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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

On the one hand you have a bunch of people who for the most part don't know jacksh!t about guns (see "a shoulder thing that goes up" or California's ban on selling certain models of firearms that don't even exist) who just laws that are 90% meaningless bullsh!t that don't ever accomplish ANYTHING besides making scared suburbanites feel better about themselves. On the other hand you have a bunch of paranoid rednecks who think the big scary gubmint wants to wipe out all their freedom for kicks and take away all their guns and the only reason black helicopters are bringing in UN stormtroopers to haul them all off to concentration camps is they're buying loads of guns now although it won't matter because soon those jackbooted thugs will be kicking down the doors and seizing all their guns anyway (ever since the 90s of course, it's always been very close and going to happen any minute now.)

They both are AWFUL. I can't think of any other issue like this.

[Napoleon]

Yeah, you're pretty much spot on here. I don't really have an opinion on gun control, and both sides of the argument tend to sound foolish whenever its debated.

[dead0man]

Indeed.  We have a lot of the first kind here, not so much the second kind though....thank Og. 

My biases may make me see it that way though.

[nolesfan2011]

Basically... neither side actually understands the intent of the 2nd amendment anyway (key being militia not guns). I refuse to discuss gun control with anyone who doesn't understand the American militia system between 1776-1815 (ending with the War of 1812).

Both sides are also prone to insanity (guns kill everyone!!!!, guns save everyone!!!!).

Yeah, you're pretty much spot on here. I don't really have an opinion on gun control, and both sides of the argument tend to sound foolish whenever its debated.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Indeed.  We have a lot of the first kind here, not so much the second kind though....thank Og. 

My biases may make me see it that way though.

How about the people saying that the 2nd Amendment is needed to defend the rest of the Bill of Rights and that basically the only reason bureaucrats aren't violating all the other amendments is they are too terrified of a bunch of rednecks with cheap knockoff AK-47s?

[Franzl]

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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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!"

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

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.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Oklahoma and Utah both have a lot of the second type, but not a lot of the first.  Utah has more of the first than Oklahoma, but still not a majority or even half.

Personally, I am in complete support of Sen. Feinstein's Assault Weapons ban.  I am all for qualified individuals to own and even carry guns in public, but assault weapons only belong in the hands of our military personnel on the battlefield and maybe SWAT teams (with great restriction on use), but not ordinary citizens.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Yes, and the fact that there appears to be statistics supporting both sides of the gun control argument makes the debate bothersome to follow, quite frankly.  That's not to say I'm for doing nothing to address the issue of violence, though.  We shouldn't take these shootings lightly or take guns for mere instruments.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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

Because your view is the only logical one and the rest is bunk?

[Zioneer]

I'm just sick of the debate either way; I'm tired of hearing about it and having it suck up valuable time for other issues.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

Has anyone else noticed that the anti-gun-control people and the pro-choice people have essentially adopted the same often irrational methods of argument?

For better or for worse, Americans have a right to own a gun in most circumstances. They also have a right to have an abortion in most circumstances. So both of these groups have resorted to fomenting outrage about marginal proscriptions of these rights as if they are attacks on the fundamental rights themselves.

This is the only way we get to a point where people logically believe that requiring background checks or limiting the amount of ammunition in a cartridge prevents people from exercising their right to own a gun. Or where people think having to pay for one's own contraception is an assault on their right to have an abortion.

[Link]

On the one hand you have a bunch of people who for the most part don't know jacksh!t about guns (see "a shoulder thing that goes up" or California's ban on selling certain models of firearms that don't even exist) who just laws that are 90% meaningless bullsh!t that don't ever accomplish ANYTHING besides making scared suburbanites feel better about themselves. On the other hand you have a bunch of paranoid rednecks who think the big scary gubmint wants to wipe out all their freedom for kicks and take away all their guns and the only reason black helicopters are bringing in UN stormtroopers to haul them all off to concentration camps is they're buying loads of guns now although it won't matter because soon those jackbooted thugs will be kicking down the doors and seizing all their guns anyway (ever since the 90s of course, it's always been very close and going to happen any minute now.)

They both are AWFUL. I can't think of any other issue like this.

Well one of those behaviors is basically harmless and one of those behaviors is potential harmful.

