LA Grant

I realized you guys are absolutely right. The mere idea of stronger gun laws is ridiculous! I mean, what would we even do? Test people in more intrusive ways than we currently do? Mandatory training? Longer waiting periods? Research? Prevent sales at gun shows? Literally any definition of "restrict access"? Well, who would decide? You? I don't know you. As you can see, there are too many questions and who has time for that? Guns aren't the problem. There actually isn't a problem, it's all hysteria from the media. No one has died from guns. Shut up. If guns were outlawed, it would just create a black market where criminals would buy them anyway. Sure, the prices would balloon because these would now be scarer items, meaning buying an illegal gun would cost several times what it costs now, but... uhh... still. Think about CRIMINALS. They have easy access to money from all that bank robbing and burglarizing they're doing because they're CRIMINALS! Just thinking about criminals and all the crime they're getting away with makes me want to buy another gun. Owning a gun is a rational decision, not based in emotion at all. Guns are never purchased in fear. The reason they're so frequently purchased after mass shootings, or during any discussion of gun control, is because everyone was just procrastinating and then that reminded them "buy a gun" was on their to-do list. It's not based in irrational fear. How is fear an emotion anyway? It's not. Shut up. They are for protection against home invasion, despite the fact that is statistically very unlikely! I keep it in a safe so my stupid son won't accidentally shoot himself which does mean it would be difficult to access in case of a (again statistically very unlikely) home invasion. I guess it doesn't make the most sense. But I heard a story about home invasion and that made me scar--uh, I mean, very rationally decide to exercise my RIGHT as an AMERICAN to own a gun. The government is bad and the NRA is good. Thankfully the government is afraid of me because I have a gun. If the government came for my guns, I would never give it to them. But then if someone said "hey, support the troops" well... I guess I would have to give up my gun because I am a patriot... I just pray it never comes to that. Assault weapons and handguns are necessary so I can personally feel protected because I am the only person that exists. I'd feel better if those CRIMINALS didn't have pipe bombs and that's why pipe bombs should be legal. Also hand grenades. I need it to feel safe from my neighbors who might be criminals! They saw me bring in a new dining set the other week and I know Dave down the street was eyeing it all suspiciously. If Dave comes over uninvited one more time, he better hope I don't have my gun. Guns are a very rational decision and the numbers back it up. Like the Second Amendment, written by wizards who could see the future. In the event of a mass shooting where people may be fleeing from gunmen and chaos, what we need in that situation are MORE gunmen, specifically untrained concealed carriers!! I feel tough when I have a gun so I think I would probably be pretty good in that situation. Yeah yeah yeah, I've heard people say that that only increases the chances of more innocent people getting hurt but I told those people to shut up. Did they write the Second Amendment? Didn't think so. I have a gun in my lap right now so I feel tough enough to tell you to shut up. Glad I'm thinking straight now. Thanks for convincing me! I love guns!!!

TakeYouToTasker, as suspected, you have nothing. Just attacks and the adorable phrase "handwavium." I knew I was wasting my time responding to you as I was doing it, "Smartest Man in the Room." If your entire argument is you don't like the way I'm arguing... don't argue with me? I'll make it easier for you because this is the last response you're getting from me. Handwaviuuuum! Okay, one more for FireChan and then I'm done for the afternoon. Well clickbait comes in all sorts of forms. Your objections to the "Drunk Uncle" headline/preamble thing I won't argue with, I concede it's clickbait-y and inflammatory, I was going to give it an asterisk when I put it in the first place , but I think the arguments in there are solid and worth consideration. It's just a condensed version of the circle we've been running ourselves through. As I was typing my response to the marijuana/black market question, JTSP answered it succinctly and perfectly enough. Does the fact that a solution has problems invalidate the entire thing? I also think the drug analogy doesn't really work. Drug and alcohol prohibition — those are things people use to party and have fun. They are harmful only to the user. Guns are used in the context of warfare and are dangerous to anyone within the vicinity. I guess you might argue that a responsible gun owner is the same as a responsible drink or drug user. But even with drunk driving statistics and all the negative consequences of alcohol considered, it still seems like a big leap of a comparison in terms of the amount of danger presented.

Yeah, I figured you were going to attack those sources. No argument on the clickbait headlines but I think you're being too quick to dismiss the rest. Here's more reading if you're interested, just things to consider. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/— pretty strong evidence in favor of strong gun restrictions http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0— is this what the Second Amendment protects? The common gun-owner fantasy of battling "the government" in the streets with your weapons is pure delusion, but I don't think I'm going to convince you of that, sounds like a deeply held belief for you. You're very convinced that there are no solutions and that any attempts would be a waste of time. It seems to me from everything I've read the data overwhelmingly supports gun regulation. You could say I'm only reading biased information, I could say you're only reading biased information. I'm the one venturing into enemy territory here, though, so why don't you tell me. What should I read instead? Where's the evidence that any attempts would be a waste of time and resources? I don't think I have the energy or interest to also debate marijuana with you. My general opinion on it is it seems like the wise move. States make money, eliminate a black market industry. I know Colorado has struggled a little with it because they have it as a cash only enterprise, but I also know it's made a lot of money for them in taxes. I haven't seen anything to suggest it somehow makes anything worse. Why, what's your angle and how is it relevant?

