Actually, I disagree with your definition, even while it has some truth.
As a counter-example that actually supports your original definition, while liberals are against the state restricting a lot of personal freedoms such as discriminating against gays with denied equal rights or even criminal punishment, liberals were the ones for the government leading the way to force equality for blacks, e.g., forcing school bussing, forcing businesses to let blacks have equal access, forcing blacks' entry into college, and liberals before that forced progressive improvements for workers into the marketplace.
But liberals are not primarily 'pro liberal use of government' as their ideology, any more than police are pro shooting people because they carry guns.
The distinctions between the parties lie on other topics - and sadly, IMO, the Republican party has stopped being a party about virtually any ideology, and simply the party that has become the agent of the powerful, and which *uses* ideology as part of its sales pitch, the endless talk of 'love of country and flag and small government' as a sales pitch to get the masses to vote for it and give it the power to force the government to serve the powerful.
And the democrats have in part become the alternative to that - and part become a takeover target of the powerful as well, who are infiltrating the Democratic party.
The core values of the Democratic party have long been the sensible pursuit of the welfare of the public, the creation of opportunity for the public, using government where it helps.
The facts speak for themselves, if you look at how the nation and the public have done under democratic administrations. The question is, do you look at facts - or just ideology?
If just ideology, then LBJ had the biggest deficits ever at the height of his having the war on poverty, Vietnam, and the moon landing all at the same time, while the right-wing icon Ronald Reagan fought for small government and fiscal responsibility. But if you look at the facts, LBJ was the last president before the late 1990's to balance the budget, and Reagan was the pioneer of the nation's unprecedented 'prosperity from deficts' big credit card policies that began the 30-year period of all the economy's growth going ONLY to the top.
(for the record, I'm not for a gun ban in the US)
oh boy, my favorite topic, and yes, all of the usual lies and BS about gun statistics.
The first big lie in all of this is that the 'left', or the democrats, want to ban guns.
Show me more than 1 senator/congressman/woman in office today whose stance is that the United States should completely ban guns.
The problem is that the pro-gun people everywhere are completely brainswashed by the NRA propaganda of the past 25 years - and that includes politicians.
The statement that bothers me the most by the pro-gun crowd is something along the lines of this "if you make guns harder to buy, it's only harder for law-abiding citizens to get guns". This statement is just plain wrong.
Guns don't come from magic fairy dust that you sprinkle on an inner-city street corner - guns come from stores/shops/shows that sell guns. Despite what some people on this board will tell you, it's not hard or expensive to get a license to be a gun store dealer - and, again despite what some people on this board will tell you - it's not hard to buy a gun either....in fact, it's not hard to buy lots of guns...at as many different stores as you want.
Sure, some people collect guns, some people enjoy shooting guns at ranges, many are avid hunters...but can you give me a reason why someone should be allowed to buy 50 guns in a weekend? The only reason people do that is to re-sell them to people that can't buy them through the normal process - ie criminals.
There is simply a gigantic hole in our gun laws that allow this to happen, and this keeps the supply of fresh guns on our streets, and yes, guns in the hands of criminals...but any mention of controlling how many guns, or 'limits', is met with the usual cries of "over my dead body", "duck when you come for my guns", blah blah blah, you get the idea.
Don't even get me started on gun shows, they are even worse in many cases.
So overall, I don't think it's a case of ban guns vs not banning guns - it's "lets do something about the pathetic rate of gun-related violence in this country" vs " no regulations on guns, period, the laws are too restrictive as they are"..You tell me which side is more out of touch with reality?
oh boy, my favorite topic, and yes, all of the usual lies and BS about gun statistics.
The first big lie in all of this is that the 'left', or the democrats, want to ban guns.
Show me more than 1 senator/congressman/woman in office today whose stance is that the United States should completely ban guns.
The problem is that the pro-gun people everywhere are completely brainswashed by the NRA propaganda of the past 25 years - and that includes politicians.
The statement that bothers me the most by the pro-gun crowd is something along the lines of this "if you make guns harder to buy, it's only harder for law-abiding citizens to get guns". This statement is just plain wrong.
