CDZ GUNS: a challenge to both liberals and conservatives

[sealybobo]

[ The question is, what would you be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to the problem?

Nothing, of course! There is no problem from the conservative point of view. I don't see why you suppose there is a problem for us? Just one for you, you want to grab everyone's guns but we won't let you.

NRA spox: 'Many in legacy media love mass shootings'

She's right because this shit will win us elections. And as long as the violence stays at GOP baseball games and country music concerts and white schools, what the hell right?

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes it is reasonable if you want a solution to the problem. You know and I know that more gun control won't solve the problem. But when you are dealing with people who are convinced that it will, what we know doesn't count for much.

The conversation includes what each side is willing to do in order to solve a problem they both want solved and there will certainly be some give and take. But a conversation is not agreement or acquiescence to anything. It requires nothing but the time and effort to participate in it. But to refuse to have the conversation makes it really certain that the problem most likely won't get solved.

But, the conversation you propose is one sided from its inception. The anti-gunners have extorted 55 years worth of concessions while anti-gunners are still giving NOTHING, and you want me to begin the discussion there. So, you want to start the conversation where things are now, and will expect me to give up even more while accepting even more erosion of my rights to make more concessions that won't improve anything. So no, nothing reasonable about it at all.

No. I am not suggesting any one side solution. I am suggesting a win-win situation for both side. The 2nd Amendment people should not give a single inch without getting something really valuable in return for it. But we also should not be so obstinate to refuse to even have a conversation about what should happen that no solution is possible anywhere.

We have those conversations here all the time.....we explain our points.....then, they will suggest a new law, or a new item that should be banned....we explain why the new law and the item being banned achieve nothing.....then they start talking about penises........it gets kind of old.....

Sure it gets old when it is all one sided which it has been.

I am suggesting a way to get the problem solved that will give you a whole bunch more of value than what little you would choose to give up to get it.

It is like having a $100 bill. It's wonderful to have. Nobody has any right to take it from you.

But if somebody offers you something of great value that you would rather have than the $100, you willingly hand it over. You've given up nothing of importance and have gained something of great value.

That's what I am shooting for here.

I am sick and tired of people like (the rhetorical, not literal) you telling me that if I support any form of gun control, I want to take away your guns. I don't.

And I am sick and tired of people like the figurative others who tell me that if I propose specific cultural changes that I am forcing my values down their throats. I am not.

When both sides hold on tight to their particular ideology and refuses to even talk about what compromise can get everybody on the same path and fix a problem, both sides are the reason that the problem persists.

The point is they've already TAKEN my $100 bill and now want to start negotiating again. so I'll give up more.

I know that is the stance of the 2nd Amendment group who feel they have been forced to make almost all the concessions in the gun debate and have received little or nothing in return. In many ways that is a valid point of view.

But kids are still being slaughtered in the schools as are innocent people elsewhere when one of these sociopathic maniacs is motivated to act. I would guess that banning guns outright would have had little effect to stop that.

I want to remove most of the motivation to commit such unthinkable acts via a shift in the American culture. I rather expected the left would ignore that part of the debate other than to accuse the other side of all manner of ridiculous things. Turns out that so far I was mostly right about that.

I did hope more on the right would help carry the banner on the cultural change aspect rather than focus strictly on the guns.

 

[Auld Phart]

The discussion is on guns, and considering this is the Clean Debate Zone, anything else is off topic.

Keep that in mind as you continue

 

[2aguy]

It IS a highly charged topic which is why I did NOT want this to be just another angry gun control thread.

I wish everybody would re-read the the OP and back up a little bit.

My hope is to stop the senseless violence that is all too prevalent in American culture and the only way I see to stop it is not with more gun control but with changing the culture.

Too many on the right think more guns in more places are the answer. It isn't. Yes, hardening vulnerable sites will help and save lives but it won't fix the problem.

Too many on the left think fewer guns or less dangerous guns are the answer. It isn't. Those intent on doing violence are going to find a way to do it regardless of what laws we pass.

