Yay, GUNS!

[Moontanman]

Just now, rangerx said:

I'm Nuu chaa nulth. Our people were decimated but not destroyed by European diseases, not government. Your take is too extreme and stipulates to what many are saying here about the discussion being confounded. I'm chocked full of reasons why our people and government have issues, but guns isn't one of them.

In the early 1800's my ancestors attacked and massacred the ships Boston (guns) and Tonquin (black powder), solely for guns, ammunition and retribution. Sadly the retribution was native on native and annihilated two nations who live to the south of us. The guns (well blunderbusses and fowling pieces) eventually broke or rusted. The powder got wet, blew up in our faces or was spent.

Yet again, the common denominator was the abuse of guns. To even begin to suggest our current gun laws had anything to do with our history misses the point..

Dude, do you know your history? I do, but that is not part of this thread. I was just trying to get you to see that insulting the US even if it was subtle is not what we are talking about. Whether or not the US takes in emigrants or should know better or whatever has nothing to do with gun control. Now let's get back on track, if you want to rehash old times start another thread.. 

33 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

We don't need 350 million people to act. 42 percent of households in the U.S. have firearms. There are 126 million households. So that is 52 million people. For a appreciable economic impact on the industry we'd not about 10% of those 52 million people to act. So we'd need about 1/70th of the 350 million people you referenced. That isn't an impossible number. 

 For an appreciable impact on the industry we would have to pass laws supporting the population instead of the industry. Rosa Parks didn't do what she did in a vacuum, it wasn't even the first time she did a personal protest. It was trigger that brought out lots of people but in the end the government had to pass laws. I think i already do a pretty good job of not buying anything from the gun industry and I do not plan to start. Engaging with people in a reasonable way and supporting others who do is the best I can do.

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

For an appreciable impact on the industry we would have to pass laws supporting the population instead of the industry. Rosa Parks didn't do what she did in a vacuum, it wasn't even the first time she did a personal protest. It was trigger that brought out lots of people but in the end the government had to pass laws. I think i already do a pretty good job of not buying anything from the gun industry and I do not plan to start. Engaging with people in a reasonable way and supporting others who do is the best I can do.

So if the Firearm industry was short 5 billion in revenue and understood it was because people wanted modest reforms like universal background checks you don't believe they'd get behind it?  

[Moontanman]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

So if the Firearm industry was short 5 billion in revenue and understood it was because people wanted modest reforms like universal background checks you don't believe they'd get behind it?  

They might but they have so much money to spend on buying politicians and to run ads that try to trigger people emotions I doubt very seriously you could get enough people to do it to affect their bottom line significantly. I really think enforcing laws we already have and closing the loop holes to those laws in the best way to go right now.  

Thinks like banning gun shows, banning sales by private individuals, real gun control in the form of licenses and training to get those licenses. The way we do now has failed, when a person can walk in and buy a gun with nothing but money and a smile we have a problem. BTW what exactly do you think the firearm industry is going to do to correct the problem?

[Ten oz]

9 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

They might but they have so much money to spend

Where does that money come from?

[Moontanman]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Where does that money come from?

 From guns sales of course but to really impact their bottom line would take far more people than are willing. Most of the people who are now calling for gun control either already have a gun or don't want a gun, people who pursue guns are not going to stop unless someone shoots them. Just like the boy who did the shooting in Florida, hurting the gun industry would not have affected him or his crime. Gun control might have.. 

BTW, I ask again, what could the gun industry do to correct the problem? It's like asking criminals not to rob anyone until this gun control thing is sorted out. Not going to happen, their own self interests will dictate their actions... 

I would think the vast majority of gun owners are similar to me, they have a gun a couple boxes of ammo and that is the extent of their gun purchases. I haven't spent a dime even on ammo for quite some time. I never fire them, they are not toys, they are tools, since i don't hunt anymore buying more guns or ammo makes no sense... 

 

Welll unless you arming for the zombie apocalypse.. 

Edited February 18, 2018 by Moontanman

[John Cuthber]

Forgive my ignorance. Do the same companies produce military guns as well as civilian ones?

If so, how  much market share does ech sector have?

If they get millions from domestic gun sales, but billions from military ones  then a boycott won't work.

