Gabby Giffords Gun Violence Initiative

[bUU]

Just because you don't understand doesn't mean that reasonable people don't understand why someone would want more than one or two guns.

I didn't say anything about what a gun owner might "want". You evidently misread two important words in what I wrote. What I wrote was that I don't understand why we (i.e., everyone else in society) need (i.e., essential aspect, not discretionary aspect) to allow anyone to have simultaneous possession of more than one or two guns.

Regardless, beyond those two misunderstandings, you also misunderstood the point I was making, i.e., that it is often not necessary for people to understand why other people hold to perspectives contrary to their own. Their lack of understanding, expressed to me earlier in the thread, doesn't exempt what they're wanting (there's your word in its proper place) from broader scrutiny. And the point I was making that my lack of understanding why we would allow even what these restrictions we're talking about would continue to allow doesn't exempt me from the ramifications of that rationale for allowing (in that case) simultaneous possession of more than one or two guns.

A gun that is fine for squirrel hunting doesn't mean that it will be fine for bird hunting.

Personal protection is the basis on which objections to the proposals being made are being voiced. Beyond that, you have again misunderstood what I wrote. I use words very deliberately - nothing is wasted. I said that I don't understand why we need to allow anyone to have simultaneous possession of more than one or two guns. I have no problem with people owning separate guns for squirrel hunting and for bird hunting. The storage, inventorying, and general access to those guns you own, though, can perhaps be heavily controlled and regulated, such that you would be unable to possess both at the same time, limiting you to either squirrel hunting or bird hunting at any one time. You may perceive this as an onerous invasion into your freedom. I'm okay with you feeling that way. I don't even think we need to set a single absolute limit, say two guns - but rather am making the point that if it weren't for the self-serving brow-beating of the NRA and others, we would be able to pursue a more nuanced inventory control system, that lends sufficient flexibility for (for example) those who want to go squirrel hunting and bird hunting on the same day, but doesn't facilitate other types of flexibility. The overwhelming cadence of "me my mine" by gun supporters drowns out any chance of talking about a nuanced system that could work well enough for everyone's perspective, and that brings us back to the point I was making - that I just have to live with the fact that I don't understand why some gun owners won't respectfully negotiate with those who wish to reach a compromise between the the two sides of this specific "number and nature of guns" issue, due to it's lesser importance (as compared to the other proposals, i.e., semi-automatics, restrictions on CCW permits such as those in California, etc.).

Reasonable and knowledgeable people know these things.

Moral and principled people know things that I could make puerile aspersions implying that you don't know. You have fallen into the same self-serving trap that others in this thread have, assuming that people who disagree with you about what the rules should be don't know the relevant facts. We do. And we still think your perspective is wrong. Learn to live with it and respect it, or learn to earn the disrespect that you irresponsibly seek to dish out.

At any rate, this thread supplies me with my recommended daily dose of comedy!

This is such a sticky, contentious issue that I worry that many people who would otherwise be sincere and fervent in advocating for more changes seek to make light or otherwise marginalize the issue to keep from feeling the importance of the issue that stems from past tragedies.

[Mrs-M]

Originally Posted by Mrs-M.
At any rate, this thread supplies me with my recommended daily dose of comedy!

Originally posted by Bicker.
This is such a sticky, contentious issue that I worry that many people who would otherwise be sincere and fervent in advocating for more changes seek to make light or otherwise marginalize the issue to keep from feeling the importance of the issue that stems from past tragedies.

So far all I see is, selective misunderstanding, and just like, selective hearing, pro-gun lobbyists, can claim a quiet victory by pulling out their dumb-cards in relation to addressing the real issue, GUN-VIOLENCE IN AMERICA, with viable and realistic solutions.

[Yossarian]

assuming that people who disagree with you about what the rules should be don't know the relevant facts. We do.

So far you haven't shown any understanding of the facts, just a rabid opinion and a robust capability to spew hostility and dismiss anyone who might disagree with you as biased. But at least we know you have a good plan for reducing all the violent crime committed by the hordes of people simultaneously carrying a squirrel gun and a bird gun.

[CathyA]

I don't know why we even have these discussions. It never leads to anything but to preaching to our own choirs.
And I must say, some of the pro-gun people here are pretty rude and totally closed-minded, resorting to rude insults. (that does not apply to all the gun owners here....just a couple).
Listen everyone.........if you like arguing for argument's sake, then okay, have at it.
But if you're hoping for any kind of open-minded discourse, it ain't going to happen......at least not with a couple of the pro-gun people here.
(who by the way, just love bragging about their stockpile, showing pictures of various weapons, etc. if only to inflame).
If you want to talk survivalist stuff, or gun stuff.........why don't you go to the various forums out there, where you'll have all the agreement you need.........instead of needing to bully and argue.
I find it fairly sickening.

[bUU]

So far you haven't shown any understanding of the facts

Yes I have. I just disagree with you. It's a shame you cannot admit that.