So this thread was intended to start a conversation of what each side could agree to in order to achieve fewer violent people and a far more safe America for school children and everybody else.

And that has much less to do with guns than it does with changing the culture.

Unless everybody coming to the table for that conversation has something to gain from it, however, they won't come to the table. And nothing constructive can happen. That is what the compromise in the OP was all about.

And I am discouraged that anybody other than me is interested in having the conservation at all.

I think it is pretty clear (at least from my point of view) why there is no compromising with liberal demands. You cannot trust them. They are extremely dishonest, they fail to see or even to acknowledge the big picture and the unintended consequences, and things have gotten worse and worse since we have allowed them to trample on our 2nd A rights. NOTHING has gotten better as they have promised MANY times, but things have instead gotten worse. They will NEVER stop saying, just one more inch, just one more inch. They don't even realize or want to realize what the true problems are or where they come from. They just want to keep imposing themselves on the citizens and our rights.

I understand the dynamics involved here. I really do.

I understand the frustration of the 2nd Amendment group who feel like our constitutional rights are being steadily eroded and taken away by people with fuzzy values and authoritarian motives. I don't miss the emphasis that would give an authoritarian government--one of their choosing of course--total control over every aspect of our speech, our thoughts, our beliefs, what are now our protected rights. I agree that has been their motive and game plan for quite some time now.

But on the other hand, even though I am a card carrying member of the NRA--thanks to Obama. I never wanted to join the NRA before he came along--and I own guns, I know how to use them, and I would fight to the death for the right of lawful citizens to have any amount of them they want. . .

. . .I am a bit disheartened at those who put so much importance on those guns that they would not even have a conversation about any form of compromise that could be a win-win for both and result in school children not being slaughtered as well as eliminating most other forms of violence.

I don't expect everybody to agree with me, and most of those on 2nd Amendment side as well as a few intellectually honest ones from the gun control side I fully respect and consider friends.

But I sure wish I wasn't the lone vote up there willing to compromise to solve the problem.

What should the gun advocates give up?

We already gave up fully automatic weapons for the most part....and we gave you the federal background check system......and waiting periods......

We are waiting for Concealed carry reciprocity, and the ability to buy a gun noise suppressor.........

We need to change it so semi's can't be turned into fully automatic weapons.

Do you not like the federal background check system? You don't think this has saved lives?

You have a problem with a waiting period?

Why do you need a silencer?

And what do you mean when you say you are waiting for concealed carry reciprocity? We have it here in Michigan

LANSING - Attorney General Bill Schuette today announced that Michigan has achieved full reciprocity for concealed carry with every state that has a "shall issue" concealed carry law on the books, for a total of 40 states, including Michigan. As a result of agreements negotiated and signed by the Attorney General's Office, Michigan holders of concealed pistol licenses (CPL) can lawfully carry in 40 states without obtaining separate licenses for each state. To date, Michigan is the first and only state to achieve maximum reciprocity for its CPL holders.


Michigan Republicans own the entire state and one Republican proposed that Michiganders can conceal carry without having to take the class. Republicans voted on it and voted it DOWN I believe. It was passed in the House but I don't think it made it all the way through

Michigan House passes bills allowing concealed pistol carry without a license

This is a great example of how the GOP aren't nearly as right wing as you guys are. What possible reason would they have to shoot down that law? I'll tell you why. For all the reasons us liberals say it's a bad idea. The number of shootings will skyrocket. It won't make us more safe it'll make us less safe.

Now I wanted to carry a gun and I don't want to take the class. I was disappointed they didn't pass that law.

We need to change it so semi's can't be turned into fully automatic weapons.


We did, we made it a felony.

Do you not like the federal background check system? You don't think this has saved lives?

No...it hasn't saved lives. Mass shooters pass the background check, and criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns.....

You have a problem with a waiting period?

Yes....there is no reason that I or anyone else who is a law abiding citizen should be made to wait to exercise a Right. Should blacks have to wait to vote?

