Let's draw parallels between Tim McVeigh and the NRA

[ivwshane]

Lol it's been two days since you have made this post and not only did no one push back on your ideas, they didn't even respond to them!

I guess because you are, "one of them" they felt it was better to just shut up about it rather than respond.


So now I'd like to see everyone try and deny that any honest conversation can be had with the pro gun crowd.

All right. In a nutshell:

1. Make every gun sale go through an FFL.

2. Mandatory basic psychological background checks for all gun purchases. If the buyer isn't a danger to themselves or others, they get the gun. Buyer can re-apply with a clean slate 365 days later if turned down.

3. An 8 hour safety/legal course, including range time, required for gun ownership, much like most states already require for concealed carry. Renew every 5 years.

4. If the buyer lives with a person with a history of mental instability, require the guns to be locked up when not in use. Checks on all residents of a given household would be impractical, but make it a felony to have the guns accessible when not in use. Hammer this point home during said safety course: If a person in your family is at any time found to be mentally unstable and so much as handled one of your guns, you will have your guns taken away and be thrown in jail. A gun is considered "in use" when it occupies the same room as its owner and is not in the hands of a mentally unstable person.

5. Legalize/regulate marijuana. Consider legalizing other drugs under harsher regulation. Lessens gang violence, lessens gun crime.

6. Provide free mental healthcare to those unable to afford a private option. Proof of not being able to afford private mental healthcare would be a requirement to obtain treatment.

7. The database of gun licenses should be state-based, held to a standard of complete automation and encryption such that it cannot be universally accessed by any government official or police office. It's a black box, with the only functions being enter license, renew license, delete license, verify license. The only way to access a specific license would be via a unique ID number known only to the licensee. If this number is lost, the licensee will have to reapply from scratch.

In one sentence: Increase access to mental healthcare and hold any would-be gun owner to a basic standard of responsibility. No system's perfect, but I think the above would be orders of magnitude more effective than any flat ban of any variety.

 

[TallBill]

Lol it's been two days since you have made this post and not only did no one push back on your ideas, they didn't even respond to them!

I guess because you are, "one of them" they felt it was better to just shut up about it rather than respond.


So now I'd like to see everyone try and deny that any honest conversation can be had with the pro gun crowd.

Or maybe just that not all of us have read the entire thread or have to respond to every answer. I think his plan is crap, and lumping everyone into two groups is moronic.

 

[ivwshane]

Or maybe just that not all of us have read the entire thread or have to respond to every answer. I think his plan is crap, and lumping everyone into two groups is moronic.

Lol

Yes I lumped people into two groups, those that care about solving problems and those that don't.

You apparently fall in the latter.

 

[cave_dweller]

What is the NRA?

 

[Doppel]

What is the NRA?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association

 

[cave_dweller]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association

Aah thanks. They sound a local peace loving gun club that wants to turn into a terrorist camp. Guns and politics do not mix.

 

[monovillage]

Aah thanks. They sound a local peace loving gun club that wants to turn into a terrorist camp. Guns and politics do not mix.

Politics is, was and has always been about guns, it's never been about anything else.

 

[cave_dweller]

Politics is, was and has always been about guns, it's never been about anything else.

No guns is when politics fail.

 

[monovillage]

No guns is when politics fail.

I'm afraid you're confusing diplomacy.

All war represents a failure of diplomacy

with guns.

All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. - Mao Tse Tong

 

[cave_dweller]

I'm afraid you're confusing diplomacy.

with guns.

Politics /n/: from 'poly ticks', short for 'many small bloodsucking insects
Politics takes no account of individuals. If I do not want to vote or I do not like the guy in power I pick up a gun spurd some nonsense and give those who follow me a cool rebel tea shirt. Then we start plundering the country till some neutral party jump in so that we can talk about it. We cease fire sent a diplomat.

Diplomacy is about haggling with people you'd prefer to shoot, which results in agreements that everyone hates, but can't live without.

 

[irishScott]

Lol it's been two days since you have made this post and not only did no one push back on your ideas, they didn't even respond to them!

I guess because you are, "one of them" they felt it was better to just shut up about it rather than respond.


So now I'd like to see everyone try and deny that any honest conversation can be had with the pro gun crowd.

Wow, you really are bitter, and you misunderstand gun owners. No wonder you want to ban guns.

It's all about intent. Most gun owners would probably accept strict gun control if they didn't think it would lead to eventual confiscation/abuse. But when the leaders of the gun control movement have made it their blatantly stated goal of denying us freedom for no reason, yeah we push back.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Lol it's been two days since you have made this post and not only did no one push back on your ideas, they didn't even respond to them!