Guns don't come from magic fairy dust that you sprinkle on an inner-city street corner - guns come from stores/shops/shows that sell guns. Despite what some people on this board will tell you, it's not hard or expensive to get a license to be a gun store dealer - and, again despite what some people on this board will tell you - it's not hard to buy a gun either....in fact, it's not hard to buy lots of guns...at as many different stores as you want.
Sure, some people collect guns, some people enjoy shooting guns at ranges, many are avid hunters...but can you give me a reason why someone should be allowed to buy 50 guns in a weekend? The only reason people do that is to re-sell them to people that can't buy them through the normal process - ie criminals.
There is simply a gigantic hole in our gun laws that allow this to happen, and this keeps the supply of fresh guns on our streets, and yes, guns in the hands of criminals...but any mention of controlling how many guns, or 'limits', is met with the usual cries of "over my dead body", "duck when you come for my guns", blah blah blah, you get the idea.
Don't even get me started on gun shows, they are even worse in many cases.
So overall, I don't think it's a case of ban guns vs not banning guns - it's "lets do something about the pathetic rate of gun-related violence in this country" vs " no regulations on guns, period, the laws are too restrictive as they are"..You tell me which side is more out of touch with reality?
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
For the record, no-one is suggesting giving firearms to "random" people. And it's worth pointing out that handing 10,000 buck knives to "random" city people will see those tools put to a different use than handing them out to "random" rural people.
In any case, I can agree with the remainder of your post insofar as it explains the rationalizations used by many liberals in their defense of gun control.
ZV
m1ldslide1
Platinum Member
- Feb 20, 2006
- 2,321
- 0
- 0
This. I would purchase one I think, but the wife won't have it. Until then I can't use my "Secular Humanist and Armed" bumper sticker.
I'm not responding to the rest of the comments but to note that we're now appearing to be on the same page on the topic - why they hold their views, not the merit of the views.
I'll add one point on the actual issue now for my opinion.
In the middle ages, I hear, people felt that to answer a question about a horse's teeth, you discussed the issue, and did not look in the horse's mouth.
On gun control, I think a very relevant issue is, "how much can gun control laws reduce net gun crimes (note I leave in credit for counting the crimes they prevent with the word 'net'), by reducing the supply of guns available to criminals from burglary and other means?'
But it seems like looking in the horse's mouth, the actual factual issue in my question is not much open for consideration in the debate, which is based on ideological issues, which just so happen to likely assume the answer either as 'none, it'll probably increase since only criminals will have gune' or 'plenty, it's just common sense, any reduction means fewer guns in the hands of criminals', depending on the speaker's gun control politics.
Having that info would at least provide for a 'real' discussion based on the tradeoffs, even if the discussion remains between saving lives and saving the nation from enemy takeover.
m1ldslide1
Platinum Member
- Feb 20, 2006
- 2,321
- 0
- 0
I'd say this is absolutely true for a small-ish portion of the population. For most of the population however, owning a firearm is pretty far from being central to the American experience. I know this is hard for you to understand, but not everyone is like you or the people in your community.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
This is completely totally and unbelievably WRONG.
The root word of liberal is liberty. The liberal movement began with the various anti-monarchist revolutions in Europe and its colonies, instituting government of the people, democracy, the rule of law, etc. That is what liberal is. At the heart of liberalism are 2 basic premises: (1) optimism that humanity is evolving forward and that everything can be improved, and (2) that govt of the people and by the people means that every one of the people should be treated equally by that govt. And note that it's not that people are equal, but that they should be treated equally. We call this concept the rule of law.
To be conservative means to conserve the status quo, etc. Conservatism is based on the notion of "the good ol' days." That things were better than they are today and getting worse and that the primary cause of this is due to moral decay.
There are many many books written on these subject, I would suggest starting with the classics like Locke, Jefferson, Mill, etc.