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

From guns sales of course but to really impact their bottom line would take far more people than are willing.

I disagree. Despite all the noise about guns being a permanent slice of the American Pie the individual number of gun owners has been deceasing for decades. The problem is that those who still do have guns have been purchasing them in greater quantities which has kept the industries revenue up. Those with guns are in the minority and are the full revenue source for the gun industry/lobby. If a reasonable portion are able to wake up and realize they are major contributors to the lack of action I think it would make a difference. Again,we aren't talking about 350 million people. We are talking about more like 5 million people.

 

22 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

BTW, I ask again, what could the gun industry do to correct the problem?

Stop lobbying politicians to do nothing. We are a capitalist nation. We can influence industry will our wallets.  

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

"In fact, in 2016 the firearms and ammunition industry was responsible for as much as $51.3 billion in total economic activity in the country."

https://www.nssf.org/government-relations/impact/

Yes, many of us all agree on specific policies but action is required. Doesn't matter if 100% of us agree on policy if we're going to undermine agreement by voting in Representatives that won't act or we continue fueling the industry with our money. 

 

16 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Forgive my ignorance. Do the same companies produce military guns as well as civilian ones?

If so, how  much market share does ech sector have?

If they get millions from domestic gun sales, but billions from military ones  then a boycott won't work.

This is a fantastic question. I do not know how much money different firearm companies receive from DOD, FBI, DEA, CBP, and etc. I do know that a lot of Military firearms are not commercially sold. M-16's for example can not be bought at a local store the way an AR-15 can be. So the two (military and commercial) are not always the same entities. The 51.3 billion dollar number I have been using comes from a report (linked above) that specifically looks at sport shooting, hunting, and other civilian revenue sources and not federal contracts. 

[CharonY]

I will note again that although mass shootings are the most horrible outgrowth of US gun culture, the other elements, including "regular" homicide, suicide and accidental death are connected to gun ownership. Thoughtful analysis is required to figure out what can be done to curb those deaths. Otherwise, regulations, even when done in good faith, may not have the desired results (and not doing anything certainly does not address the dismal state of affairs). 

At least one major issue inhibiting thoughtful discussion is the fact that the CDC is effectively prevented to investigate gun deaths (since 1997!). Moreover, there was an NIH program initiated after the Sandy Hook shooting that does address specifically violence and allowed the investigation of firearms (with an envelope of ca. 11 million) but that got shelved. Most initial studies were descriptive with no strong conclusions. However, that is expected when one starts looking into a phenomenon. But now it seems that even that foray is getting stonewalled. 

Of course, lack of data is something that many politicians actually like, as it makes it easier for them to take ideological rather than fact-driven positions (not that facts do really get in their way too often, either).

 

[StringJunky]

How much autonomy does an individual state have in determining gun laws? For instance, could a state introduce regulations that mirror the UK's within its boundaries?

One tactic might be to use police photographs of the actual carnage, rather like European cigarette boxes have to show images of the damage that smoking causes. Perhaps death is too abstract a concept and people need to see it up close and personal in glorious Technicolor.

Edited February 18, 2018 by StringJunky

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I disagree. Despite all the noise about guns being a permanent slice of the American Pie the individual number of gun owners has been deceasing for decades. The problem is that those who still do have guns have been purchasing them in greater quantities which has kept the industries revenue up. Those with guns are in the minority and are the full revenue source for the gun industry/lobby. If a reasonable portion are able to wake up and realize they are major contributors to the lack of action I think it would make a difference. Again,we aren't talking about 350 million people. We are talking about more like 5 million people.

 

Ok, as I said I haven't bought anything in a great many years so effectively I have already done this. 

 

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Stop lobbying politicians to do nothing. We are a capitalist nation. We can influence industry will our wallets.

No one is lobbying politicians to do nothing other than the gun industry and they can do that due to "Citizens United" a law all the conservatives worship... They can cut any attempt to regulate guns to shreds before it is even considered. 

 

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

  

 

This is a fantastic question. I do not know how much money different firearm companies receive from DOD, FBI, DEA, CBP, and etc. I do know that a lot of Military firearms are not commercially sold. M-16's for example can not be bought at a local store the way an AR-15 can be. So the two (military and commercial) are not always the same entities. The 51.3 billion dollar number I have been using comes from a report (linked above) that specifically looks at sport shooting, hunting, and other civilian revenue sources and not federal contracts. 

