a reasonable middle ground be to stop selling those things and conduct an enormous buy-back on those in existence?
 
The problem Affella, is that while many can put themselves in the shoes of the gun fetishists, that's not the same thing as thinking objectively. Objective data tells us that guns do not make us safer but rather the opposite. Objective data tells us that the prevalence of guns is a large driver of the high rate of gun homicides, assaults, and injuries. OBjective reasoning tells us that hunting is not a right but rather a sport and a wildlife management tool.

But you wont get that concession from most gun advocates.
 
888888 said:
People could be reasonable, but when you throw money making into the game, and they want to make sure their ability
to continue to increase profits is kept in tack, and are willing to spend million making people believe that someone is trying to take their ability to own guns of choice, it will be hard to change our thirst for such weapons that are made with one main purpose, the ability to kill as much as one can as fast as one can.

If we ever get past the idea of mass shooting and back on safety and protection we maybe can make some headway. But as long as some idiot can raise the ire of people with this crap about they are trying to take your guns away we will never stop idiots and sickos from creating havoc on our society.
Click to expand...

Precisely 8s. Which is why we need a superPAC whom's sole purpose is to counterbalance the NRA. Because as much as we like to talk about civil discourse, they've proved that they are not interested in such.
 
degsme said:
The problem Affella, is that while many can put themselves in the shoes of the gun fetishists, that's not the same thing as thinking objectively. Objective data tells us that guns do not make us safer but rather the opposite. Objective data tells us that the prevalence of guns is a large driver of the high rate of gun homicides, assaults, and injuries. OBjective reasoning tells us that hunting is not a right but rather a sport and a wildlife management tool.

But you wont get that concession from most gun advocates.
Click to expand...


And I certainly wouldn't object to what you say. While I agree with data and do not object to it, (anything is certainly dangerous in the wrong hands) I am a strong candidate of individual freedom. I also support legalizing drugs, homosexual marriage and equality acts, poligamy, the KKK, the black panters, etc. All of which contradict my morals. I also understand that some of these carry with them some pretty extreme consequences. I think freedom is a moderately controlled chaos, and freedom is better than restriction. I also feel that the amount of legal gun owners when the small percentage of deaths related to fire arms out weighs the right to control them to, what I think, is an extreme extent. That being said I am more than willing to make concessions, which I disagree with generally, to reduce the amount of deaths and "appease" gun control advocates. I have an issue with any government entity dictating how safe I need to be to live in this country.
 
But this isn't a question of simply impacting you via your thoughts. If I buy a residential property I have the right to "peaceful enjoyment" of that property. So that means that if your friend Joe buys the land on one side and you on the other, and Joe decides to put in a gas station, he cannot. Why? because zoning laws list the property as residential and his putting in a gas station will reduce MY "peaceful enjoyment" of my property- through increased traffic as well as the contamination from gasoline vapours that are carcinogenic. This clearly impinges my individual freedom.

Similarly if you were to start to build a bomb in your backyard (the way Padilla and Zazi both did ) you would be endangering my property very clearly and directly - just like the gas station does. and that TOO impinges my individual freedom

So WMD are an obvious case - but your desire to own guns also increases the threat to me as well. After all, an accidental discharge, or your loss of sanity etc. all directly increase my individual risk and therefore decrease MY INDIVIDUAL freedom

And in a nation of a Rule of Law, the way we balance the conflict of individual freedoms is.... through the government. So your "allergy" to government entities settling the issue of conflicts in individual rights and freedoms is frankly something that the "Founding Fathers" rejected in writing the Constitution.

Remember that The Constitution was written as a result of the FAILURE of the Articles of Confederation. And the AoCs were much more along the line of what you are asking for: Local and State regulation. They failed. Rather catastrophically. In fact they failed in much the same way the Greece and the PIIGs are failing in the EU right now... in almost exactly the same time frame (9 years vs. 10).

So absent rewriting the very structure of the fabric of the nation, I'm not sure how to respond to your "issue with any government entity dictating".
 
Well states are engaged in such buyback programs right now. as for a middle ground... I dunno. It would not have made a dif if he had a target rifle. He still would have got as many kids
 
Same for me,Bo! I am very happy to have such a moderate poster!

If anyone has to know your penis size, they have the problem, not you!:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top