I understand that gun control, like many issues we face today, doesn’t lend itself to an easily arrived at, universally agreed upon solution. Good people can, and do, disagree…and crazy, unhinged people can, and do cling to their guns with a devotion they wouldn’t expend on their children. You’d think that somewhere in the middle there would be a place where we could arrive at a compromise. I’m willing, and I know many on the Left are. Unfortunately, the NRA and the gun nuts it represents refuse to countenance anything they perceive as reducing their gun “rights” even one iota.
How do you conduct a reasoneable and rational discussion with people who refuse to even contemplate compromise and threaten violent revolution if their “rights” are reduced even to the slightest degree? How do you negotiate with people who refuse to negotiate?….
(read the full post at What Would Jack Do?)
How does one have an honest discussion when the tone/tome of that discussion is preset in the negative by the title?
Absurd on it’s face. It would seem you just want a platform…
Cool, I likey the move tool 🙂
Thanks? Tina 😉
Your welcome 🙂
Celsius- Did you even bother to read what I wrote? And how is the title preset in the negative? I’m trying to understand how you could see something negative there, but I must confess to being unable to.
“Absurd on its face” would accurately describe your knee-jerk argument.
Yep, correct. My apologies.
You have answered your own question. The only remaining question is are you willing to fight to the death?
Interesting you haven’t come back. But you have posted a new thread.
What’s up with that?
I thought Synoia made a decent point.
Interesting? You might be surprised to know that I have a life, and that’s a wee bit more important than this thread. But “fight to the death”? A fair bit over-hyperbolic, don’tchathink?
I think your chart comparing Chicago and Houston nicely illustrates the old adage of ” if we outlaw guns, only criminals will have guns”.