Why do you need a silencer?

To protect my hearing. I had a friend develop tinitus after a trip to the range, so I would like some basic protection for our hearing.

 

[2aguy]

It IS a highly charged topic which is why I did NOT want this to be just another angry gun control thread.

I wish everybody would re-read the the OP and back up a little bit.

My hope is to stop the senseless violence that is all too prevalent in American culture and the only way I see to stop it is not with more gun control but with changing the culture.

Too many on the right think more guns in more places are the answer. It isn't. Yes, hardening vulnerable sites will help and save lives but it won't fix the problem.

Too many on the left think fewer guns or less dangerous guns are the answer. It isn't. Those intent on doing violence are going to find a way to do it regardless of what laws we pass.

So this thread was intended to start a conversation of what each side could agree to in order to achieve fewer violent people and a far more safe America for school children and everybody else.

And that has much less to do with guns than it does with changing the culture.

Unless everybody coming to the table for that conversation has something to gain from it, however, they won't come to the table. And nothing constructive can happen. That is what the compromise in the OP was all about.

And I am discouraged that anybody other than me is interested in having the conservation at all.

I think it is pretty clear (at least from my point of view) why there is no compromising with liberal demands. You cannot trust them. They are extremely dishonest, they fail to see or even to acknowledge the big picture and the unintended consequences, and things have gotten worse and worse since we have allowed them to trample on our 2nd A rights. NOTHING has gotten better as they have promised MANY times, but things have instead gotten worse. They will NEVER stop saying, just one more inch, just one more inch. They don't even realize or want to realize what the true problems are or where they come from. They just want to keep imposing themselves on the citizens and our rights.

How have they trampled your 2nd amendment rights? I'm not aware that we've done anything in the last 50 years.

What is the big picture? How would you try to prevent future shootings? You would do nothing? Well then why even try to compromise with you? What are you offering?

What did we do that we said would result in things getting better because we did those things and then instead things got worse?

You seem to be talking in generalizations because I don't think you have any specific examples to give us.

What are the true problems? Why does America have more rampages than every other country combined? You think the people in the greatest and freest country in the world would be the happiest.

Should we bring back cop killer ammo? The ammo that goes through armor?

Should a boyfriend you have a restraining order be able to buy a gun?

What did we do that we said would result in things getting better because we did those things and then instead things got worse?

That's easy.....you created gun free zones for law abiding gun owners on school grounds.....and you had more school shootings...not less.....

People like that troll demanded that people not carry weapons and the streets became unsafe...Whether it be NYC in the 70s or Houston in the 80s or Los Angeles in the 90s or Chicago today.

What good are gun free zones when you give anyone a gun? Of course things aren't getting better if a guy like Nicholas Cruz can get a high powered assault weapon clearly we haven't done enough.

In Sydney, thousands of banned firearms were collected in 1997 as part of the Australian government’s buyback program after the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre, in which 35 people died when a gunman went on a shooting rampage. Credit

Australia....that lie? They have increasing gun crime and dumb luck is the only thing that kept their dozen or so public shootings from becoming mass public shootings....

 

[2aguy]

[ The question is, what would you be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to the problem?

Nothing, of course! There is no problem from the conservative point of view. I don't see why you suppose there is a problem for us? Just one for you, you want to grab everyone's guns but we won't let you.

A majority of Americans say that politicians' views on gun control and gun ownership will have an influence on their votes in November's midterm elections, a Marist poll finds.

More than eight in ten Americans, 85 percent, say a candidate's views on gun control will affect their vote, including 59 percent who said such positions would be a "major factor" on their vote.

When it comes to what Americans want to see done about mass shootings, more still support tougher gun laws. Seventy-one percent of Americans, including 58 percent of gun owners, say restrictions on gun ownership should be tightened, up from 64 percent in the same poll last October.

Just 23 percent of Americans say gun laws should remain the same while 5 percent say the laws should be less strict.

