Gabby Giffords Gun Violence Initiative

[bUU]

I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this comment.

That gun supporters have no way of proving that their way is actually going to result in less gun violence, because what they're suggesting, when the deign to even provide suggestions, is just a suggestion and therefore there is nothing real to compare to. They have to have proof their way is better, vis a vis the criteria I outlined earlier, not the criteria that they would want to apply, otherwise reasonable people will use their own sense, which is as valid as the gun supporters' sense, to judge the various options based on which they believe will be better, again vis a vis the criteria I outlined earlier.

And of course, Spartana, there exists before-and-after data in California speaking to the effectiveness of the various recent-ish California laws, which really started in the 1980s. And that data shows pretty much zero effectiveness, significant cost, reduction of freedoms of law-abiding citizens, and so on.

That's deceptive.

States with the most restrictive laws, including Connecticut and California, have lower rates of gun-related deaths, while states with few limits on firearms have the highest rates.In 2009 and 2010, the most recent years for which information is available, California had the nation's strongest gun controls and the ninth-lowest rate of gun deaths, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which favors firearms regulation.

(link)

So again, you're injecting your interpretation of the reality as the only possible valid interpretation, refusing to acknowledge and admit that reasonable people disagree with your gun-support-biased view of things. You want to try deceive others into believing that the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence aren't reasonable people, but they are. Your evading their results and insinuating that your conclusions are the only possible valid ones is nothing but deception.

But data and reasoning aren't the order of the day. Childish sophistry from a sock-puppet is.

What a self-centered and rude way of engaging the issue. Grow up and stop with the back-handed insults. They're childish and color your comments as nothing but juvenile lashing out at those who oppose what you want. That's the behavior of two year olds, not adults. Stop denying that reasonable people disagree with you.

1) It seems that you already feel that you automatically have the moral high ground in this issue and are the judge and jury of the facts.

Not any more than anyone else in this thread. Of course the gun supporters are going to lean up against each other and try to cast any strong perspectives holding them to account for what they're supporting in a negative light. Are you really trying to pass this off as anything but? How inanely ridiculousl.

If you don't agree or are unswayed with a set of facts they are irrelevant and no further discussion is needed.

This comment highlights a major problem in society today: As alluded to above, the refusal to acknowledge that the facts you refer to don't actually draw to the conclusion you've decided to ascribe to them, but rather can be drawn to any number of reasonable conclusions, some of which you might not like. It's a tough lesson to learn, especially (apparently) for people who want guns.

You also seem take on an air that other positions are immoral because you (as the inquisitor) don't agree.

I reply in-kind. If you want a different tone to the conversation, then start respecting the contrary perspectives as you would have your perspectives respected, rather than claiming that the contrary perspectives aren't supported by the data while your perspectives are. The reality is that the facts don't support your conclusions. Facts only go so far, and then the rest of the way must be traverse via reason, logic, and judgment. Your judgment is not the only valid one. Admit it. Accept it. And start acting like you respect it, or accept that you'll earn back as much disrespect for your judgment as you presume to direct toward that of others.

2) Your position is one of imposing restrictions on a portion of society.

And the contrary position is one of entitlement mentality, presumption of supremacy over others, etc.

It seems reasonable to request you support this postion with facts and not just pontificate on the moral superiority of your position.

Again, the facts don't draw only to your conclusion, but also to the conclusions that contradict yours, even though you refuse to admit it. Furthermore, the claiming of individual entitlement by gun supporters requires even more definitive support for that position than the claiming of primacy of society to determine what well-regulated means in this context.

3) Some of those opposing your position, do in fact agree that some changes need to be made. They just don't agree with your solutions after weighing the pluses and minuses.

They'll have to get over the feeling that others should bend over and kowtow to their "weighing" - that everyone will do their own "weighing" and that the conclusion many of us reach contradicts theirs, and that that's every bit as valid and worthy of respect as their own conclusion.

4) Lastly, I took the liberty of replacing "gun supporters" with "gun control supporters" and "gun control supporters" with "gun rights advocates" in the above. I didn't post it, but it is an interesting excerise as it sounds just as arrogant coming from the gun rights side. The point is, both sides need to listen and find solutions not laws for the sake of laws.

I think that would help. The fact of the matter is that the environment we are in now is a direct result of the dogged, intransigence of gun control opponents. Their forceful actions to avoid compromise and