HardcoreRobot
Lifer
- Nov 7, 2000
- 16,403
- 3
- 81
you are talking about Classical Liberalism, which is something different entirely (as if people aren't confused enough as it is)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
when people say liberal today, they refer to 'socially liberal'
also from wiki- Classical liberalism believes that the provision of negative freedom constitutes liberty and is therefore a strictly laissez-faire philosophy. Social liberalism, however, sees a role for the State in providing positive liberty for individuals.[8] They believe that lack of positive rights, such as economic opportunity, education, health-care, and so on can be considered to be threats to liberty.[2]
the bolded part can be interpreted as use the govt. liberally in the social realm
Wrong. But we do notice too many right-wingers are unable to realize how they're manipulated *out of* economic liberty by the wealthy interests' propagandists.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Despite the lofty rhetoric, I don't see much economic liberty coming from the conservatives these days either. Unless you're confused and think that just because it's not okay for the poor to steal from the rich (and it's not) suddenly makes it just dandy for the rich to steal from the poor. And that IS the Republican policy of the Bush era, and I see no indication that McCain intend to deviate from that.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
Again, if it's so easy for criminals to walk into a licensed firearms dealer and buy a gun, why to 93% of criminals obtain their firearms through illegal methods?
The NICS check system works extremely well at preventing convicted criminals from buying guns in gun stores. You would also be amazed at how many customers gun dealers turn down without even running the NICS check just because the person looks a little suspicious.
So what number is "reasonable" to you? 1 gun a month? What happens if a collector buys one gun, then 4 days later finds an incredible deal on a rare gun that he has been seeking for a long time? Should he be penalized by not being able to purchase that gun even though he has no criminal history and is only interested in it for its historical value?
You mean the "hole" that makes it a federal crime to purchase firearms with the intent to sell them illegally? While I agree that someone buying 100 firearms a month is more than a little bit suspicious, any limit that had a meaningful impact on re-sellers would also have a strong likelihood of penalizing collectors.
How so? Licensed FFL dealers must always perform a NICS background check when selling a firearm. This applies even when selling at a gun show. The "gun show loophole" is an exaggeration of laws that allow private individuals to sell their own firearms in face-to-face transactions provided that selling guns is not a business for that individual. It is still a federal crime to supply a firearm to anyone known to the seller to be ineligible to purchase a firearm from an FFL. Nothing "worse" goes on at a gun show than goes on every day.
I apologise if you were referring instead to some of the rhetoric that gets thrown around at gun shows. I completely agree that it can get pretty appalling. If you merely meant the atmosphere, I am 100% on your side.
You're setting up a strawman of the pro-gun position here though. Most do not believe in a complete repeal of all firearms laws. Most of us simply feel that current laws are sufficient if only they would be properly enforced. In general, the pro-gun side feels that the problem of violence is not specific to guns and needs to be addressed at the individual, psychological, level rather than by restricting access to a specific tool that does have legitimate uses in the preservation of life and limb, as well as legitimate sporting use.
At the core, I believe that the debate is between two very fundamental views on the world:
- Better any number of guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be punished
vs
- Better a handful of innocent men suffer in order to prevent a handful of guilty men from committing crimes.
In all honesty, I do not know which of these two positions is more moral. I know which one I prefer, but that's just a preference. I don't pretend that it would be a bed of roses, it wouldn't. It would be a difficult life. But I would still prefer it and I will do what I can to work towards it. I expect those who believe differently will likewise work for what they believe to be best, for they are, for the most part, honorable. Just as my own "side" is, for the most part, honorable.
ZV
How can the rich steal from the poor...if the poor don't pay anything into the system to begin with?
Again, the point isn't that the criminals buy them *directly* from the dealers, but that the guns come initially from the dealers, increasing the availability in burglaries, etc.
I love the smell of ideology in the morning. *Any* impact on collectors is far worse than any so-called benefits that might come from reducing gun crime, which is ideologically swept under the rug by saying that all crime is wrong and involved people making bad choices and that's the whole of the issue, with any other policy measures excessive and tyrannical to the freedoms of America such that we're in effect without any freedom if one collector is lacking one gun he wanted.
Talk about setting up a straw man.
I think my earlier posts broke out the two 'sides' far more accurately and usefully; neither side subscribes to the 'few innocents in prison for a few guilty to be in prison' position.
To digress, I think that however much lip service we pay to the preceding, many, many Americans in fact far prefer to put a few innocents in prison rather than let even a moderate number of guilty ones go free, just so long as they are allowed to not be utterly sure it's happening and can pretend just maybe it's not, however overwhelming the evidence that it actually is.
There are all kinds of measures we could implement to put fewer innocents in prison at the expense of some more guilty going free, which probably have <20% public support.
For just one area, consider the lack of stricter measures against the weight given to the most unrelable evidence in the system, eyewitness testimony.