We will win.

When it comes to what Americans want to see done about mass shootings, more still support tougher gun laws. Seventy-one percent of Americans, including 58 percent of gun owners, say restrictions on gun ownership should be tightened, up from 64 percent in the same poll last October.

Yes..... a poll that lies, is given to people who are uninformed and who are not given actual information on the issues.......it is completely irrelevant...

 

[2aguy]

But, the conversation you propose is one sided from its inception. The anti-gunners have extorted 55 years worth of concessions while anti-gunners are still giving NOTHING, and you want me to begin the discussion there. So, you want to start the conversation where things are now, and will expect me to give up even more while accepting even more erosion of my rights to make more concessions that won't improve anything. So no, nothing reasonable about it at all.

No. I am not suggesting any one side solution. I am suggesting a win-win situation for both side. The 2nd Amendment people should not give a single inch without getting something really valuable in return for it. But we also should not be so obstinate to refuse to even have a conversation about what should happen that no solution is possible anywhere.

We have those conversations here all the time.....we explain our points.....then, they will suggest a new law, or a new item that should be banned....we explain why the new law and the item being banned achieve nothing.....then they start talking about penises........it gets kind of old.....

Sure it gets old when it is all one sided which it has been.

I am suggesting a way to get the problem solved that will give you a whole bunch more of value than what little you would choose to give up to get it.

It is like having a $100 bill. It's wonderful to have. Nobody has any right to take it from you.

But if somebody offers you something of great value that you would rather have than the $100, you willingly hand it over. You've given up nothing of importance and have gained something of great value.

That's what I am shooting for here.

I am sick and tired of people like (the rhetorical, not literal) you telling me that if I support any form of gun control, I want to take away your guns. I don't.

And I am sick and tired of people like the figurative others who tell me that if I propose specific cultural changes that I am forcing my values down their throats. I am not.

When both sides hold on tight to their particular ideology and refuses to even talk about what compromise can get everybody on the same path and fix a problem, both sides are the reason that the problem persists.

The point is they've already TAKEN my $100 bill and now want to start negotiating again. so I'll give up more.

I know that is the stance of the 2nd Amendment group who feel they have been forced to make almost all the concessions in the gun debate and have received little or nothing in return. In many ways that is a valid point of view.

But kids are still being slaughtered in the schools as are innocent people elsewhere when one of these sociopathic maniacs is motivated to act. I would guess that banning guns outright would have had little effect to stop that.

I want to remove most of the motivation to commit such unthinkable acts via a shift in the American culture. I rather expected the left would ignore that part of the debate other than to accuse the other side of all manner of ridiculous things. Turns out that so far I was mostly right about that.

I did hope more on the right would help carry the banner on the cultural change aspect rather than focus strictly on the guns.

Not true...

Schools safer today than in 1990s, study on shootings says

Tuesday, February 27, 2018
Despite the horror of the high school massacre in Florida, U.S. schools overall are safer today than they were in the early 1990s, and there is not an epidemic of such shootings, a new academic study is reporting.

Researchers at Northeastern University say mass school shootings are extremely rare, that shootings involving students have been declining since the 1990s, and four times as many children were killed in schools in the early 1990s than today.

The actual study...

Schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school shootings are not more common than they used to be, researchers say

Their research also finds that shooting incidents involving students have been declining since the 1990s.

----

Four times the number of children were killed in schools in the early 1990s than today, Fox said.

“There is not an epidemic of school shootings,” he said, adding that more kids are killed each year from pool drownings or bicycle accidents. There are around 55 million school children in the United States, and on average over the past 25 years, about 10 students per year were killed by gunfire at school, according to Fox and Fridel’s research.

 

[Foxfyre]

No. I am not suggesting any one side solution. I am suggesting a win-win situation for both side. The 2nd Amendment people should not give a single inch without getting something really valuable in return for it. But we also should not be so obstinate to refuse to even have a conversation about what should happen that no solution is possible anywhere.