Love the use of "handwavium" and "appeal to popularity fallacy." Anyway, the reason I didn't respond to those is because those are junk questions, frankly. They're lazily stated and read to me as weak "gotcha" attempts. I'm not your father and I don't have infinite patience to answer every stupid thing. The pipe bomb question, the France question, the California question — they don't provide any honest counter-argument toward advocating for gun control and the answer to all three of those would be something I've said a few times — one gun law will not change everything. Gun laws will not eliminate terrorism. But stronger restrictions could prevent the many other cases of domestic terrorism: the Planned Parenthood attack, Aurora, Sandy Hook, and the innumerable other examples of legally purchased weapons used by US citizens with extremist views. The "unknown shooter" question is a bit more honest and interesting. That deserves attention too. But it's not mutually exclusive. Okay now it's your turn. Why should we not insist on additional gun restrictions? What is to be lost from removing access to weaponry for untrained civilians? If you insist this won't work, how can you be so certain it won't improve the current situation? And, same question as FireChan answered — should the NRA have more power, less power, or the same amount of influence? Why or why not?

That is a fairly solid and well-reasoned answer and we have some agreement. I think it is insane to not be skeptical of the NRA — obviously I feel much stronger in that skepticism. They encourage a very dangerous attitude and set of behaviors. They encourage people to be fearful and to stock up on weapons to increase their standing. I'm glad you bring up the Second Amendment because I think whenever gun control is talked about, this is obviously what we're really talking about, isn't it. Here's a key disagreement — you call it timeless and gun-control advocates like myself think it is entirely outdated. Obviously the Founding Fathers were not talking about modern guns when they wrote it, so how could it be timeless? They were talking about state militias, not individuals owning handguns or automatic weapons. Incidentally, it was the NRA who perverted its original meaning for their own gain. Here's some more info on that. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/02/oregon-college-shooting-guns-kill-people-in-us-pervert-second-amendment http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/266272/how-to-argue-gun-control/ http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172146191 I also disagree that the government only fears citizens because they are armed. I think the real problem is money in government. You show some agreement there too, corruption is a big problem. For us, corruption comes in the way of lobbyists. The NRA, as you say, hold a lot influence because they have, well, a lot of money. That directly impedes our representatives working toward solutions. Someone earlier in this thread posted a really cut and dry example, too, of research requested by doctors and scientists being denied by those same influences. So obviously the NRA and their influence are a huge, huge part of the problem. I agree that citizens are responsible for protection. I think identifying the NRA as a negative influence on our government is a responsible move that citizens could make in the interest of our own protection. (To the point that anyone is being "ignored" by me, there have been 4+ replies to this thread since I began typing this!)

Eh, no, buddy. I just went back and double-checked. You just posted garbage and attacks the whole time. You didn't do any of those things. All I've seen from you is your attempts to try and get in some big "gotcha" and I'm not interested in giving it to you. The closest you've come to looking to actually talk is the bolded above. So, okay. A question for you, let's see how you handle it. Let's see this thoughtful side that you keep promising. Should the NRA have less power, more power, or the same amount of influence as they currently have? Why or why not?

Okay so... none, then? Your post should've been "I just wanted to interject and say I have nothing to say here but I love talking. Thank you."

There's no answer I can give you that will satisfy you but that doesn't mean there aren't solutions worth considering. I'm not going to give you the ammunition you're looking for to dismiss this more than you already have. I do have specific opinions but you're not getting them, at least not in this context. What I think should happen is definitely too far left for you considering you cannot admit that gun access is a problem. There are more moderate solutions than what I specifically want that you might be able to sympathize with more. Does that make sense? Also, FireChan, you need to start bringing something more here than just looking for "gotcha" moments. At least DC Tom sometimes has things to say, you're more gnat-like in your approach. You would be a good example for why I called DC Tom a "thought leader" in my original post. You couldn't lead yourself to the kitchen. ... Actually, in a more general way, I'm not saying this will be my last post in this thread but I am saying I will be wrapping up at some point soon here. We're going in circles and no one is really listening. I predicted in the first post all that would happen would be people trying to "catch" me in order to dismiss the point, and with a few exceptions, that is mostly what happened. Maybe there were lurkers who enjoyed it. Hopefully some people are more doubtful about the NRA's agenda and rhetoric, or at least agree that "more guns" and "less restrictions" are definitely NOT the answer. And if that didn't happen, well, at least you had fun shouting at a stranger on the Internet today.

Where are these "valid challenges"?