Every expert can explain how disastrous the current situation is with it, and yet the level of public support for any changes is quite low.
The fact you don't know the answer to that question goes a long, long way to why you have the political orientation you have.
The fact is, there is a very good answer to it, and the answer is a big motivation for liberals in their political orientation.
I'm not sure there's any point in trying to even summarize some of it, though, for you.
Are you willing to read any books, if suggestions are made?
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
How is that any different from your own ideology that says *any* restriction on law-abiding people is acceptable if it has some potential to reduce the chances of a crime happening?
Ultimately, your position stems as much from your own ideological view as my position stems from my own ideological view.
Very convenient that you leave out the part where I clarify that neither worldview is one that I can conclusively show as more moral. Only that I can merely say that I prefer one to the other. Also, please detail how this is a strawman. Those in favor of gun control propose laws that will inconvenience law-abiding citizens (i.e. cause innocent men to suffer) in order to reduce the theoretical temptation to people who might use firearms irresponsibly (i.e. prevent a handful of guilty men from committing crimes). I fail to see the disconnect.
No, your earlier posts simply throw out the accusations claiming that the pro-gun side are slaves to their ideology while ignoring the fact that the gun-control side are also driven by their own ideology.
I agree completely with this. The public support is not there. I find this fact to be a disgusting indictment of modern society, but I agree that it is so.
It's a case of, "As long as I'm not personally the one who is inconvenienced, I don't care what restrictions we place on people's actions". It is this view that leads to the people who would overturn Roe v Wade ("I wouldn't get an abortion regardless of the law, so nobody else should either!"), or to people who support banning books ("I wouldn't read those books even if they were available, so nobody else should either!"), or to anyone who supports restrictions when they believe those restrictions will never apply to them because their personal choices are in line with the restrictions they support.
ZV
You're misrepresenting my position. I've never said that or anything like it.
Sorry, your statement is wrong. The only opinion I've really expressed on the issue here was my call for estimating the net changes in violence possible from gun laws.
That's a call for facts for a rational discussion, the opposite of what you said, and the opposite of the approach of ideology.
In short, I'm arguing against the domination of ideology, and you say that's ideology.
Very convenient that you leave out the part where I clarify that neither worldview is one that I can conclusively show as more moral. Only that I can merely say that I prefer one to the other. Also, please detail how this is a strawman. Those in favor of gun control propose laws that will inconvenience law-abiding citizens (i.e. cause innocent men to suffer) in order to reduce the theoretical temptation to people who might use firearms irresponsibly (i.e. prevent a handful of guilty men from committing crimes). I fail to see the disconnect.[/quote]
I left it out, because however reasonable or right the conclusion you eventually reached might be, the foundation you made of the issue's positions was a straw man.
And that's what I was discussing.
It was a straw man because liberals' position is *not* accurately summarized by 'they want to put a handful of innocents in jail to put a handful of guilty in jail'.
That is a position they do not hold, and one which is easily attacked as immoral in lieu of attacking their actual position - the definition of a straw man.
I don't accuse you of making a straw man intentionally; I think you were honestly trying to make the point, but that it reflects your own biases and misunderstanding.
Was there a nugget of truth in it? Sure, as there is in most straw men, for them to have any credibility at all. The point isn't that you completely invented their position out of nothing, but that you weakened it from what it actually is, and that's exactly what you did, however unintentionally.
Yes, the pro-gun control position does include *some* inconvenience to 'law-abiding citizens' in one area, balanced by the expectation of a reduction in the inconvenience to those law-abiding citizens of being shot by criminals (I won't even try to paraphrase your creative minimizalizing of their position as reducing 'theoretical temptation'). But you use the 'handful versus handful' analogy not only to equate the two sides, but you use it applied to an area where most of society wants a disproportionate weighting (where an equal number of innocents and guilty convicted is seen as a disaster, not as fairness) to bias the conclusion - the straw man you set up.
The actual weighting of the two is at the heart of the issue.
Liberals would weigh thousands of lives they hope to save of innocents against 'oh, waah, the poor collector can't have quite as many guns', and perhaps admit that there is some number of lives of innocents lost by the lack of the gun for self-defense, but minimal since they almost all still support long guns ownership for defense, opposing mainly the handgun that's so useful to criminals for concealibility), while pro-gun people would weight the tradeoffs quite differently, denying rights to the vast majority of Americans important gun rights in a misguided and ineffective attempt to curtail the behavior of the minority of criminals, and they'd have some different opinions on the effect on violence.