We have those conversations here all the time.....we explain our points.....then, they will suggest a new law, or a new item that should be banned....we explain why the new law and the item being banned achieve nothing.....then they start talking about penises........it gets kind of old.....

Sure it gets old when it is all one sided which it has been.

I am suggesting a way to get the problem solved that will give you a whole bunch more of value than what little you would choose to give up to get it.

It is like having a $100 bill. It's wonderful to have. Nobody has any right to take it from you.

But if somebody offers you something of great value that you would rather have than the $100, you willingly hand it over. You've given up nothing of importance and have gained something of great value.

That's what I am shooting for here.

I am sick and tired of people like (the rhetorical, not literal) you telling me that if I support any form of gun control, I want to take away your guns. I don't.

And I am sick and tired of people like the figurative others who tell me that if I propose specific cultural changes that I am forcing my values down their throats. I am not.

When both sides hold on tight to their particular ideology and refuses to even talk about what compromise can get everybody on the same path and fix a problem, both sides are the reason that the problem persists.

The point is they've already TAKEN my $100 bill and now want to start negotiating again. so I'll give up more.

I know that is the stance of the 2nd Amendment group who feel they have been forced to make almost all the concessions in the gun debate and have received little or nothing in return. In many ways that is a valid point of view.

But kids are still being slaughtered in the schools as are innocent people elsewhere when one of these sociopathic maniacs is motivated to act. I would guess that banning guns outright would have had little effect to stop that.

I want to remove most of the motivation to commit such unthinkable acts via a shift in the American culture. I rather expected the left would ignore that part of the debate other than to accuse the other side of all manner of ridiculous things. Turns out that so far I was mostly right about that.

I did hope more on the right would help carry the banner on the cultural change aspect rather than focus strictly on the guns.

Not true...

Schools safer today than in 1990s, study on shootings says

Tuesday, February 27, 2018
Despite the horror of the high school massacre in Florida, U.S. schools overall are safer today than they were in the early 1990s, and there is not an epidemic of such shootings, a new academic study is reporting.

Researchers at Northeastern University say mass school shootings are extremely rare, that shootings involving students have been declining since the 1990s, and four times as many children were killed in schools in the early 1990s than today.

The actual study...

Schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school shootings are not more common than they used to be, researchers say

Their research also finds that shooting incidents involving students have been declining since the 1990s.

----

Four times the number of children were killed in schools in the early 1990s than today, Fox said.

“There is not an epidemic of school shootings,” he said, adding that more kids are killed each year from pool drownings or bicycle accidents. There are around 55 million school children in the United States, and on average over the past 25 years, about 10 students per year were killed by gunfire at school, according to Fox and Fridel’s research.

Not sure what your point is my friend. The information you are posting does not address what I posted at all. I went to school well before the 1990's and not only did most of the pickups in the school parking lot have visible gun racks, but a lot of them had guns in them. And the school principal might be found out there comparing his 12 guage to the new one the kid brought to school that day. Of course the kids didn't bring the guns into the building, but guns were everywhere and they were not a problem to anybody.

And what happened at Columbine or Sandy Hook or Parkland was simply unthinkable. Things like that just didn't happen or they were so rare that if they did, nobody we knew had ever heard of them.

But by the 1990's the progressive movement and a violence and retaliation culture had taken root in America and yes I do believe there is a correlation. And it has been getting progressively worse.

For instance, the first item on the list of my suggested cultural reforms in the OP was the importance of a mom and dad in the home when the kids are growing up.

And here is why;
Of the 27 Deadliest Mass Shooters, 26 of Them Had One Thing in Common

Twenty six of the 27 worst mass shooters in the news grew up in a fatherless home. I acknowledge that correlation is not the same as causation. And I know many single parents who are doing exemplary jobs raising their kids, some by choice and some who had no choice. But I think that factoid is so striking it really deserves consideration.

 

[ding]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

Sorry, but that wouldn't make any sense.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment isn't to provide arms for hunting or personal self defense. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a deterrent against a standing army of a tyrannical government. The people should own and possess semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines that any light infantry ought to have.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

Sorry, but that wouldn't make any sense.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment isn't to provide arms for hunting or personal self defense. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a deterrent against a standing army of a tyrannical government. The people should own and possess semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines that any light infantry ought to have.

I don't believe I made any argument that they shouldn't.

 

[ding]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

Sorry, but that wouldn't make any sense.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment isn't to provide arms for hunting or personal self defense. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a deterrent against a standing army of a tyrannical government. The people should own and possess semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines that any light infantry ought to have.

I don't believe I made any argument that they shouldn't.

The compromise wouldn't make any sense.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

Sorry, but that wouldn't make any sense.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment isn't to provide arms for hunting or personal self defense. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a deterrent against a standing army of a tyrannical government. The people should own and possess semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines that any light infantry ought to have.

I don't believe I made any argument that they shouldn't.

The compromise wouldn't make any sense.

Why not? The right gives up a few things in the gun control debate that don't amount to a hill of beans and wouldn't change anything even though the left thinks it would. . .and. . .

Whether or not they would embrace those changes personally, the left agrees to support or at least not interfere with some cultural changes that I believe would make an enormous difference and restore us to a much more non-violent society.

How could that not be a good thing?

 

[ding]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

Sorry, but that wouldn't make any sense.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment isn't to provide arms for hunting or personal self defense. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a deterrent against a standing army of a tyrannical government. The people should own and possess semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines that any light infantry ought to have.

I don't believe I made any argument that they shouldn't.

The compromise wouldn't make any sense.

Why not? The right gives up a few things in the gun control debate that don't amount to a hill of beans and wouldn't change anything even though the left thinks it would. . .and. . .

Whether or not they would embrace those changes personally, the left agrees to support or at least not interfere with some cultural changes that I believe would make an enormous difference and restore us to a much more non-violent society.

How could that not be a good thing?

Because it would be illogical to establish a precedent to allow the very organization the 2nd Amendment is trying to protect us from to be the ones regulating what we can use against them if the need ever should arise. It would be a deterrent without teeth which is to say it would be no deterrent at all.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

Sorry, but that wouldn't make any sense.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment isn't to provide arms for hunting or personal self defense. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a deterrent against a standing army of a tyrannical government. The people should own and possess semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines that any light infantry ought to have.

I don't believe I made any argument that they shouldn't.

The compromise wouldn't make any sense.

Why not? The right gives up a few things in the gun control debate that don't amount to a hill of beans and wouldn't change anything even though the left thinks it would. . .and. . .

Whether or not they would embrace those changes personally, the left agrees to support or at least not interfere with some cultural changes that I believe would make an enormous difference and restore us to a much more non-violent society.

How could that not be a good thing?

Because it would be illogical to establish a precedent to allow the very organization the 2nd Amendment is trying to protect us from to be the ones regulating what we can use against them if the need ever should arise. It would be a deterrent without teeth which is to say it would be no deterrent at all.

Nobody said anything about regulation. The OP is about having a national discussion/conversation about what will actually fix the problem.

More 'gun control' vs 'defend the 2nd Amendment at all costs' arguments haven't fixed it.

I am trying to refocus the national debate, that's all.

And so far only one other person posting on the topic in this thread has understood what the OP is actually about.

 

[ding]

Sorry, but that wouldn't make any sense.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment isn't to provide arms for hunting or personal self defense. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a deterrent against a standing army of a tyrannical government. The people should own and possess semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines that any light infantry ought to have.

I don't believe I made any argument that they shouldn't.

The compromise wouldn't make any sense.

Why not? The right gives up a few things in the gun control debate that don't amount to a hill of beans and wouldn't change anything even though the left thinks it would. . .and. . .

Whether or not they would embrace those changes personally, the left agrees to support or at least not interfere with some cultural changes that I believe would make an enormous difference and restore us to a much more non-violent society.