Further. If something is not working, shouldn't it be fixed? What is to be lost from additional funding for research toward solutions (which as previously cited Congress has blocked)? Gun control laws in other countries should all be outright dismissed? I don't understand not having any flexibility on that. http://www.bustle.co...actly-the-point http://www.businessi...-control-2013-1

That would be my point. We do not know which hands are the wrong hands often until they have pulled the trigger. So it should be much harder across the board.

I do think this is a valid point. But it's still harder to get cocaine and heroin than it is a gun. Still, yeah I have always thought it is funny how the liberal/conservative agendas differ on what should and should not be banned. It's just kinda comical. I saw a version of this joke going around: Conservatives be like: Abortion? BAN IT Drugs? BAN IT Gay marriage? BAN IT Guns? Well, guys, listen, banning things never works.

By easily I just mean legally, as in, it should be much harder or next to impossible to acquire these guns. They had hoops to jump through to get a license but those restrictions weren't enough to prevent them from landing in the wrong hands.

DC Tom, everything you just said is a perfect description of yourself! Don't you love when anger reveals stuff like that? You aren't arguing nuance at all, you've just been emotional and name-calling the entire time. Just above when we were talking about Switzerland there was some nuance but before it was semantics about "mass" and "normal." So no, no points for you. And although you are actually misrepresenting my original post (as you do, because you are both an idiot and a moron), I don't actually disagree — the NRA and their agenda are to blame for all shootings where guns are legally purchased.

It is! You're right! Well, the weapons used were legally purchased, so how about starting with "how can we prevent people from acquiring guns so easily"? These guys did not have criminal backgrounds so that means identifying "bad guys" from "good guys" will indeed be tricky. Once again, I'm not going to go the route of pretending I have every policy answer. All that leads to is people who disagree nitpicking it and then dismissing the larger idea. I'm not running for office. I just want people to consider the larger idea instead of outright dismissing all attempts at gun restrictions.

Legally, mostly. (This is the part where you point out the exceptions and say "well THIS guy didn't buy it legally so gun control WILL NEVER WORK!" and then you walk away satisfied with yourself, your wall of blocking out information you don't want to hear as strong as ever.)

If only the world operated with such a clear black & white as your worldview, it would be easy to identify the good from the bad, then we'd know who to arm. It's too bad adults have to live in a more complicated world. Playing cops & robbers sure was fun on the playground, though.

Seems like you agree, guns should be really really hard to get.

Hahaha, knew this was coming. I would say that it seems like we may agree that not everyone should have a gun. Crazy idea!

They also provide training before they give them out, an important distinction! Not any fool can get one like in our country. http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp

Well, have to give it to you, this is the first honest counter-argument — just plain old-fashioned racism. It's going out of style, just like the attitudes of most of the old baby boomer white men that populate this board. As much as I appreciate the attention, this is not about me specifically. My goal in this situation is purposefully broad in an effort to reach agreement, even if its tenuous. I'm not going to take the bait of offering my solutions so you can be like "psssh" and dismiss them and go back to feeling like you're right because you out-shouted me on the Internet. A LOT OF PEOPLE are calling for stronger gun restrictions. I am not the only person wanting this change. I would at the moment settle for additional research and consideration instead of such entrenched positions of "IT'LL NEVER WORK!" I've said this multiple times already but I think if people largely agree guns are a problem and there are possible solutions, then we'll get there. Admitting the problem is the first step. You guys still refuse to admit guns are a problem. Instead, I think you should just consider the point. Just go do some reading that you might not otherwise do. Here's some reading to consider the enormity of the problem and the obstacles in place. What can be done about it? Nothing? All possible preventive measures are stupid? http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/06/charleston-and-public-policy http://www.bustle.com/articles/127272-california-has-the-toughest-gun-control-in-the-country-and-that-might-be-exactly-the-point http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1 Here's your response: "HAW!! See, tolja, he ain't got no solutions. Just another wacko libtard idiot. Pay him no attention." But then again that's your response to everything. Try curiosity for a change. Careful observers will notice I am sometimes intentionally funny even in the midst of argument. I appreciate someone pointing this out.

You're wrong about every single point here yet you put it forth with such bluster. You're a mudslinger with nothing more, no intellectual curiosity to honestly debate a worthy issue (I put "worthy" in here because it's subjective and I know you'd love to argue with me about it!) You have the same capacity for social/political dialogue as a dog. All bark and no bite, too. Well that's vintage DC Tom for you. Never change, DC Tom. That is a dumb decision to arrive to considering gun control has never been seriously attempted in America. It's sheer self-indulgence to assume you know the outcome to something that's never been attempted.

I addressed most of the counter-arguments in my original post. Look there first, then go ahead and bring me another argument if you want to argue that we should not try to improve gun control.

We agree on the statistics. I'm not arguing with you about "sensationalist" because again I know the only fight you want to have is a semantical one.

Again, so we agree. But again, you ignore the point and keep your focus elsewhere to deflect. You're doing what graceless people do when they lose arguments. You have no point and no argument. Your argument is semantics, name-calling, and dodging the point. You'd fit in well with Republican Congress. You have less than nothing but you spew it with vitriol nonetheless.