I didn't claim people couldn't have more than one political position. At all. But there is only so much political capital. There are only so many hours in the day. And a great many gun owners absolutely hold gun rights above all other rights. As, they believe if they lose their right to bear arms they will no longer be able to guarantee their other rights. Again, this is different. Well, we know they spend 30+hrs per week on the phone asking for money. That's 75% of their time gone, right there. And that's if you assume they actually put in 40hr weeks. Not so much when compared to 7 million who are just as vocal and have the constitution, the supreme court, and 35 of the 50 states on their side... Interesting. I don't see people pushing improving access to healthcare or education nearly as much as I see people clamoring for gun control. It's almost like they don't realize that universal access to education and healthcare would save and improve millions of lives per year. Which would be exponentially more than any gun control possibly could (even the mythical all out ban on guns that successfully eliminates all guns in the US).
I can think of two explanations for that: 1) It's much, much easier to state a position on gun laws than on healthcare or education laws. It's just a simpler subject, more sound-bite-friendly. 2) You are personally very sensitive to gun control 'clamoring'. From my point of view, congress has taken more action in the last decade on healthcare than guns. Or maybe... those subjects are just very hard to make progress on. barfo
1) I don't think so. The GOP makes plenty of sound bites to oppose healthcare and education. Just like Dems do with guns. This is simply more of the "my team vs your team" dynamic at play, just like the elites want it. 2) Not even close. I care far more about increasing access to education and healthcare than I care anything about guns. None of these gun control measures would impact me at all. Except an outright ban... So hard that every other developed country in the world has managed to do it?
This is an interesting one. I was reading it earlier as well. It's really hard to legally differentiate an AR15 from most hunting rifles. Ar15 simply has smaller rounds with less powder than most hunting rifles. Only other difference is you can easily mount flashlights and other accessories on the AR15... basically, it's a popular platform, but functionally the same as most hunting rifles sold for the last 75-100 years.
That's definitely one way of looking at it. The other is that our mentally unwell people have such easy access to guns. All I am saying is that in the annual ranking of the world happiest countries the US is above countries like Germany, Belgium the UK and has the same percentage of people with mental problem as these countries (actually less than the UK, for example) yet we have so many more events of mass shooting than all these countries combined, brushing the easy access to guns that all these unhappy people have is a big mistake and I for one am happy that there is continued mention of this problem. I do not believe that if Germany or the UK would have the same kind of easy access to and pathetic regulation to guns - they would not have the same kind of issues we have.
And yet you post at least as much if not more about gun control, so you can see where I'd get that mis-impression, yes? Yes. Our system of government, our 'culture', makes any change difficult. Minorities can kill most any proposal. You think that's awesome when it comes to guns, but it works just the same for education and healthcare. It just isn't the case that if everyone shut up about guns, we'd have universal healthcare. That isn't the way it works. barfo
My apologies. Show me the thread where everyone is attacking universal healthcare and and free education I'll start posting there more. I didn't ever suggest people shouldn't talk about gun control. If that were my goal I wouldn't be posting in this thread. I'm not sure why you keep coming back to that. I've actually suggested forms of gun control in this very thread...
You surely did suggest that the media and politicians are 'wasting political capital' talking about gun control, did you not? Aren't media and politicians people? Maybe that's a stretch, but since corporations are people... barfo
I've very clearly corrected you stating that about my stance several times. I'm happy to have the conversation, I just request you don't apply somebody else's stance to me. Once again, what I have a problem with is our leaders pushing these policies you yourself have agreed aren't effective (at least, you've agreed they don't go far enough to be).
Ok, so you are ok if they talk about those policies, but not ok if they push those policies? Interesting distinction. I'm sorry if I'm misstating your position, but I guess I'm still not fully understanding it. barfo
Again, I've made myself very clear multiple times. You don't need to question my motives. I am fine with people in public forums like this talking about policy. I am fine with our leaders answering questions about it. I'm not any more okay with leaders and personalities on the left pushing ineffective or harmful gun policy or gun bans than I am the right pushing ineffective or harmful abortion policy or abortion bans. These things are a waste of time, or at the very least questionable policies, and it is harmful for policy makers to keep plugging away at them. Should we make a law that prevents them from doing it? No. But I lose all respect for those people in power who engage in it. I am for rights, freedoms, education, and empowerment. Consistently.
Ok. Not questioning your commitment to that position. Just questioning your linkage of gun control and lack of healthcare/education. But I expect we've covered that topic ad nauseam now, so until next time... barfo
The link is that improving access to education, healthcare, and improving our social safety net does more to reduce violent crime and murder than gun control of any kind does. The kinds of gun control people are trying for right now simply can't work. We've seen that over and over. You'd literally have to remove nearly all of the guns from circulation to have any hope of finally getting guns from the criminals. And even doing half of that will create millions of criminals from otherwise law abiding citizens who refuse to give up their guns. Why do all of that trying to restrict law abiding citizens when you can just educate and treat the criminal element out? My point has never been that the gun control debate is THE thing that stops us from making progress on more progressive policies. It's that gun control is something we don't need. Certainly not in the way it is being proposed. There are far easier alternatives that wouldn't be nearly as controversial and would cost far less political capital. If the pitch were that we don't need to restrict law abiding Americans, we just need to improve access to education and healthcare and improve our social safety net you'd have a lot more people on board, and you could save and improve more lives than any gun control possibly could. And nobody would have a problem restricting violent offenders. But you'd actually have to want to solve the problem to think of things that way. I'm afraid our leaders don't.
Exactly. If something (universal education and healthcare with generous social safety net) works everywhere without removing guns from the equation why not try it? Especially considering there is no constitutional obstacle and no down side to the general population inherent in trying that solution. Why not see how it works before trying to violate the (repeatedly supreme court confirmed) constitutional rights of law abiding citizens? Seems silly...
"Gun violence" is a problem defined by its solution rather than the holistic approach at resolving violence. Every time I hear/read "gun violence", all I hear/read is that you don't care if someone gets murdered, as long as it's not in a way you find personally offensive.
We need to do both. We need better gun control laws and we need to improve access to healthcare, education, and a social safety net. All of these need to be done.
Except better gun control law's haven't been very effective. So it probably shouldn't be a big point of emphasis. Many states with lax gun laws have lower homicide rates than those with strict gun laws. For example, Illinois has far higher homicide rates than Texas or Florida. If gun laws were very effective that shouldn't be possible.
