Anti-gun people...
- Thread starter NoleSoup4U
- Start date
Get tired of yes, feel bad for no. Maybe there is a disconnect with each side, but the fight for gun control is to stop these senseless killings. We may disagree on this issue, but please know that what motivates us is to stop these deaths. Should we throw up our arms and say there is nothing we can do? Roll the dice and hope this doesn't effect our love ones? This isn't some political grab just to score political points.
The means justify the ends.
Going on where?
Gun violence in inner cities gets breezed over because no one wants to talk about single mom's, teenage mom's, absent father's, which leads to unattended children, gang violence, ghetto conditions that are undesirable to business, which in turn drives away jobs. That increases commerce through illegal drug trade, high crime in general, addiction, government dependency, rinse/repeat.
People only get bent out of shape when white kids get shot in schools. Or, black people are shot by white kids/cops.
When you dig, you find out more about the shooter and he often shares the same damaged background that inner city gang members have. Broken homes, absent parenting, adults enabling a debased mentality.
Now that everyone can marry anyone, can we please at least start touting the benefits of marriage and responsible parenting. Or, at least co-habitation and responsible parenting?
Nothing defeats poverty and poor education as well as two engaged parents/adults with a dual income. I would love to hear a leader of influence start chastising apathetic parenting in inner cities, or the parents of any of the school, or church shooters.
I doubt that will be Obama's message this morning.
He'll stick with the "the scary shootie thing" is responsible.
I consider both.
I don't think we should ever point to specific tragedies when making policy. The raw statistics should be enough. Maybe that view is unrealistic, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
There's no way to know if gun control could prevent a specific instance of gun violence and that argument misses the point and is a waste of time. I think most could agree different gun regulations could save some lives and that's what we should be focusing on.
I don't see where people have problems talking about these things. We talk about them quite often, they are forever in the news. The only group who doesn't like the discussion are the NRA people who think its rude to mention the subject.
I am not an NRA member (nor do I agree with most of their verbiage) and I own several weapons
How does that follow? Cons have guns to kill mothers who abort?
They only guy I remember addressing apathetic parenting was the great social commentator Dough Boy when he famously opined...
"Keep Your Babies Out the STREET!"
Do cons really want the government telling them how to parent? I find your position on this fascinating.They only guy I remember addressing apathetic parenting was the great social commentator Dough Boy when he famously opined...
"Keep Your Babies Out the STREET!"
I would imagine Cons and Libs both would have a dislike for having their short-commings chastised.
But, I am looking for real solutions.
I do believe while a child is your dependent, you should share the responsibility for what you send out into the world.
Covering the world in bubble wrap isn't realistic, but that is what a lot of these proposed laws are trying to do.
An enlightened, civil society needs to have a launching point in the home.
I prefer a government that deals with policy and social pressure comes from private groups. So what laws would you want the government to pass so that the cops could arrest bad parents? I think you're running down a rabbit hole that's going to trap you into some rather unpleasant positions.
No trickier than the gun debate and there's a better society on the other end.
Like anything else, if it was easy we either wouldn't need it, or we would be doing it already.
One man's talk is another's grandstanding. It would be an easy to point out that you are using this topic to grandstand for your own political positions. I'm surprised you're so sensitive.
There are libs who don't believe in a abortion or at least agree it should be restricted. Guns are no different. It's okay to be conservative and feel people have a right to guns/abortion but also reasonable to expect restrictions can be placed on that right.
It's where we draw the lines that should be debated, not whether there should be any lines.
I disagree. But lets talk about what laws you want to enforce correct parenting. Then we can contrast them to the current gun control proposals and see who is farther down the rabbit hole.
Talking about an issue is just that...talking. Grandstanding is when you use the literal deaths of people to try to prove a political point.
Neither. I wasn't making a point about gun control; just noting the differences in terminology. While there is no specific definition or criteria for "mass shooting" the FBI has used a broad definition for mass murder: " ... described as a number of murders (four or more) occurring during the same incident, with no distinctive time period between the murders. These events typically involved a single location, where the killer murdered a number of victims in an ongoing incident."
That's fundamentally different than a series of unrelated murders over a short period of time and multiple locations.
So the people who put that into the framework of our government were marginal citizens?
You have a political position that party politics is evil. So now you see an opportunity to get on your soap box and berate people from both parties for being political. Grandstanding for advancement of your own political beliefs in effect. Welcome to the team, you're one of us.
Remember when you asked me this same question yesterday and I answered you?
It went something like...
"I'm no legislator, but I would support something on a sliding scale dependent upon situation and severity."
...or something like that. I believe you even gave me a" like".
But we gave you a proposal there about gun locks/lockers to have a scale about. You seem to realize you're trapped and I appreciate your self awareness. But when you start out complaining that people don't want to talk about an issue only to clam up when the discussion starts, you may need to reconsider your position.
Although my actions may look similar, I'm not using the deaths of people to make my point. I'm using YOUR use of making a point off dead victims to make my point.
Which still puts you on top of the grave. I ain't mad at ya. I think graves should be stood on. That's how you show proper respect.
That's such a lazy way to look at it. I guess I'll accept your surrender at this point. No hard feelings.
Similar threads