This is yet another flaw, I cannot get behind restricting hunting, I would be lying if I said I could. I may not hunt but keeping others from doing so is simply not the way the US has ever worked. Assault weapons are not part of the hunting culture and neither are hand guns...  

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

How much autonomy does an individual state have in determining gun laws? For instance, could a state introduce regulations that mirror the UK's within its boundaries?

State rights are limited in this area, I'm not sure by how much but the same interests that control the federal gov also control state governments. 

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

State rights are limited in this area, I'm not sure by how much but the same interests that control the federal gov also control state governments. 

Cheers.

[Moontanman]

24 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I will note again that although mass shootings are the most horrible outgrowth of US gun culture, the other elements, including "regular" homicide, suicide and accidental death are connected to gun ownership. Thoughtful analysis is required to figure out what can be done to curb those deaths. Otherwise, regulations, even when done in good faith, may not have the desired results (and not doing anything certainly does not address the dismal state of affairs). 

At least one major issue inhibiting thoughtful discussion is the fact that the CDC is effectively prevented to investigate gun deaths (since 1997!). Moreover, there was an NIH program initiated after the Sandy Hook shooting that does address specifically violence and allowed the investigation of firearms (with an envelope of ca. 11 million) but that got shelved. Most initial studies were descriptive with no strong conclusions. However, that is expected when one starts looking into a phenomenon. But now it seems that even that foray is getting stonewalled. 

Of course, lack of data is something that many politicians actually like, as it makes it easier for them to take ideological rather than fact-driven positions (not that facts do really get in their way too often, either).

 

Again to get me on your team would require some differentiation between various types of guns. Simply stating guns are bad... mkay gets us nowhere. A great many people seem to live in a dream world where the cops protect and serve and help is just a phone call away. The police are just a phone call away but they do not stop crimes they investigate them. 

The main reason these studies get shelved is the gun lobby, the gun lobby can do this because of citizens united, citizens united can do this because business interests own the conservative party. There really is no liberal party, in name perhaps but they both have the same owners for the most part..   

[MigL]

I've gotta ask...

Ten oz has posted numbers such as 52 million people who own guns in the US, and net sales of the gun and ammo industries of over 50 billion dollars.
That makes an average expenditure of approx. $1000 per person, per year on guns and ammo purchases.

Either those sales include military and foreign sales ( i.e. the numbers are over-inflated ), or America has a bigger problem than I thought.

My opinion, for what its worth.
What Zap, Moony and Raider should be saying...
" I will give up any guns, over and above the numbers, and the type, that society deems acceptable ( so that none are too dangerous or fall into the wrong hands )
I will abide by rules and regulations with respect to purchase, ownership, carrying and discharging of firearms as society deems acceptable.
I accept that mental conditions, such as youth, depression, senility, etc. may affect my rights to purchase or own ANY gun.
And that previous actions on my part, such as a criminal record of violence, will also affect these rights."

I wouldn't dare presume to tell you guys what to do, and I'm certainly not calling for an outright ban.

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

I've gotta ask...

Ten oz has posted numbers such as 52 million people who own guns in the US, and net sales of the gun and ammo industries of over 50 billion dollars.
That makes an average expenditure of approx. $1000 per person, per year on guns and ammo purchases.

Either those sales include military and foreign sales ( i.e. the numbers are over-inflated ), or America has a bigger problem than I thought.

My opinion, for what its worth.
What Zap, Moony and Raider should be saying...
" I will give up any guns, over and above the numbers, and the type, that society deems acceptable ( so that none are too dangerous or fall into the wrong hands )
I will abide by rules and regulations with respect to purchase, ownership, carrying and discharging of firearms as society deems acceptable.
I accept that mental conditions, such as youth, depression, senility, etc. may affect my rights to purchase or own ANY gun.
And that previous actions on my part, such as a criminal record of violence, will also affect these rights."

I wouldn't dare presume to tell you guys what to do, and I'm certainly not calling for an outright ban.

