Half a million #MarchForOurLives protesters rally in Washington DC - Polidicks

No, you manipulating the context of my sentences to try and feel like you're more virtuous than me is what upsets me enough to not want to associate with you. You being arrogant enough to think you have NOTHING to learn about a subject is the type of arrogance I personally avoid at all costs, that I decry when I see it. So you do you. I'm done dude. Like I said. Enjoy being at the peak of the dunning krueger curve.

I'll reiterate my previous point: I'm sorry not enough kids have died for you to consider them significant yet.

@postal

We have guns in Canada. We don't seem to have the same issues you have. Maybe the issue isn't entirely guns(It's definitely a huge part of the issue) but is something else related to the issue

Except I've read your reasons, rationality and evidence and I consider it to be bollocks. 🤷

I'd hardly call international borders and state border comparable

You've yet to give any detailed, rational, evidence-cited counter argument other than "this is shit and I'm right because of no reason".

Well congratu-fuckin-lations, we've reached an insurmountable impasse. Might as well just stop here, then.

Good idea! It's getting late anyway, so I'm gonna go to bed. Nice talking to you lads!

I agree that a lot of anti-gun rational is emotional, but I also don't see any representation of pro-gun outside of political armchair activity. it's super unfortunate that the major talking head of pro-gun is the NRA, which if anything is the last thing a pro-gun person would want representing them and I think that that exacerbates the emotional response from the anti-gun crowd for the most part. it would be good to see some sort of cooperation between those who want to improve gun laws in efforts to curb the societal tumor we have in the US with guns.

translation: my feelings are more important than your facts now that sounds familiar 🤔

Oh, I'm not denying that. The US is a whole petri dish of problems when it comes to gun crimes, but the guns themselves are still the crux of it all.

It's always fun to see logic and reason go out the window in these threads.

It's more like, your facts are flawed because other countries have employed tactics to combat weapon-related crime and have done so successfully, kind of rendering your arguments invalid because, well, other countries don't have the same amount of gun-crime. It's almost like there's a world outside of the united states that functions just fine, but this is constantly overlooked.

A large amount of gun owners do not like the NRA, and are part of other gun right groups such as the Gun Owners of America. The reason the NRA gets so much attention is firstly because of its age, founded in the 1880s, and the fact that they get massive payouts by the gun industry while other organization rely on actual donations from actual human beings. The NRA represents gun manufacturers under the guise of gun owners, just as the GOP represent the wealthy elite under the guise of equal rights of the poor.

The amount of guns is an issue, yes, but that problem isn't going to be solved by calling for "Playing it safe" legislation that creates political blow back and strengthens the emotions of the other sides base and creates a push against you for silly do nothing regulation. Yes, things have to be done. But calling for an AWB is going to do literally nothing, and save no ones lives.

Strange, you never once brought up other countries specific laws as examples for good gun control. It's almost as if we haven't kept giving you cited evidence this whole time and expected the same from you, with nothing delivered.

And therein lies the problem of being a reasonable pro-gun advocate. You're stuck between two extremist sides of a debate who aren't interested in getting anything productive accomplished. That's all I want. Meaningful cooperation. To find a good balance between individual rights and public safety, not say that one is important and the other is irrelevant.

There is no need to act like this. The reason people are asking for definitions is because you are pushing for things to be regulated, presumably through legislation. It's very important that the language is as accurate and concise as possible so the rules are easy to understand and enforce. Otherwise, you end up with instances like this; That completely changes the context of your responses. If you want to convince people of your position a good place to start is with your own argument. If you find yourself typing out baby noises, maybe stop and rethink your position. What you are asking for is a ban on semi-automatic firearms while allowing for heavily regulated use or ownership of bolt-action firearms. I don't see the point, and I find the idea of trying to confiscate the millions of semi-automatics available in the US as the height of absurdity, but there is a starting point for you to work from. As an aside, I think it's funny that you say hunters should be allowed to have it "if it makes them feel better" as if there are no possible uses that a hunter could have for a firearm.

I won't deny that the Republicans are an issue in the current political climate, but I still say that an assault weapon ban should eventually be enacted, even if it has to happen on the scale of years or even decades.

it would be in gun hobbyists best interests to establish a talking head that isn't a giant money funnel like the NRA otherwise the pro-gun points, even valid ones, are going to be steamrolled in this current political climate i'm not a gun owner, and i'm all for strengthening laws associated with gun ownership and usage etc - but I also see that there should definitely be much better representation from both pro and anti-gun folk otherwise, unfortunately, gun owners are gonna take the L on this one - at least for now

The previous assault weapon ban had a negligible effect on crime statistics. Why should we enact another?

doesn't have to be political extremes. even the terms anti-gun and pro-gun are enough to split perception of both groups into black & white.

the only reasonable defense from pro-gun users here i've gathered is that farmers can use guns to kill pests. i'm cool with that, so only people such as farmers with a reasonable, ACTUAL use for a gun should be the ones to have them. a blanket ban on guns is dumb, but everyone having guns just cause they feel like it is also dumb

Maybe a form of gun control that isn't just a AWB?????????

Estimates floating around are now placing the number of protesters that have converged on Washington DC today to over 1,000,000 -- which I believe would make it the largest single protest event in US history. That's fairly remarkable.

Okay but i was replying to someone who specifically called for an assault weapon ban.

It does kind of baffle me how the Democratic Party/Left champions itself as "intellectual" and "rational" but when it comes to this specific topic, they completely fall apart in that regard.

What did the previous ban entail, exactly? Again, I admit I'm not too well-versed on gun laws, but I keep hearing, "Well, the last one didn't work!" What did it even do?

The record was broke again? TRUMP WINNING AGAIN #MAGA