Does anyone else really hate both sides of the gun control argument?

[Franzl]

I honestly don't understand why certain things are even really the subject of debate.

[Franzl]

I honestly don't understand why certain things are even really the subject of debate.

Such as?

I completely understand that the type of assault weapon bans proposed will do nothing to curb gun violence or prevent spree shootings. The problem is the pro-gun side doesn't focus on that and their counter-argument is usually nothing but "OMG FREEDOM!"

Oh, they do. The gun-control types just tend to ignore it because they don't have a leg to stand on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

[Franzl]

Do I need to post murder rates as well?

[Franzl]

No, because one side is right and one isn't. It's a really simple binary matter, really.

I suppose individual measures can be debated regarding their effectiveness in reducing gun violence , but certain simple facts that seem entirely evident are seriously being discussed.

Of course arming every teacher in America would lead to more school shootings. But no matter how obvious something is, there's no convincing the gun fetishists.

[Franzl]

there's no convincing the gun fetishists.

Or those who wish the 2nd Amendment was repealed

What's wrong with that? Dozens of countries with a democratic record better or comparable to that of the US don't have such a ridiculous provision in their Constitution.

 My point is Franzl is as unyielding and stubborn and won't listen any more than gun activists do.  Yet he mocks them, and not those that think like he does.

Yes, very true. But why would I mock those I'm convinced are right?

[Franzl]

Do I need to post murder rates as well?

That would be slightly more honest, although you still have the problem of numerous confounding variables that prevent any meaningful analysis of the policy's affect. A more worthwhile exercise would be comparing the overall crime rate of demographically similar American cities with different policies (or better yet, a comparison of overall crime rates for the same city before and after certain policies were enacted)

The effects that local or even state policies can have is severely limited by the extent of American federalism.

I don't think it's possible to use those to project what similar regulations and enforcement at national level could do.

And obviously using data like murder and gun violence rates can't prove causation.

[Franzl]

And obviously using data like murder and gun violence rates can't prove causation.

Then why bother citing non sequiturs that you even acknowledge do not support your case?

Because they strongly suggest that my impression is correct. You have no "proof" that my claims are wrong either. We have different opinions on what public policy should be. Admittedly, I think mine has more going for it than yours.

[Franzl]

I don't believe it is a flawed political argument. I believe it's highly likely that gun ownership leads to lots of unnecessary deaths. Therefore, I want to restrict gun ownership.

The fact that sonething can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean action shouldn't be taken. Political decisions are (and have to be) based on probabilities and incomplete evidence.