I am completely with you on this... Totally reasonable to me at least... 

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

What Zap, Moony and Raider should be saying...
" I will give up any guns, over and above the numbers, and the type, that society deems acceptable ( so that none are too dangerous or fall into the wrong hands )
I will abide by rules and regulations with respect to purchase, ownership, carrying and discharging of firearms as society deems acceptable.
I accept that mental conditions, such as youth, depression, senility, etc. may affect my rights to purchase or own ANY gun.
And that previous actions on my part, such as a criminal record of violence, will also affect these rights."

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

[Raider5678]

23 hours ago, Ten oz said:

To my knowledge none of us are law makers.

2

I've never written professionally and gotten paid or anything.

However, I have studied laws that were written and wrote a mock law myself that was reviewed by state senators.

[rangerx]

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I was just trying to get you to see that insulting the US even if it was subtle is not what we are talking about.

You can take it as an insult all you like, but it doesn't detract from my opinion that America ought to know better than to be doing this to itself. It's pathetic, sorry to say.

My intent is to demonstrate I'm aghast, nothing more. I have a lot of reasons to like America and few to not. It's not fair to disqualify my opinion from the discussion.

I'm quite certain I'm not alone in that view and it is germane to the discussion because it underlies the gun issue.

It is what we are talking about, if only for a part of it. In fact, it's the prerequisite to even begin resolving the gun issue.

A huge part of America is deeply introspective lately, which is really awesome, but it's terribly frustrating when it's falling on deaf ears, getting spun into something it's not and our kids are dying. That's for shame and there can be no denying that.

[Raider5678]

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

I've gotta ask...

Ten oz has posted numbers such as 52 million people who own guns in the US, and net sales of the gun and ammo industries of over 50 billion dollars.
That makes an average expenditure of approx. $1000 per person, per year on guns and ammo purchases.

Either those sales include military and foreign sales ( i.e. the numbers are over-inflated ), or America has a bigger problem than I thought.

My opinion, for what its worth.
What Zap, Moony and Raider should be saying...
" I will give up any guns, over and above the numbers, and the type, that society deems acceptable ( so that none are too dangerous or fall into the wrong hands )
I will abide by rules and regulations with respect to purchase, ownership, carrying and discharging of firearms as society deems acceptable.
I accept that mental conditions, such as youth, depression, senility, etc. may affect my rights to purchase or own ANY gun.
And that previous actions on my part, such as a criminal record of violence, will also affect these rights."

I wouldn't dare presume to tell you guys what to do, and I'm certainly not calling for an outright ban.

This seems perfectly reasonable to me with perhaps the first line?

I'm not sure quite what it means, but I'm fairly certain I agree with it.

Basically, if society agrees that a gun is deemed unacceptable, then I am willing to give it up? If so, I agree.

 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I will note again that although mass shootings are the most horrible outgrowth of US gun culture, the other elements, including "regular" homicide, suicide and accidental death are connected to gun ownership. Thoughtful analysis is required to figure out what can be done to curb those deaths. Otherwise, regulations, even when done in good faith, may not have the desired results (and not doing anything certainly does not address the dismal state of affairs). 

 

Suicide rates are not really related to guns.

France has 1/3rd the guns, and twice the suicide rate.

As does Germany.

I attribute that to other factors, not guns.

[zapatos]

8 minutes ago, rangerx said:

It is what we are talking about, if only for a part of it. In fact, it's the prerequisite to even begin resolving the gun issue.
 

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?

[Moontanman]

To some extent I really think civil rights of minorities and the struggle to get them is a place we can get some guidance. When the civil rights movement really got traction it didn't get that traction because black people held the gov hostage or acted out violently (even though that did happen) what really mattered was white people stopped allowing the racist slime among us to blackmail us into agreeing with them. A great many white people knew racism was wrong but to speak out was social and political suicide. As the struggle lingered on more and more people began to stop allowing the status quo to remain. 

That didn't happen because whites feared backs it was because more and more white people began to grow a spine and speak out in favor of stopping the injustice. I have always thought Martin Luther King was the catalyst but his efforts wouldn't worked if the majority of people really were racist pigs...  