Instead of debating that main issue on the weighting, you simply force one conclusion by building it into your straw man analogy, falsely representing the liberals' position.
No, your earlier posts simply throw out the accusations claiming that the pro-gun side are slaves to their ideology while ignoring the fact that the gun-control side are also driven by their own ideology.[/quote]
That's completely wrong, misrepresenting my posts. While I made some reference to ideology, that's far from all my posts had to say on the pro-gun side.
And I've further indicated that the pro-gun law side DOES have some of its own ideology going on in the discussion, but you did not see that, apparently, and say otherwise.
My posts so far mostly stayed away from judging the accuracy of either side's positions.
I'm glad we agree on the problem of justice reform.
On your later commentary on the reason being if they're not the one inconvenienced, they are unconcerned with others' rights, I think that's part of the issue, but there's more.
On abortion, it's not just no concer for others' rights, it's a belief that abortion is harming the innocent and they need to protect them.
On banning books, it's not just a lack of concern for others' rights, it's a belief that the banned books are harmful in ways that justifies banning them.
If we wanted to have a longer discussion, we could enter the topic of the theories for some of that behavior, the way that some people show a fear of diversity, that they want to homogenize to feel safer and as such are willing to 'ban books' and take other measures to homogenize the population (the sort of security symbols like the flag provide with a 'we are all wearing the same symbol' homogeneity).
I think that those people basically have a lack of appreciation for the value of views of others, a lack of respect for what freedom is for.
They may be willing to say the word freedom adoringly and sing songs praising it, but they'll often actually oppose it in policy, if it's not their own freedom.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
It is. An ideology is a systematic body of concepts especially about human life. You are arguing, whether you realise it or not, for what is essentially strict utilitarianism. That is itself an ideology. All belief, all argument, stems initially from some foundational ideology. It's not possible to be free of ideology unless one is also free of higher-level thought.
The view on the value weighting (on which I was carefully neutral) is an ideological point by its very nature. In terms of strict numbers, the amount of law-abiding citizens inconvenienced is actually probably slightly greater than the number of guilty men who would be stopped, given that handguns are used 2 million times each year to prevent crimes. Many of those instances are concealed carry; situations in which a long gun could not be used.
In any case, I made no value judgment on the weighting. If you inferred that I did, that's your own error. In fact, there's no possible way to come to the conclusion I reached in my clarification without being neutral on the topic of how to weight the two sides.
No, I have admitted that the pro-gun side is indeed an ideological position, and have merely pointed out that your own responses necessarily have their basis in your own ideology.
I will grant you this.
I largely agree. Unfortunately, freedom, in the long run, means allowing other people to make bad choices if they desire to do so. In some cases, it can even mean enabling those bad choices. In all cases, it means additional risk to one's own personal safety. In the end, it's all a matter of where a person is able to draw the line, and that will vary.
ZV
Blackjack200
Lifer
- May 28, 2007
- 15,995
- 1,688
- 126
Let's see if we can find some common ground between the pro-gun and anti-gun crowd: (as a disclaimer, I am unashamedly anti-gun)
1. The principle conflict here is between the individual right to own gun, and the individual right to not get shot by guns. This conflict is not exclusive to guns; for example, you could say the same about the right to own a car vs. the right to not get run over by a car. The difference here is that there seems to be wide agreement that the right to own and drive cars is more important than the rights of the people who are killed by them.
2. As long as guns are available to civilians, they will be widely available to criminals as well. This point applies to the United States than other countries which may lack the law enforcement resources that we have.
I think the first contention is almost tautological, but still significant. The second point I'm less sure of, I'm making the suggestion because criminals in this country don't seem to have access to weapons that are completely banned (rocket launchers, grenades etc.). Are there any developed countries that allow their citizens to own guns, but have been successful at keeping them out of the hands of criminals? Any developed countries that ban guns but have not been able to keep them out of the hands of criminals?
