zapatos

Yeah, you don't sound angry at all.

Snatch

I already told you I'm willing to take you at your word. I cannot help it if I feel the words you use (see below) strike me as off topic and/or angry commentary about the United States.

I didn't find "Far be it America would follow another country's lead on fixing problems, lest they appear weak" to be either objectively true or on topic.

Did you miss the joke?

I remember being surprised how quickly gays made significant progress in this country. They were suddenly winning significant support from the public, and winning significant cases in the Supreme Court, but I don't remember there being any specific event that preceded the change. For me it just seemed to come out of the blue. Perhaps something similar will occur with respect to gun laws. Maybe all the killing will reach a tipping point for the public and we'll see a similar, sudden turn for the better. It was a great list. I just suddenly had a sinking feeling as I read through it, anticipating that most changes that will really make a difference are going to be so very difficult to achieve. You really seem to have no idea what others may find offensive.

I am really pessimistic that much of this will ever come to pass as long as the Constitution reads as it does. The reason I say this is because included there seem to be so many barriers to to be able to exercise a Constitutional right; mandatory counseling, luxury taxes, suspension of the right, and others that you mention. Some even remind me of of what abortion rights activists object to when conservatives create barriers to abortion, such as forcing people to be aware of the number of gun deaths before letting them buy a gun (forcing someone seeking an abortion to view pictures of aborted fetuses, or go to counseling first). Of course if conservatives can implement barriers to abortion, it stands to reason that liberals can implement barriers to guns. But to make significant progress I believe we need to achieve a broad based change of attitude, and I cannot think of what will be the impetus for that. I know you keep saying you are not anti-American and I'll take you at your word. But these comments you keep making give the opposite impression.

I'm encouraged!

The study was for the US. You cannot apply its findings to the suicide rates of other countries. It is possible that suicide rates in other countries could be higher if they had greater access to guns.

I don't think studies support that assertion. Suicide attempts may not be related to guns, but suicide rates are related to gun access. Doctors regularly ask patients (where Republicans have not passed laws to prohibit such questions) if guns are in the homes of patients who suffer depression. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/guns-suicide/

The confusion for me lies in your statement "Your country bans immigrants even though most don't terrorize" . Can you please expand how that is on topic and germane to this discussion?

Maybe not in those exact words, but I think I've said exactly that.

Aren't there places where guns are allowed but there are not problems like we have in the US? Say, Canada, or Switzerland? Isn't Vermont an example of that in the US? I don't think anyone questions that Australia's approach has been successful, but I think countries that allow guns more freely also have reasonable results.

The gun rights activists are the ones in the position of power. They don't need us, we need them. But we don't need all of them, just enough to make changes happen. The extremists on either end of the spectrum are unlikely to change their minds and frankly I'd like to keep them at arms length so they don't poison the well. We need conversations between those who are willing to work together toward meaningful reform from both the right and the left. But at the moment people don't trust each other. We must build that trust. And that means honest conversation. No generalizations, no extreme positions, no ultimatums, and a willingness to actually listen and understand the other's perspective. Gaining trust usually starts in small ways. Countries do it through things like cultural exchanges. Men do it with women by things like respecting personal space. And IMO the way we start the trust on gun control is by taking on the least controversial issue, and proving we will work as a team.

Not exactly sure this answers your question, but it is true that I believe the type of approach taken by some in this thread leads gun rights activists to believe that their ultimate goal is a ban on guns. No one here said they support a ban on guns, and I'm not claiming they did. I am only saying the way they present themselves can lead others to think a ban is what they'd ultimately like to achieve. The reason I think that is so bad is because if gun rights activists believe someone ultimately wants a ban on guns, then they will not trust them and will tend to oppose them. IMO we need guns rights activists to trust us so that we can work together toward reform.

You guys are so full of shit. Now you've stooped to outright falsehoods. Why won't new gun laws that I agree to, cause any change for me? You, dimreepr, and John keep suggesting I give up my guns, and then rangerx is shocked that I think people might get the impression that you guys would like people to give up their guns. This is a new low for you Ten oz.

Agreed.

In order to get a law passed that says you cannot do something (like buy and AR-15) you must first convince legislators to pass that law. I didn't say anyone suggested a total ban. I said that some people here are why gun nuts think they want a ban on guns. As I didn't attack anyone I don't see how it could be an ad hominem. It is not outright false. Even I think some people here ultimately want a ban.

You really don't know? What is it you think I'm trying to persuade people to give up that I'm not prepared to give up myself? I feel like you haven't read anything I've written. This thread is getting so tiring. I've never asked anyone to give up their guns. I've asked for new restrictions on guns to an extent that we can minimize undo risk to the public. Something I am willing to advocate for and abide by. And that statement sums it up in a nutshell. "You are for us or against us. Our way or the highway. Love it or leave it." As I said before, it does not seem to be enough that I support gun control. I must support it in a way dictated by others. Otherwise I'm seen as part of the problem. Your approach doesn't work on me and I suspect it won't work on many others. You and others here are why gun nuts think that your end game is a ban on guns. And which is one of the main reasons the NRA takes such a hard line. They get the feeling that no matter what they give up it won't be enough until guns are gone. And I now realize that even though I said I'd stop responding to this crap I'm doing it again. Fuck.

When I first started in on this thread it was to say that it was critical that people take the time to understand their opponents, use the proper vocabulary to avoid confusion, avoid generalities, and find common ground so that people can work on problems together. I don't believe we will be successful gathering allies by telling our potential allies what they should do. They need to be persuaded. If we want them to follow our path, it is our responsibility to present that path in such a way that they believe it too. If we can convince them that we are right, they will choose for themselves to join us, and we will have an ally for life. If on the other hand we do not try to understand their position and simply say "There is no gray area, there are no subtleties, there is no accommodation for your perspective. I am right, you are wrong, you must do it my way", then we've lost the battle before it has begun. Saying "don't tell me how to live my life" is not an attitude reserved for guns in the US. It is universal. It is part of personal and business interactions. I can convince my wife to do just about anything, but never if I start off with "I'm telling you what to do". I can get people to do things my way at work, but not by telling them what to do. I have to explain why it is something they want to do. People don't sell you a car by saying "you have to buy this one", they sell you a car by getting you to say "I've decided I want this car". I agree that we can't start with legislation. We need to get enough people on board so that the legislators feel it is in their best interests to pass new laws. We have to lead people to the light, not herd them to the light.

What is the matter with you? Quit telling me how to live my life.

Expecting the industry to change itself is not likely to get us very far. We need to impose the change on the industry legislatively. I can assure you that something or someone IS pushing back against it. That part is not in doubt.

Because of the current political environment. Agreed. Requiring gun safes would not stop all shootings. It would however reduce the frequency of shooting associated with children finding unsecured guns. School shootings are a small part of the overall problem. Amazing how such strong support translates into such minimal action.

Agreed. It is a waste of time. For the life of me I can't understand how an approach I outlined in one paragraph, with essentially no detail, can be judged to be a waste of time to the overall movement with no further discussion about the potential pros and cons. I'm more than happy to stop responding to it though and will take that approach from here on out.

It seems that this is primarily about your ego. You consistently, in all threads, never give an inch. You ALWAYS think you are100% right, about everything, and there is never any room for anyone's opinion if it disagrees with yours. Time for some introspection Ten oz. Yes. So you've said about a dozen times now. Thanks for clarifying your position on this matter.