All of us who agree that gun control is good need to start speaking up. I have done so for quite some time but I am always stopped cold by the false dichotomy perpetrated by the gun lobby that gun control equals guns being banned. Until we can get control of the gun lobby and this can only be done through political reform we are simply spinning our wheels arguing and alienating the people we need to have on our side... 

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

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?

I was using it in a humanitarian context of what Americas priorities are being proactive on deemed threats to the country.

An extreme measure for a moderate threat on one hand, yet unwilling to invoke even moderate measures to resolve extreme threats on the other.

[zapatos]

18 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Suicide rates are not really related to guns.

I attribute that to other factors, not 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. 

Quote

About 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm end in death. (Drug overdose, the most widely used method in suicide attempts, is fatal in less than 3 percent of cases.) ...

Gun owners and their families are much more likely to kill themselves than are non-gun-owners. A 2008 study by Miller and David Hemenway, HICRC director and author of the book Private Guns, Public Health, found that rates of firearm suicides in states with the highest rates of gun ownership are 3.7 times higher for men and 7.9 times higher for women, compared with states with the lowest gun ownership—though the rates of non-firearm suicides are about the same. A gun in the home raises the suicide risk for everyone: gun owner, spouse and children alike.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/guns-suicide/

[Raider5678]

37 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 All of us who agree that gun control is good need to start speaking up. I have done so for quite some time but I am always stopped cold by the false dichotomy perpetrated by the gun lobby that gun control equals guns being banned. Until we can get control of the gun lobby and this can only be done through political reform we are simply spinning our wheels arguing and alienating the people we need to have on our side... 

 

Alright.

I'll just go to my nearest state representative office and learn the proceedings to getting elected. Then I'll challenge the gun lobby.

Kidding. Not that simple. However, I may have an idea of how we can change how people see gun control without gaining control of the gun lobby.

Before I state it, however, we should all remember we're among friends(for the most part). Ten Oz, Zapatos, John, Dimreeper, String, Moon, Ranger, iNow, and Koti. Each of us has been on this forum for quite some time, and for the most part, managed to get along. We should try to get this to continue.

Anyways, back to my idea.

 

So, the main power of the gun lobby(in my opinion) lies in their ability to act as a lens.

A piece of legislation shows up saying it plans to add universal criminal background checks on AR-15s, and the gun lobby then tells all its followers they are restricting AR-15s from law abiding citizens. The followers of the Gun Lobby never get a chance to actually read the legislation, because often that stuff is long and boring(again, my opinion.) In this way, the gun lobby has acted as a lens for its followers, twisting the legislation before they can see it.

Looking at Donald Trump, I can see how successful his use of Social Media is(relative. He's an idiot, but people read what he says directly without it being a lens). 

Those in support of reasonable gun control, the politicians, should start making short youtube videos about their legislation. Assure law abiding citizens they'll be able to keep their guns. Assure them they aren't being taken away. Explain the sections of the bill, tell them why you're doing it, and that for most people it won't change. However, it'll keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. 

I'm willing to say most people are actually moderates. There are loud areas of far right and far left, but most people are moderate with gun control. They just want Universal background checks and mental fitness checks, and most would agree.

By using videos instead of legislation and speeches, a good portion of the gun lobby will watch the videos themselves, and it'll be much harder to twist what you're actually saying. I know for a fact many people would watch videos of people making speeches about stuff they hated, just to hate on those people. Use that to your advantage. It's much harder to hate on a video when halfway through it you realize you actually agree with them.

This is NOT my solution to how I think we should use gun control, this is my solution to how we should fight the gun lobby(something I'm against.).

Does this seem reasonable to you guys?

I feel like today, politicians are failing to get their message to people. Instead, their message goes to the press, and the press then changes their message to either look better or look worse, who then feeds it to either the left, or the right. We have to find a way around that. And as much as I hate to say it, Trump showed me a clever loophole.

 

We can't break the rock.

We can't become the rock.

We can't change the rock.

But we can just walk around it.

 

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

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/

United States - 10.1

Canada - 10.2

Germany - 10.3

Iceland - 10.4

Norway- 10.9

Slovak Republic- 10.9

Sweden- 11.1

Denmark- 11.3

New Zealand- 11.9

Czech Republic- 12.7

Austria- 13.8

Poland- 13.8

France- 14.6

Finland- 16.5

Belgium- 18.4

Japan- 19.4

Hungary- 21.0

South Korea- 24.7

 

The number next to the country is the number of suicides per 100,000 residents.