[Mrs-M]

Feel free to correct me if I stand wrong, but how I understand a "background check"... it's sort of like a credit-check, am I right? Where once someone is approved for a loan/monies, because a credit-check has been conducted/performed, suddenly, the credit-check ensures that no missed or late payments will ever occur?

Does the same hold true for a "background CRIMINAL check"? Where once an applicant is approved to purchase, carry, and use a gun, because a "background CRIMINAL check" was performed, the person will never succumb to criminal activity or misuse/compromise the privilege of gun-ownership?

[Yossarian]

I just disagree with you.

And that's fine! Yes some people may whine about disagreement but that is actually what makes things interesting to discuss. You have strong opinions about what you want done. But just stating your conclusion and saying reasonable people agree doesn't contribute much. What would be great is if you could explain the reasoning or logic or studies or evidence that supports what you propose. Just calling everyone who questions your conclusions biased is unfair if you haven't presented any evidence to support your position. Give it a shot. People here may surprise you.

[Gregg]

And I must say, some of the pro-gun people here are pretty rude and totally closed-minded, resorting to rude insults. (that does not apply to all the gun owners here....just a couple).

Curious. I have an obligation to try to read ALL the posts in this section of the forums. My take is rather opposite of yours CathyA. It's easy enough to see how one side won't budge because they feel there are larger issues at stake and the other side interprets that as being closed minded. What I haven't noticed from the pro-gun side is any kind of aggressive rudeness. The only comments from that side that struck me as discourteous were in response to insulting comments.

One of the biggest problems with this issue is that everyone brings preconceived notions to the table. What those are becomes quite obvious if you want to read this thread from front to back. Those cause people to not seek out the REAL facts because they think they already know what the truth is. On the larger stage, VP Biden has made it fairly clear in the past few days that the administration is "GOING to take action". No one knows exactly what that means, but other clues from his time with the press (as well as his past) indicates his mind is made up on what course of action will be pursued. He meets with the NRA today. My guess is that meeting will be somewhat less productive than this discussion has been.

[Gregg]

Feel free to correct me if I stand wrong, but how I understand a "background check"... it's sort of like a credit-check, am I right? Where once someone is approved for a loan/monies, because a credit-check has been conducted/performed, suddenly, the credit-check ensures that no missed or late payments will ever occur?

Does the same hold true for a "background CRIMINAL check"? Where once an applicant is approved to purchase, carry, and use a gun, because a "background CRIMINAL check" was performed, the person will never succumb to criminal activity or misuse/compromise the privilege of gun-ownership?

There are no crystal balls. Credit and background checks are risk assessment tools. A kind of insurance policy. Future predictions are based on past behavior, just like in any other human endeavor. That is all anyone can do.

A credit check does not insure that no payment will ever be missed. People have a good credit score because they have honored their obligations to pay back borrowed money and have been responsible with their finances in the past. People pass a background check because they have not broken laws, exhibited violent behavior, been treated for mental illness and because they have acted responsibly as a member of society.

Is it possible that someone with a high credit score will lose their job and be unable to meet their financial obligations? Of course it is. Is it also possible that someone who has passed a background check will become afflicted with a mental disorder that could cause them to become violent? Yes it is. There are no guarantees in life. Politicians try to make us believe there are. Anyone who believes them is simply a fool.

[bUU]

Gun supporters just stating their conclusions doesn't contribute much. Gun supporters are frustrated, no doubt, by the fact that they cannot come up with a set of ideas to change things to address the concerns that gun control advocates have raised. Gun supporters practically throw up their hands, effectively telling others to just live with the ramifications of the gun supporters' personal preference. Gun supporters dodge and weave the moral issues raised, marginalize the risks, and even ridicule the perspectives of reasonable people who disagree with them.

It would be idiocy to give anyone who opposes gun control a promotion to inquisitor. Gun control opponents obviously will want to have the "discussion" on their terms and their terms only. -- "Request denied." -- If anyone is to be promoted to inquisitor in this context (and I believe that neither side should be, but if there is to be such a promotion) then let it be those who want the tragedies to be addressed, allowing us to start quizzing you on the moral underpinnings of your advocacy. Ridiculous? No more so than the suggestion that gun control opponent should rightfully be able to demand control over the discussion.

Gun control opponents have yet to prove - definitively - so that gun control advocates agree with them - that doing what the gun control opponents want results in fewer deaths than doing what the gun control opponents, like the Brady Campaign, suggest. That is the threshold for advocacy that is reasonably imposed on the comments of gun control opponents by those concerned about gun violence. This directly parallels the threshold for advocacy that gun control opponents try to impose on the comments of people who disagree with them. Fair is fair.

Gun control opponents have a vested interest in, and work very hard to maintain the fiction of, their insistence on denying the fact that gun control advocates have not ignored the facts gun control opponents tout but rather have determined the facts as inadequate. See above for the threshold of advocacy that gun control opponents would need to meet in order to have their perspective considered worthy by many folks who take a more moral and socially-conscious view of this issue: They have to actually propose solutions to the problems that have been raised. Just whining about the proposals others are making, without proving that the have proposals of their will actually result in significantly fewer tragedies, will invariably be considered an attempt to assert their personal preference.