1. The principle conflict here is between the individual right to own gun, and the individual right to not get shot by guns. This conflict is not exclusive to guns; for example, you could say the same about the right to own a car vs. the right to not get run over by a car. The difference here is that there seems to be wide agreement that the right to own and drive cars is more important than the rights of the people who are killed by them.
2. As long as guns are available to civilians, they will be widely available to criminals as well. This point applies to the United States than other countries which may lack the law enforcement resources that we have.
I think the first contention is almost tautological, but still significant. The second point I'm less sure of, I'm making the suggestion because criminals in this country don't seem to have access to weapons that are completely banned (rocket launchers, grenades etc.). Are there any developed countries that allow their citizens to own guns, but have been successful at keeping them out of the hands of criminals? Any developed countries that ban guns but have not been able to keep them out of the hands of criminals?
One issue: putting aside the practical poliical issue of getting a national handgun ban passed, and putting aside the receng Supreme Court decision by the radical five that prohibits such a ban, the pro gun side would, IMO, raise the issue of the practicality of any gun ban in making guns hard to get now since there are already hundreds of millions in circulation. That sort of reduces the issue to theoretical, doesn't it, leaving only more modest measures for consideration?
You are basically saying there's no difference between the most rational and the most ideological approaches - even denying the rational side as simple a flavor of ideology.
Rather than a lengthy disagreement, I'll summarily deny the position in my opinion, and say I think that my usage of word ideological id distinct from the rational approach.
I don't mean ideological in your nebulous definition, I mean it in another sense that woudl take some time to get into and you likely either get now, or won't get soon.
Perhaps, though, an analogy may be helpful for just a little illustration.
Rational: "In deciding policy on illegal immigration, we need to evaluate the actual effects, and weigh the many areas it touches, from our culture to the impact on the rule of law to our moral views on the needs of the Mexicans to the tradeoffs for our economy, among other issues."
Ideological: "I don't want our country overrun by people who have a culture I don't like that's different than ours, and so it's a huge terrorism threat to have that open border, and any crime committed by those people is totally inexcusable since they shouldn't even been here, they're all too lazy to make their own country work and want to leech off of us, costing us billions of our resources while stealing jobs, it s a big theft", and so on.
One thing I'm trying to illustrate in the ideological example is the *assumption* without rational consideration of the facts - the assumption that they are 'lazy' because that's easier to resent, the assumption that they cost far more than they return because that's easier to argue against, and so on - when the facts are *assumed* to fit the ideologically desired result. I think that's a distinction where the first approach may contain some ideology in the broader sense of the word, but is not ideological in the send I'm using it.
I don't think you were neutral, as much as you might think so.
To describe it in general terms:
You took two sides of an issue where the public is heavily weighted towards one side, and you then linked to the two sides of the issue under discussion to that other issue, saying one side of the current issue is like the very popular side of the analogous issue, and that the other side of the current issue is like the very unpopular side of the analogous issue.
The implied argument there is that the first side of the current issue is right the same way as the popular side of the analgous issue is right, and vice versa.
This created a heavy burden on you to defend the analogy is fair and accurate - a burden I don't think you met; instead you seem to be calling the assigning of one side of the current issue to the very unpoopular side of the analogous issue "neutral". And I think the analogy can be challenged quite clearly on the accuracy, which I laid out in some detail previously and deleted from this post.
You argue here about the 'absolute numbers of people affected', but someone 'affected' by not getting to have a handgun might not be equal to someone 'affected' by getting shot.
(Although some pro gun people seem to view not getting a handgun as not much better than getting shot.)
To weigh them more clearly, you go back to what I said about estimating the net effects of a gun ban on violence.
I will grant you this.
Woo hoo.
[/quote]
And I largely agree with your point. Your prefatory comments suggested you might launch into the 'freedom radical' position, but instead you said what I agree with on choices.
Most gun discussion is two sides yelling past one another on different parts of the issue, each looking for that catchy slogan to really slam the other guys.
"You are a gun nut who blindly advocates thousands of innocents being shot!"
"You are a gun pansy who would trash our freedoms because you are paranoid and underweigh the uses of guns for defense!"
Well, that's sure productive.
So, I'm discussing how to get the two sides discussing apples and apples for there to be some progress...
And I think getting past the polarized assumptins that a gun ban would either be very helpful or very harmful, to some reasonably accurate estimates of the effect, is important.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter