Quitter, lol.  

(June 30, 2016 at 4:37 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote:

(June 30, 2016 at 4:19 pm)wallym Wrote: You're definitely scoring lots of imaginary points in some game nobody else is playing, and I congratulate you for it.  Keep up the good work.

You think I care what you think?

Is that a trick question?

(June 30, 2016 at 6:46 pm)wallym Wrote:

(June 30, 2016 at 4:37 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: You think I care what you think?

Is that a trick question?

If it's too subtle for you...

(June 30, 2016 at 6:47 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote:

(June 30, 2016 at 6:46 pm)wallym Wrote: Is that a trick question?

If it's too subtle for you...

It could be a joke.  Because you're literally asking me what I think about you caring about what I think.  The implication being that it's important to you that I think you don't care what I think, which is funny.

But, based on context/tone of your other posts, it reads like you're unaware of that irony and are just trying to win more imaginary points by being dismissive.

My gut says unaware, but there's little enough information that you could have been being funny. The subtle statement makes me think you were doubling down on dismissive though.

Now I've muddied the waters, and will never know.  Something I'll have to take to my grave, I'm afraid.

Yeah, too subtle. Sorry.

Back on topic, I'd ask in general, why do 'pro-safety' people view banning all guns as bad? Wouldn't that be the best way to deal with gun violence? Isn't that how they've done it in a lot of other countries? Why don't people own that idea?

I just want to slightly reduce gun violence, not get rid of it altogether. I just want it to be slightly more inconvenient for criminals to get guns, not make it as hard as possible. I just want mass shooters to only be able to kill 41 people, not 50.

Do you see how that doesn't seem like a believable set of end goals?

I almost think it would be better if the pro safety people were explicit and said we want to ban them all, but we know you don't, so let's compromise. Instead, it seems like there are these disingenuous 'common sense' 'fixing the gun problem' proposals, that are still going to result in gun violence, that is still going to be something that needs to be fixed.

If someone had a practical solution to banning guns, I might be on board with that. It would be costly, but it would be a real solution with real benefits. Whereas, no new AR-15's and you can't put more than 14 bullets in a clip, seems arbitrary and pointless.

(June 30, 2016 at 7:11 pm)wallym Wrote: Back on topic, I'd ask in general, why do 'pro-safety' people view banning all guns as bad?  Wouldn't that be the best way to deal with gun violence?  Isn't that how they've done it in a lot of other countries?  Why don't people own that idea?

I just want to slightly reduce gun violence, not get rid of it altogether.  I just want it to be slightly more inconvenient for criminals to get guns, not make it as hard as possible.  I just want mass shooters to only be able to kill 41 people, not 50.

Do you see how that doesn't seem like a believable set of end goals?

I almost think it would be better if the pro safety people were explicit and said we want to ban them all, but we know you don't, so let's compromise.  Instead, it seems like there are these disingenuous 'common sense' 'fixing the gun problem' proposals, that are still going to result in gun violence, that is still going to be something that needs to be fixed.

If someone had a practical solution to banning guns, I might be on board with that.  It would be costly, but it would be a real solution with real benefits.  Whereas, no new AR-15's and you can't put more than 14 bullets in a clip, seems arbitrary and pointless.

It isn't that we view banning all guns as bad or good, but unrealistic. In a perfect world I don't know any sane human that would value fear of being harmed vs wanting to perpetually living in paranoia. I don't doubt the gun advocates think they are doing the right thing. What I do doubt is their perception of reality in the real world. A lot like we all doubt claims of Allah or Yahweh or Jesus being a cure all for humanity. More guns is not a solution. I simply wish those who think it is would see, that is not a call to ban all guns, but merely saying stop seeking utopias like worship of a religion or holy book.

More guns isn't the solution anymore than less guns is the solution.  A minuscule number...as in less than a fraction of a single digit of a percent.... of guns in this country, are used in crime. A reasonable person might look at the stats and realize that the number of guns is irrelevant.

There I go, with those facts again, nvm.

(June 30, 2016 at 8:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: More guns isn't the solution anymore than less guns is the solution.  A minuscule number...as in less than a fraction of a single digit of a percent.... of guns in this country, are used in crime.  A reasonable person might look at the stats and realize that the number of guns is irrelevant.  

There I go, with those facts again, nvm.

Nice try. Nope sorry, more guns isn't the solution. You cant stupidly claim that only criminals use guns then stupidly make access them easier.

(June 30, 2016 at 8:36 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(June 30, 2016 at 8:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: More guns isn't the solution anymore than less guns is the solution.  A minuscule number...as in less than a fraction of a single digit of a percent.... of guns in this country, are used in crime.  A reasonable person might look at the stats and realize that the number of guns is irrelevant.  

There I go, with those facts again, nvm.

Nice try. Nope sorry, more guns isn't the solution. You cant stupidly claim that only criminals use guns then stupidly make access them easier.

So everyone agrees "more guns" is not the solution? And who said only criminals use guns?