Gun Control : Can we disagree without being disagreeable? I say we MUST!

There is a lot of emotion surrounding the deaths in Newtown, CT and the renewed calls for more gun control. I understand and sympathize with the arguments of both sides. I would like to believe that both sides truly want what is best for ourselves and our posterity.

It is time to stop demonizing those that believe differently about this debate. We need to remember how to disagree without being disagreeable. Just because someone would like to see additional gun control it does not mean they want to oppress you and remove your ability to defend yourself. And just because someone would like to see less gun control it does mean they are nuts and want people to go around gunning people down on a whim. Both sides want the same results, greater protection for themselves and their families.

The problem is that there are diametrically opposed proposed solutions. Both use their own sets of assumptions to bolster their arguments. And both sides believe with a passion that their way is the way forward.

We, as a nation, need to have this debate, but we need to have this debate with a sense of respect for each other and each other's point of view. It is possible to respect someone's point of view without agreeing with it.

There is no debate to be had.

The banners are intentionally ignorant of even the most mundane facts. They refuse to learn the differences between an AWB compliant rifle and a non-compliant rifle. They base their entire position on ignorance, fear and appearances.

You can only debate if both sides of an issue are informed and willing to learn.

I, with no knowledge of particle or theoretical physics, may as well be debating the scientists at CERN over how their magic atomic device will kill us all with a blackhole.

Just as pointless. Just as misguided. Just as idiotic.

They want to "honestly" discuss something they cant be bothered to learn anything about?

Yeah right.

All they want is to ram their desires down my throat. I'm just trying not to choke to death while being polite enough to not simply bite their arm off.

How can rational Americans embrace relinquishing their Second Amendment protections when the government is attacking the constitutional rights of Americans across the board (not just 2A)? The TSA has single handedly shredded the 4th Amendment and is about to take to our streets; the NSAs reading of all emails and blog posts and eavesdropping on all phone calls; the NDAA's nullification of habeas corpus; the ignoring of posse comitatus;; the building of govt "camps"; the fema coffins; the ordering of roadblock pill boxes, the labelling of returning veterans, believers in the constitution and "preppers" as "terrorists" or potential enemy combatants and the 1.6 trillion rounds of ammo ordered by the DHS and other domestic agencies.

All the ones that want gun control is fine by me. Don't buy a gun.

You'll get weeded out through natural selection when your government turns on you or you're invaded by another country who has guns.

When I want gun control I'll just hold the gun tighter.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

IF GUN CONTROL is so necessary and easy then why doesnt the UN just declare WEAPONS CONTROL internationally; at least ban nations from having weapons of mass destruction (NBC). I wonder how well that would go over and how that would be enforced.......Of course, that is the plan (with the exception of the UN's "peacekeeping force") but they want to disarm the civilian populations first.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
There is no debate to be had.

The banners are intentionally ignorant of even the most mundane facts. They refuse to learn the differences between an AWB compliant rifle and a non-compliant rifle. They base their entire position on ignorance, fear and appearances.

You can only debate if both sides of an issue are informed and willing to learn.

I, with no knowledge of particle or theoretical physics, may as well be debating the scientists at CERN over how their magic atomic device will kill us all with a blackhole.

Just as pointless. Just as misguided. Just as idiotic

They want to "honestly" discuss something they cant be bothered to learn anything about?

Yeah right.

All they want is to ram their desires down my throat. I'm just trying not to choke to death while being polite enough to not simply bite their arm off.

edit on 22-12-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)

Nail hit firmly on head. There is not one person of either opinion that enters a gun control thread who is willing or prepared to have their opinion changed which is why they all degenerate into a slanging match. Though of course that same fact could be said of many of the threads, and forums on this site.

Originally posted by BomSquad
There is a lot of emotion surrounding the deaths in Newtown, CT and the renewed calls for more gun control. I understand and sympathize with the arguments of both sides. I would like to believe that both sides truly want what is best for ourselves and our posterity.

It is time to stop demonizing those that believe differently about this debate. We need to remember how to disagree without being disagreeable. Just because someone would like to see additional gun control it does not mean they want to oppress you and remove your ability to defend yourself. And just because someone would like to see less gun control it does mean they are nuts and want people to go around gunning people down on a whim. Both sides want the same results, greater protection for themselves and their families.