A ban on future sales of assault weapons or "assault style" weapons is going to have zero negative impact on the country.  A ban on high capacity clips or "high capacity magazines" isn't going to have any negative impact on the country.  What does it matter what people call them?  What does it matter if people ban guns that don't exist?  How does that hurt anyone?  These bans are benign.  We need to stop with this "objective" false equivalency in this country.  Not one single gun nut can rationally explain to me what possible detriment there is to calling something a clip instead of a magazine in casual conversation.  I doubt Kennedy knew the proper name of every component on a Saturn V rocket.  Last time I checked we still went to the moon.  I don't know why gun owners feel they are special.  They will happily vote for Michelle Bachmann even though she says nonsensical stuff about useful things like vaccines all the time.  No one says she is not a doctor.   When did that become the litmus test for taking any action?!

[Antonio the Sixth]

On the one hand you have a bunch of people who for the most part don't know jacksh!t about guns (see "a shoulder thing that goes up" or California's ban on selling certain models of firearms that don't even exist) who just laws that are 90% meaningless bullsh!t that don't ever accomplish ANYTHING besides making scared suburbanites feel better about themselves. On the other hand you have a bunch of paranoid rednecks who think the big scary gubmint wants to wipe out all their freedom for kicks and take away all their guns and the only reason black helicopters are bringing in UN stormtroopers to haul them all off to concentration camps is they're buying loads of guns now although it won't matter because soon those jackbooted thugs will be kicking down the doors and seizing all their guns anyway (ever since the 90s of course, it's always been very close and going to happen any minute now.)

They both are AWFUL. I can't think of any other issue like this.

Well one of those behaviors is basically harmless and one of those behaviors is potential harmful.

A ban on future sales of assault weapons or "assault style" weapons is going to have zero negative impact on the country.  A ban on high capacity clips or "high capacity magazines" isn't going to have any negative impact on the country.  What does it matter what people call them?  What does it matter if people ban guns that don't exist?  How does that hurt anyone?  These bans are benign.  We need to stop with this "objective" false equivalency in this country.  Not one single gun nut can rationally explain to me what possible detriment there is to calling something a clip instead of a magazine in casual conversation.  I doubt Kennedy knew the proper name of every component on a Saturn V rocket.  Last time I checked we still went to the moon.  I don't know why gun owners feel they are special.  They will happily vote for Michelle Bachmann even though she says nonsensical stuff about useful things like vaccines all the time.  No one says she is not a doctor.   When did that become the litmus test for taking any action?!

WRONG! That would prevent us from being able to fight against DA EVUL FASCIST TYRANNY the day it comes!!!

[CLARENCE 2015!]

We rarely agree but do this time...

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

YES

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Has anyone else noticed that the anti-gun-control people and the pro-choice people have essentially adopted the same often irrational methods of argument?

For better or for worse, Americans have a right to own a gun in most circumstances. They also have a right to have an abortion in most circumstances. So both of these groups have resorted to fomenting outrage about marginal proscriptions of these rights as if they are attacks on the fundamental rights themselves.

This is the only way we get to a point where people logically believe that requiring background checks or limiting the amount of ammunition in a cartridge prevents people from exercising their right to own a gun. Or where people think having to pay for one's own contraception is an assault on their right to have an abortion.

The difference is that one party really does want to outlaw abortion in almost all circumstances, and it's a serious proposal candidates have to adhere to, even if it means making idiotic comments about rape in the process. But who the hell seriously supports sending jackbooted thugs around to confiscate hunting rifles from everyone? It sure as hell isn't Obama (who ran ads in 2008 saying he supported gun rights) or anyone of influence in the Democratic Party (whose platform states belief in a right to personal firearm ownership.)

[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

[SPC]

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

Are firearm-related deaths somehow more objectionable to murders performed without the use of a firearm? Have you controlled for the predisposition of each country's population for violence? Simply comparing different countries' firearm-related death rates leaves so many confounding variables that nobody who has taken even an introductory class in statistics can seriously cite it as evidence for a policy measure.

[Franzl]

Do I need to post murder rates as well?

[Simfan34]

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

[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.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

there's no convincing the gun fetishists.

Or those who wish the 2nd Amendment was repealed

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.