How could that not be a good thing?

Because it would be illogical to establish a precedent to allow the very organization the 2nd Amendment is trying to protect us from to be the ones regulating what we can use against them if the need ever should arise. It would be a deterrent without teeth which is to say it would be no deterrent at all.

Nobody said anything about regulation. The OP is about having a national discussion/conversation about what will actually fix the problem.

More 'gun control' vs 'defend the 2nd Amendment at all costs' arguments haven't fixed it.

I am trying to refocus the national debate, that's all.

And so far only one other person posting on the topic in this thread has understood what the OP is actually about.

That's what I am doing. I am telling you that what you wrote is non-negotiable. This is me debating why it is non-negotiable.

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

 

[ding]

Gun accidents and gun violence is a cost of freedom and liberty.

While sensational in nature, gun deaths by semi-automatic rifles are NOT the problem people make it out to be. Death by hands, fists, feet, etc is almost twice the rate of that as death by rifles.

 

[Foxfyre]

Gun accidents and gun violence is a cost of freedom and liberty.

While sensational in nature, gun deaths by semi-automatic rifles are NOT the problem people make it out to be. Death by hands, fists, feet, etc is almost twice the rate of that as death by rifles.

View attachment 179390

Which has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[2aguy]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

Sorry, but that wouldn't make any sense.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment isn't to provide arms for hunting or personal self defense. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a deterrent against a standing army of a tyrannical government. The people should own and possess semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines that any light infantry ought to have.

As the ones who own the country, we supply the military and police with their weapons.....we dictate to them what guns they get...they don't dictate to us what guns we can have...

 

[ding]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

Sorry, but that wouldn't make any sense.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment isn't to provide arms for hunting or personal self defense. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a deterrent against a standing army of a tyrannical government. The people should own and possess semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines that any light infantry ought to have.

As the ones who own the country, we supply the military and police with their weapons.....we dictate to them what guns they get...they don't dictate to us what guns we can have...

It would be pretty foolish of us if we let them.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't believe I made any argument that they shouldn't.

The compromise wouldn't make any sense.

Why not? The right gives up a few things in the gun control debate that don't amount to a hill of beans and wouldn't change anything even though the left thinks it would. . .and. . .

Whether or not they would embrace those changes personally, the left agrees to support or at least not interfere with some cultural changes that I believe would make an enormous difference and restore us to a much more non-violent society.

How could that not be a good thing?

Because it would be illogical to establish a precedent to allow the very organization the 2nd Amendment is trying to protect us from to be the ones regulating what we can use against them if the need ever should arise. It would be a deterrent without teeth which is to say it would be no deterrent at all.

Nobody said anything about regulation. The OP is about having a national discussion/conversation about what will actually fix the problem.

More 'gun control' vs 'defend the 2nd Amendment at all costs' arguments haven't fixed it.

I am trying to refocus the national debate, that's all.

And so far only one other person posting on the topic in this thread has understood what the OP is actually about.

That's what I am doing. I am telling you that what you wrote is non-negotiable. This is me debating why it is non-negotiable.

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

But why? Why is it non negotiable?

Show me how it wouldn't make a difference. Show me how it is irrelevant to the problem of school shootings and mass violence in society in general.

For example, a little while I ago I posted a statistic that 26 of the 27 of the men who have committed the most deadly mass violence were from fatherless homes. I think we have to consider that as something important.

Would it be worth giving up your right to legally have a bump stock if we could return to the time when most kids grew up with a mom and dad in the home?

Would you be willing to not be able to legally buy an AR-15 if we could get back to the time that nobody even thought about school kids being at risk from crazed murderers?

I'm not suggesting at all that we are putting a target on CC, handguns, rifles, shotguns or even other weapons similar to the AR-15.

I am suggesting giving the gun control lobby some concessions we can live with in return for their not blocking those things that could make school children safer and achieve a much less violent society.