Gabby Giffords Gun Violence Initiative

[bUU]

mediation, over decades, has resulted in a situation where they only way to accomplish what is right, i.e., compromise, is paradoxically to forcefully fight back with the same intransigence that the gun control opponents have myopically and self-servingly employed straight through. This is this result whenever one side insists on sticking to their guns (pardon the pun).

I'm all for a discussion of the facts. Sometimes my mind is even changed when that happens.

I think you've fallen into the trap gun control opponents have set for their supporters, deceiving you into thinking that the facts are in dispute. The facts aren't in dispute. The conclusions drawn from the facts are in dispute. The facts do not lead inextricably to just one conclusion - the conclusion that feeds gun supporters. That's the deception that gun control opponents have perpetrated, apparently on you, and on others, and that's the crux of the issue - the source of the conflict.

I, and others, have attempted to engage you in a discussion about these various items, without response. I will try again.

This is a self-deception. I have responded, completely and comprehensively. You didn't like the replies. They were not responsive to the criteria you wanted to impose on the discussion. This is, again, something that gun control opponents do quite a bit - an aspect of their intransigence on the issue. I'll state it very plainly: You don't get to impose the criteria for the discussion. Get over that inclination. I have accepted, fully, that what you have posted is your version of what you believe is a complete and comprehensive response to what I've written. You should accepted, fully, that what I have posted is my version of what I believe is a complete and comprehensive response to what you've written, but you refuse to do so. In doing so, you explicitly and overtly blind yourself to the points that you don't like by refusing to allow yourself to acknowledge them, internalize them, understand them on their merits. You seem only capable of seeing them through the lens of your own criteria, and as such you cannot realize the actual meaning and significance of them.

On the ban of semi-automatic weapons, I'm curious about the rationale for that one.

And I'm curious about the rationale for objecting to restrictions on semi-automatics. I guess we'll both have to live with the fact that we each won't allow the other to impose the boundaries and direction of the discussion. You don't want me to draw the discussion off focusing on the aspects of the issue that matter most to my perspective, and I don't want you to distract attention away from the points I'm making by drawing the discussion off focusing on the aspects of the issue that matter most to your perspective.

The reason why I respond like this is because I don't believe you're being honest about your curiosity. The objections to semi-automatics (and with regard to an interrogatory posted by a poster yesterday regarding concealed weapons) are well-known. If you're as knowledgeable of the issue as you claim to be, then you already know what you're asking - you're just asking it to give yourself an excuse to spew your own perspective and show overt disrespect for the perspectives of others. As such, you're engaging in a self-serving deception, and there's no reason to reward that. You disagree with those rationales. Big surprise. (not) Stipulate to it and move on. There is no need to ask leading questions just to have another chance to say you disagree.

I find this one objection even more laughable because even gun control opponents admit that semi-automatics cause damage faster than regular firearms. Earlier in this thread, a gun owner made it clear that semi-automatics save about a second per shot. You want to bury the facts you don't like under claims that these differences are margin or somehow not worthy of respect. How ridiculous. If you're the person shot by a semi-automatic in the last second before the police take the active shooter out, that second matters.

High capacity magazines, I addressed a question regarding this earlier and several others have as well, what do you consider high capacity

Again, you're asking a question for which the answer is already well-established by years of gun control advocacy. More deceptive nonsense.

and what do you hope to achieve by banning them given the knowledge that lower capacity magazines can be changed out so quickly that there is practically no distinction between the two.

Thanks for admitting that it does take time ("quickly" instead of "instantaneously"). You've made my point. Even though you'll probably deny it.

I, and several others, have asked about the prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons, can you provide a response?

I already did. You simply refuse to see it as such.

The final item you mentioned was the regulation of the sale of bullets and I've previously asked what that would entail.

I referred to a bill going through the California Assembly.

No matter how many times you try to split the hairs, your complaints fail. Until you respect the perspectives of those who disagree with you as much as you would like your perspectives respected, you earn the disrespect you dish out. In the end, this really is a matter of conflicting judgment. And that will be addressed through the good offices of our society's government, whether you like it or not - and if gun control prevails, as I fervently hope it does, that'll be eventual conclusion, even if you don't like it. My objective is to make clear that those who's judgments contradict yours shouldn't be deceived by the nonsense claims gun supporters make claiming that their perspective is the only valid one, for the reasons I've outlined already, and we should be working towards strong and definitive action to apply whatever controls we feel may have a net-positive impact.


If you have any question why I won't do busywork for you, why I won't spend time providing detailed answers of things you should already know (and incidentally, why I will have to skip a couple of pages of this thread), just look at this reply. I actually had to split it in two because it was so long. I'm actually running a little late today out of respect for your inquiries. I provide far more respect for your perspectives and your rhetorical tactics than they deserve. With respect, you don't deserve this much of my time, and surely not more of my time. Stop presuming that you do. If you want to address the risks to what you feel your gun rights are, you had better start respecting the perspectives of those who oppose you, because only through understanding our perspective will have a chance of moderating it even a little.

Thanks.