Wouldn’t banning guns altogether be the ultimate in increasing restrictions on guns and did not others in the thread suggest that as a proper solution? My position on guns is that the greater the restriction on them you burden people who are not mentally ill enough to ever use them to kill innocent people as a product of mental illness, the more they will resist you, and if, say most of that pressure to ban is seen as coming from liberals, the less likely it will be for those people who know inwardly they would never use their guns to go on killing sprees, but own then for ethical reasons, the less such people are likely to support liberals making it less likely they will be elected and thus less likely for other liberal policies that are really valuable to ever be legislated.
Politicking by liberals against guns is a way for liberals to shoot themselves in the head. It is attempted by people who are authoritarian left and is just another form of the mental illness that believes in violence. It is self righteous elitism leading to certainty and callow indifference and the need out of fear to herd up for a pogrom of mass psychosis. No thanks.
The unwillingness to see our own unconscious motivations is what produces violent behavior. Making monsters of others is what makes them become monsters. Keep turning gun owners into monsters and they will oblige by turning their guns against you to end you also as a threat.
In a thread about gun regulation why should my desire to say what you seem to wish to declare off topic matter to me. I believe in what I am saying and that it worth the effort to express. I believe my understanding of the issue if understood widely would make for a better world. I know also that for you to see as I do would first require the loss of false beliefs the would cause you great pain. I felt and transcended that pain at least, it seems to me, more than you have,and recommend you do the same. Truth hurts, as we all know. Fear is the mind killer.
I was merely stating that no one in this thread had spoken of an outright ban, so you're arguing against a strawman in that sense.
That being said, It appears that you believe that
any increase in restrictions will necessarily increase violence from gun owners, and that such violence is justified, therefore we must not contemplate much less employ greater restrictions than what we have now. This seems to me to be an unsupportable and kind of slippery-slope argument. I counter with Australia where the elected government instituted what gun nuts considered to be draconian restrictions, and in fact went and "grabbed guns", and there was no ongoing mass bloodshed event where gun owners mowed down anyone who was in favor of such restrictions. You may say America is somehow fundamentally different, but you'll need to support that as well.
And if increasing restrictions necessarily increase gun violence, do you believe that eliminating all restrictions would necessarily reduce gun violence? Would eliminating restrictions on automatic weapons reduce gun violence and gun deaths? If you're not in favor of widespread availability of automatic weapons, why not? Are the restrictions we have now maximally good for society? A gun is a tool, and some guns are were specifically designed to for military forces rapidly maim and kill human beings and enable soldiers to carry a great deal of ammo. The AR-15 is one such weapon in spite of its rehabilitation into a 'sporting rifle'.
The presence of mental illness and antisocial and violent behavior in society is orthogonal to the need for members of the society to own and carry weapons designed to rapidly kill people. Mental illness and antisocial and violent behavior exists in every society. Guns do not. We can work on societal and psychological ills at the same time as limiting the ability for people in crises to commit large scale killings. We don't need to have perfect solutions before we can take action.
Facebook
Twitter