I guess because you are, "one of them" they felt it was better to just shut up about it rather than respond.


So now I'd like to see everyone try and deny that any honest conversation can be had with the pro gun crowd.

I've read this three times and I can't even figure out what you're trying to say.

 

[irishScott]

I've read this three times and I can't even figure out what you're trying to say.

He's trying to say that the pro-gunners here aren't interested in solving gun violence because they didn't call me out on my ideas. So he's basically using the logic (or lack thereof) of Piers Morgan. ("If you don't agree with me you don't care about dead children.")

 

[Charles Kozierok]

He's trying to say that the pro-gunners here aren't interested in solving gun violence because they didn't call me out on my ideas. So he's basically using the logic (or lack thereof) of Piers Morgan. ("If you don't agree with me you don't care about dead children.")

But those ideas would have a positive impact on gun violence. So how does "gun nuts" not "calling you out" show that they don't care about gun violence?

 

[irishScott]

But those ideas would have a positive impact on gun violence. So how does "gun nuts" not "calling you out" show that they don't care about gun violence?

Yeah, it makes no sense. God forbid people might agree or just don't give a shit, nah they're against solving gun violence! He's seeing what he wants to see.

 

[ivwshane]

But those ideas would have a positive impact on gun violence. So how does "gun nuts" not "calling you out" show that they don't care about gun violence?

It's really not that difficult to follow. We have one person post ideas to solve a problem and zero people discuss his ideas or even acknowledge them. That's an indication that people aren't interested in solving the issues.

 

[ivwshane]

He's trying to say that the pro-gunners here aren't interested in solving gun violence because they didn't call me out on my ideas. So he's basically using the logic (or lack thereof) of Piers Morgan. ("If you don't agree with me you don't care about dead children.")

No that's not what I'm saying but keep trying.

Whether they agree with you or not isn't the point. They aren't interested in a real discussion, that's the point.

 

[irishScott]

No that's not what I'm saying but keep trying.

Whether they agree with you or not isn't the point. They aren't interested in a real discussion, that's the point.

Define "real discussion". Maybe they think it's a problem beneath their notice, maybe they have different ideas partially or completely contrary to yours or mine. Agree or disagree those are still valid perspectives.

I'd say neither "side" is truly ready for a realistic discussion, but personally I blame the anti-gunners more. So many people out there, people our society relies on for information (ie: news anchors) are so ignorant and unwilling to educate themselves about guns, yet they're certain that they're qualified to regulate them and dispense information about them.

It's a disgustingly arrogant attitude, and then they act all shocked when they get similar vitriol in response.

 

[ivwshane]

Define "real discussion". Maybe they think it's a problem beneath their notice, maybe they have different ideas partially or completely contrary to yours or mine. Agree or disagree those are still valid perspectives.

I'd say neither "side" is truly ready for a realistic discussion, but personally I blame the anti-gunners more. So many people out there, people our society relies on for information (ie: news anchors) are so ignorant and unwilling to educate themselves about guns, yet they're certain that they're qualified to regulate them and dispense information about them.

It's a disgustingly arrogant attitude, and then they act all shocked when they get similar vitriol in response.

All you are doing is making excuses and justifying the pro gun attitude and behavior while demonizing the "opposition" and your preconceived ideas about what THEY THINK the solution is.

Not a single damn thing you suggested required knowledge about guns. You don't have to be a gun expert to solve this issue and if you think you do then it's an admission on your part that certain types of guns are the problem and should be banned.

It's hard to have a discussion with someone when they already have preconceived notions and are unwilling to remove those biases.


I've made my point and I've demonstrated my point, good day.

 

[irishScott]

All you are doing is making excuses and justifying the pro gun attitude and behavior while demonizing the "opposition" and your preconceived ideas about what THEY THINK the solution is.

Not a single damn thing you suggested required knowledge about guns. You don't have to be a gun expert to solve this issue and if you think you do then it's an admission on your part that certain types of guns are the problem and should be banned.

It's hard to have a discussion with someone when they already have preconceived notions and are unwilling to remove those biases.


I've made my point and I've demonstrated my point, good day.

What I did was define the situation, not excuse it. There are idiots on both sides, but the anti-gunners and their continued, forced, stupid ideas are directly responsible for much of the stubbornness. That's simple human causality whether it gets your panties in a twist or not.

And the opposition's supposed "solution" right now (an AWB/magazine ban) demonstrates precisely why knowledge of guns and gun ownership is required; because if they knew shit an AWB as is being proposed would be a laughable idea from a standpoint of reducing death.

For my part, I've supported my arguments with facts, even video, facts you've continually ignored or deflected around in the name of what "makes sense to you." You've provided exactly 1 concrete support. One. That does not an argument make.

At this point I'm inclined to take your utter dismissal of gun knowledge as necessary to intelligently regulate guns, as simple human rationalization of your own perceived authority. You clearly lack knowledge of guns or any desire to learn about them, and requiring gun knowledge for a discussion of gun regulation would preclude you until you obtained such knowledge. Which hurts your feelings, those same feelings that supposedly justify your views on guns; so you reject the very idea. You'd hardly be the first person with such an attitude.

Which leads me back to the arrogance of typical gun control advocates, thank you for "demonstrating" it, so clearly.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol

 

[irishScott]

Lol

Read your own posts. I did. For wanting a "real discussion" you certainly back away from one when your views are threatened.

 

[ivwshane]

Read your own posts. I did. For wanting a "real discussion" you certainly back away from one when your views are threatened.

What views? The same views as you? I happen to agree with them, I just think they fail your and the others test that they put everyone else's ideas through.

You are so blinded you don't even see the hypocrisy.

 

[irishScott]

What views? The same views as you? I happen to agree with them, I just think they fail your and the others test that they put everyone else's ideas through.

You are so blinded you don't even see the hypocrisy.

First we were talking about the effectiveness of a magazine ban. I made a sarcastic comment about how if we were making the assumptions you were making we might as well just ban all guns. You deflected off that and it became a discussion about alternate solutions. Then you left the thread, with the mistaken assumption that my views would be "chewed apart".

Then you come back two days later and make the point that the pro-gun community isn't ready for a "real discussion", because my post went unacknowledged. Which makes no sense. When called out on this and given an explanation for the lack of acknowledgement as well as the overall attitude, you took your ball and left the discussion.

You've deflected literally every time you were challenged beyond a certain point.



But I'm in this deep, why stop now? As I pointed out, it's all about intent. The "test" most gun owners use for gun control is some variation of "are they going to take away my guns?", "why should my freedoms be heavily restricted or taken away?", "how much does this person actually know about the issue?" and "are they willing to learn?". In the gun debate that's taken place so far by the people who actually make these decisions and the media, the answers would appear to be "incrementally.", "because they feel endangered by my simply owning them.", "very little." and "not really."

What I proposed doesn't blatantly threaten in that manner, so it didn't receive the same vitriol. Simple. If anything it indicates that the gun community, at least as far as this forum, is by-and-large ready for a "real discussion", with the preconditions that the answers to the above two questions are "no", "because we're actually trying to solve gun violence.", "at least a decent bit." and "yes.".

 

[ivwshane]

First we were talking about the effectiveness of a magazine ban. I made a sarcastic comment about how if we were making the assumptions you were making we might as well just ban all guns. You deflected off that and it became a discussion about alternate solutions. Then you left the thread, with the mistaken assumption that my views would be "chewed apart".

Then you come back two days later and make the point that the pro-gun community isn't ready for a "real discussion", because my post went unacknowledged. Which makes no sense. When called out on this and given an explanation for the lack of acknowledgement as well as the overall attitude, you took your ball and left the discussion.

You've deflected literally every time you were challenged beyond a certain point.



But I'm in this deep, why stop now? As I pointed out, it's all about intent. The "test" most gun owners use for gun control is some variation of "are they going to take away my guns?", "why should my freedoms be heavily restricted or taken away?", "how much does this person actually know about the issue?" and "are they willing to learn?". In the gun debate that's taken place so far by the people who actually make these decisions and the media, the answers would appear to be "incrementally.", "because they feel endangered by my simply owning them.", "very little." and "not really."

What I proposed doesn't blatantly threaten in that manner, so it didn't receive the same vitriol. Simple. If anything it indicates that the gun community, at least as far as this forum, is by-and-large ready for a "real discussion", with the preconditions that the answers to the above two questions are "no", "because we're actually trying to solve gun violence.", "at least a decent bit." and "yes.".

By the people that make decisions? Like Obama and his executive orders? Yes which guns did he ban and what rights were taken away?

You have zero evidence that this gun community is ready for real discussion as I proved to you in this thread which you keep ignoring or making excuse of why no response from them is somehow a response and shows they are willing to have a discussion.