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

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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Or those who wish the 2nd Amendment was repealed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.

[Vosem]

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

This is true to an extent -- the argument is even more annoying because it's not like gun policy will change on a federal level anywhere anytime in the near future.

[Maxwell]

Yes. And I love how this thread has turned into the generic thread about gun control.

[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Or those who wish the 2nd Amendment was repealed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?

[SPC]

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)

[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.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Yes! Finally someone who understand how I feel. Who would have guessed it was going to be BRTD.

And as Maxwell pointed out, the path this thread has taken is a great example of why. 

[Gamecock]

Basically... neither side actually understands the intent of the 2nd amendment anyway (key being militia not guns).

Well, no, that's not true at all. If you trace the word 'militia' back to the original intent of the founders, the 'militia' is the body of the people. "Who are the militia, are they not ourselves?" The prefatory clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” does not mean that that was the only reason for the enacting of the Second Amendment. This matters little anyways, because the operative clause is pretty clear with “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Of course this doesn't mean things like machine guns and tanks are covered.

As per the topic, yeah, it is pretty hard to bear with a lot of the pro-gun crowd saying they need guns for protection against the government, and it really undermines our grounding.

[SPC]

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?

[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.

[Sol]

I'm rather centrist on gun control, partially because my parents are so left-wing and so aggressive with regards to their position on the issue that is has pushed me to the right.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I don't necessarily hate both sides, I just don't think either of them is entirely correct.  I support gun rights but do think that we need some reasonable restrictions.

[SPC]

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.

I didn't say they were wrong, I said they were irrelevant. I could just as easily cite anecdotal information to support my case as you can. Doesn't it undermine your position that you knowingly use a flawed argument to support it?

[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.

[Mechaman]

What're you talking about librules?

Gun rights are a very important part of our culture!  It is what keeps the government from coming in and killing us all!  We are not easily swayed sheeple who can be bought with hundred million dollar campaigns and meaningless promises made with white tooth grins!  It is the 2nd Amendment that truly keeps us free, all the other Amendments are true bunk.  After all, what use is the rights to speech and privacy when the other man has a gun?  The librule fascist communists marxists leninists atheist Kenyan Muslamic president knows this.  And this is why he has become so bold, a few months after the election that he and his cronies stole through bitter hatefelt attacks on American traditionalism, that he has stepped up his attack.
His hero Vladimir Illyavich Lenin would be so proud of him.

Yet you guys keep sucking it all up.  You don't care, you don't care about our Constitutional rights.  No, you just care about free handouts so you can keep on smoking that invincible crack weed pot that supposedly cures cancer.  And as you keep sucking up those brain damaging chemicals, you keep buying the elite's story that supposedly banning gun ownership will make us not only safer, but freer.
Such is the sad testament of our public schooling system.

The right to arms should be unrestricted.  THe less restrictions the better so we can fight the fascists in Washington who seek to force politically correct society down our throats.  There should be no restrictions at all, not on handguns, not on AK-47s, not on bazookas, not on atomic bombs, super assault rifles with grenade launchers.  You name it.  Hell, you should be able to build your own rail gun to resist the government dictators.  Any restriction thereof makes the government worse than Hitler and wanting to kill us all.  Killing Jews just wasn't enough for them, I guess.  They have to kill us all as well!

Gun ownership makes one a freer man in a freer society.  I make a point of going everywhere with my Colt .45 revolver with gun holster.  To Wal-Mart, Best Buy, KFC, Target.  Because you never know when some hood might jump you-err I mean you never know when the police and military might just decide you too dangerous!  What good are our so-called "voting rights" and right to free speech when you got a government that is just waiting to force their views on you at gun point?  Useless I say, USELESS!
And no, this has nothing to do with my mountain of high octane action movies or fantasies of gunning somebody down in broad daylight at high noon!

You librule elitist Marxist COmmie Godhatering librule Damnocratic elitist Hollywoode lovers have truly gone over the hill.  The fact that you can speak so plainly of disarming the general populace with such pretentious smirks on your face, makes me sick.  You just wait pal, you just wait for 2014 and 2016.  You will truly be put into your place like never before.  It will make 2010 look like a circus for quadripilegics.

Your move, Lieberals.