TexasCHLforum.com

I found this interesting if only because it describes the realistically complicated nature of gun policy. Sounds to me like the author has no philosophical problem with more gun control, but he acknowledges a lot of things that your average gun control advocate would deny (like the individual right of the Second Amendment, the impracticality of eliminating guns in America, and the innate right to self defense).

http://theweek.com/article/index/263059 ... heres-why#

No, both sides are not wrong.

The antis are wrong.

We are right. Beyond any doubt right. The only way to prove it would be for the antis to try it our way for once. That will never happen.

Pretty good article. Thanks for posting the linky.

Anygunanywhere

anyone that thinks removing private ownership of guns will lessen crime is an idiot.

I have not heard any of the anti's calling for gun safety classes in the schools. I wonder why? That would be the best way to promote safety and reduce accidents. Education is the answer. Why don't the anti's push for gun safety classes in the schools?

MeMelYup wrote:I have not heard any of the anti's calling for gun safety classes in the schools. I wonder why? That would be the best way to promote safety and reduce accidents. Education is the answer. Why don't the anti's push for gun safety classes in the schools?

Because while band saws and acetylene torches are also potentially dangerous, they are morally neutral tools, whose safe use can thus be taught in shop class :(]

anygunanywhere wrote:No, both sides are not wrong.
The antis are wrong.
We are right. Beyond any doubt right. The only way to prove it would be for the antis to try it our way for once. That will never happen.
Pretty good article. Thanks for posting the linky.
Anygunanywhere

That's exactly how we get no where... You can't even have a discussion that starts with "we're right and you're wrong".
Some good points in the article.

Look, demographics are shifting. The media puts laser-beam focus on incidents of gun violence and has contributed to a situation where any mentally ill person knows how to get the attention that they want. That media influence can sway the broad more neutrally-minded majority. Old hard-core conservatives are dying off with the demographics and social changes. And we've got significant division between 2nd amendment groups.

Digging in is not a good long game option.

"Digging in is not a good long game option."

What is?

Develop the long game in the face of current realities, shifting demographics, and a shifting society.

Unwillingness to compromise on issues around mental illness and background checks is one issue that I'd (personally) be willing to discuss versus having it implemented in a way that allows far greater consequences. It's a matter of time before all medical information is digital and very available for matters of "national security". (The quotes are intentional)

My point is largely that refusing to even have a discussion about it and calling the other side "wrong" and your side "right" is probably not the best long term game plan.

I'll give a nod towards the idea that discussing it will allow it to change... And discussing it may result in a more restrictive situation than we have today. That's going to be unacceptable to a lot of people. I'm just thinking that "more restrictive" may be preferable to "a lot more restrictive" - which seems to be the way we're almost certainly heading.

I realize my opinion may be very unpopular. I'd just ask that you target personal comments at me directly, not in the forum.

cb1000rider wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:No, both sides are not wrong.
The antis are wrong.
We are right. Beyond any doubt right. The only way to prove it would be for the antis to try it our way for once. That will never happen.
Pretty good article. Thanks for posting the linky.
Anygunanywhere

That's exactly how we get no where... You can't even have a discussion that starts with "we're right and you're wrong".
Some good points in the article.

Look, demographics are shifting. The media puts laser-beam focus on incidents of gun violence and has contributed to a situation where any mentally ill person knows how to get the attention that they want. That media influence can sway the broad more neutrally-minded majority. Old hard-core conservatives are dying off with the demographics and social changes. And we've got significant division between 2nd amendment groups.

Digging in is not a good long game option.

How about if the antis stop using ridiculous terminology like "gun violence". I own 52 firearms and not a single one of them has ever shown any violent attributes. If the antis can actually start to carry on an intelligent conversation about actual facts instead of feelings, which is about 99% of their argument we might make some progress.

Until then I will continue to dig in my heels, thank you very much.

Anygunanywhere

You're gonna be waiting a while.
To be fair shouldn't we restrict the political term branding on both sides of the isle?
There has to be an entire subset of marketers that come up with these spin terms... I'll bet they do pretty well.

J.R.@A&M wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:I have not heard any of the anti's calling for gun safety classes in the schools. I wonder why? That would be the best way to promote safety and reduce accidents. Education is the answer. Why don't the anti's push for gun safety classes in the schools?

Because while band saws and acetylene torches are also potentially dangerous, they are morally neutral tools, whose safe use can thus be taught in shop class :(]

I disagree. You're approaching the question from the standpoint of logic and reason....the antis only approach the question from emotion. The reason they won't teach gun safety in school that it would normalize the use and possession of guns. Their plan to eliminate guns requires demonization and stigmatization.

cb1000rider wrote:You're gonna be waiting a while.
To be fair shouldn't we restrict the political term branding on both sides of the isle?
There has to be an entire subset of marketers that come up with these spin terms... I'll bet they do pretty well.

We can't shift the branding because the left controls the media and the public school system, and they're not about to change branding that advances their agenda.

cb1000rider wrote:Develop the long game in the face of current realities, shifting demographics, and a shifting society.

Unwillingness to compromise on issues around mental illness and background checks is one issue that I'd (personally) be willing to discuss versus having it implemented in a way that allows far greater consequences. It's a matter of time before all medical information is digital and very available for matters of "national security". (The quotes are intentional)

My point is largely that refusing to even have a discussion about it and calling the other side "wrong" and your side "right" is probably not the best long term game plan.

I'll give a nod towards the idea that discussing it will allow it to change... And discussing it may result in a more restrictive situation than we have today. That's going to be unacceptable to a lot of people. I'm just thinking that "more restrictive" may be preferable to "a lot more restrictive" - which seems to be the way we're almost certainly heading.

I realize my opinion may be very unpopular. I'd just ask that you target personal comments at me directly, not in the forum.

Ive considered your position, but seeing that the antis want to totally eliminate gun ownership, I feel that even a little appeasement is letting the camel's nose get under the tent.

Jim Beaux wrote: Ive considered your position, but seeing that the antis want to totally eliminate gun ownership, I feel that even a little appeasement is letting the camel's nose get under the tent.

There absolutely are some "antis" that want to totally eliminate gun ownership, but they're a small minority. And they don't stand a chance. This is America. I've decided that Chicago and New York are not part of America.

There are also some "pros" that believe that the constitution allows firearm ownership to all regardless of weapon type (full auto) and they we should be allowed to carry 4 of them to the mall. They're also a small minority.

The people that you should worry about are the majority in the middle... Which is why scaring people at Starbucks isn't a good idea.

I understand the view of getting the camels nose under the tent and the slippery slope theory. That camel is likely getting his nose in anyway - at least that sure seems to be where we're headed. Maybe ignoring it will work and nothing will change... I guess I could be wrong.

VMI77 wrote:

J.R.@A&M wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:I have not heard any of the anti's calling for gun safety classes in the schools. I wonder why? That would be the best way to promote safety and reduce accidents. Education is the answer. Why don't the anti's push for gun safety classes in the schools?

Because while band saws and acetylene torches are also potentially dangerous, they are morally neutral tools, whose safe use can thus be taught in shop class :(]

I disagree. You're approaching the question from the standpoint of logic and reason....the antis only approach the question from emotion. The reason they won't teach gun safety in school that it would normalize the use and possession of guns. Their plan to eliminate guns requires demonization and stigmatization.

Then I failed... because I was attempting to approach that last question from the standpoint of satire and humor.