The countries with higher suicide rates then the United States all have varying gun control, from less than 1/5 of the number of guns to more.(again, per 100,000 residents.)

The suicide rate and the suicide attempt rate, do not seem to correlate with guns. However, the suicide success rate, when using a gun, correlates with the gun.

Now perhaps I'm missing something, but these numbers don't seem to correlate with the study? Or did I misinterpret the study?

 

 

Edited February 18, 2018 by Raider5678
Bolded a statement.

[zapatos]

11 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The number next to the country is the number of suicides per 100,000 residents.

The countries with higher suicide rates then the United States all have varying gun control, from less than 1/5 of the number of guns to more.(again, per 100,000 residents.)

Now perhaps I'm missing something, but these numbers don't seem to correlate with the study? Or did I misinterpret the study?

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.

[Moontanman]

6 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Alright.

I'll just go to my nearest state representative office and learn the proceedings to getting elected. Then I'll challenge the gun lobby.

Kidding. Not that simple. However, I may have an idea of how we can change how people see gun control without gaining control of the gun lobby.

Before I state it, however, we should all remember we're among friends(for the most part). Ten Oz, Zapatos, John, Dimreeper, String, Moon, Ranger, iNow, and Koti. Each of us has been on this forum for quite some time, and for the most part, managed to get along. We should try to get this to continue.

Anyways, back to my idea.

 

So, the main power of the gun lobby(in my opinion) lies in their ability to act as a lens.

A piece of legislation shows up saying it plans to add universal criminal background checks on AR-15s, and the gun lobby then tells all its followers they are restricting AR-15s from law abiding citizens. The followers of the Gun Lobby never get a chance to actually read the legislation, because often that stuff is long and boring(again, my opinion.) In this way, the gun lobby has acted as a lens for its followers, twisting the legislation before they can see it.

Looking at Donald Trump, I can see how successful his use of Social Media is(relative. He's an idiot, but people read what he says directly without it being a lens). 

Those in support of reasonable gun control, the politicians, should start making short youtube videos about their legislation. Assure law abiding citizens they'll be able to keep their guns. Assure them they aren't being taken away. Explain the sections of the bill, tell them why you're doing it, and that for most people it won't change. However, it'll keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. 

I'm willing to say most people are actually moderates. There are loud areas of far right and far left, but most people are moderate with gun control. They just want Universal background checks and mental fitness checks, and most would agree.

By using videos instead of legislation and speeches, a good portion of the gun lobby will watch the videos themselves, and it'll be much harder to twist what you're actually saying. I know for a fact many people would watch videos of people making speeches about stuff they hated, just to hate on those people. Use that to your advantage. It's much harder to hate on a video when halfway through it you realize you actually agree with them.

This is NOT my solution to how I think we should use gun control, this is my solution to how we should fight the gun lobby(something I'm against.).

Does this seem reasonable to you guys?

I feel like today, politicians are failing to get their message to people. Instead, their message goes to the press, and the press then changes their message to either look better or look worse, who then feeds it to either the left, or the right. We have to find a way around that. And as much as I hate to say it, Trump showed me a clever loophole.

 

We can't break the rock.

We can't become the rock.

We can't change the rock.

But we can just walk around it.

 

You are missing one component, the idea that enough moderate politicians exist is contrary to reality. The special interest groups own the politicians quite literally. All or at least most of the special interest groups support each other almost fanatically. There are so few unowned politicians I'm not sure who isn't if any at all. The conservatives know this idea of guns, god, and capitalism is what keeps the masses inline.  The god lobby supports the gun lobby and the capitalist lobby and so on. I can figure it out. Otherwise good people who would have destroyed any liberal who does these things supports the conservatives absolutely. A great many people actually think that Obama was the devil incarnate and that Trump is the "messiah" well almost anyway. I have actually heard them say we need someone like Trump to whip the country in line. seriously scary considering that was what they said about You know who (rule 34) I don't pretend to understand it but I will not pretend to like it.