The problem is that there are diametrically opposed proposed solutions. Both use their own sets of assumptions to bolster their arguments. And both sides believe with a passion that their way is the way forward.

We, as a nation, need to have this debate, but we need to have this debate with a sense of respect for each other and each other's point of view. It is possible to respect someone's point of view without agreeing with it.

edit on 22-12-2012 by BomSquad because: I can't proof read with a damn...lol

You said it right in your first sentence.. *emotion*.... Lets think logical... Lil cho didnt have an "what you call assault rifle* he had a freaking .22 and 9 mil and killed 32. The weapon used matters nothing!

Gs

Go search the net and look what a knife crime looks like... Bloody as hell..... Sorry but id rather be shot than be hacked and sliced and stabbed to death.


Gs

A few statistics/incidents about the 1994 AWB and it's failure:
For those wishing to inform their legislators about the false security that reinstatement of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban offers, this is a list of deaths (excluding the shooters) that occurred in school shootings after the enactment of the Federal 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.


Feb. 2, 1996 Moses Lake, Wa. Two students and one teacher killed. (3)

Feb. 19, 1997 Bethel, Ak. Principal and one student killed. (2)

Oct. 1, 1997 Pearl, Ms. Two students killed. (2)

Dec. 1, 1997 West Paducah, Ky. Three students killed. (3)

Mar. 24, 1998 Jonesboro, Ar. Four students and one teacher killed. (5)

Apr. 24, 1998 Edinboro, Pa. One teacher, John Gillette, killed. (1)

May 19, 1998 Fayetteville, Tn. One student killed. (1)

May 21, 1998 Springfield, Or. Two students killed. (2)

Apr. 20, 1999 Littleton, Co. Twelve students and one teacher killed. (13)

Nov. 19, 1999 Deming, N.M. One student killed. (1)

Feb. 29, 2000 Mount Morris Township, Mi. One student killed. (1)

Mar. 10, 2000 Savannah, Ga. Two students killed. (2)

May 26, 2000 Lake Worth, Fl. One teacher killed. (1)

Jan. 17, 2001 Baltimore, Md. One student killed. (1)

Mar. 5, 2001 Santee, Ca. Two students killed. (2)

Mar. 30, 2001 Gary, In. One student killed. (1)

Oct. 28, 2002 Tucson, Az. Three professors killed. (3)

Apr. 14, 2003 New Orleans, La. One student killed. (1)

Apr. 24, 2003 Red Lion, Pa. One principal killed. (1)

Sept. 24, 2003 Cold Spring, Mn. Two students killed. (2)

That's a total of 48 people- men, women and mostly children, WHOSE DEATHS WERE NOT PREVENTED by the existence of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.


A duplicate of the Federal 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, currently in place on the Connecticut law books, also DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO PREVENT THE SLAUGHTER OF 26 INNOCENTS- meaning that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban has failed to prevent a total of 74 deaths during its tenure.

There will be those who say confiscate, ban, chop, and destroy; good luck with that....unless a road map like a few other countries have used is tried in the USA and consequently a total disregard of the Constitution is allowed, we might want to face reality and play the hand we are dealt instead of feel good B.S. for the masses. .

I think the point is being demonstrated quite well here. The point of this thread was originally about the manner in which this forum should have the gun control debate, but it has already begun to go the route of polarising into a for/against thread.

We've had the Second Amendment for almost as long as this country has been around, so what has changed in recent years? (emphasis on recent)

Why aren't there any crazy lunatics that have gone postal in our History books?
This country even survived the shoot em up days of the Old West, and even then, no one talked about gun control.
So want has changed?

I'll tell you what has changed, it's our culture and our society, what changed is we have turned our back on God.
Don't mean to sound like a bible thumper but it's true, and it can't be refuted.

The 'OP' has called for a rational and civil discussion on the subject of 'gun control' in America. As well as 'rational' and 'civil', one must also add 'honest'. I think it would be both civil and honest for me to state rationally my stance on 'gun control' itself, not just for America, but for all 1st world developed countries, including Great Britain, where I was born and live.

Some form of 'gun control' (note: not full 'gun ban') is an essential and responsible application of social restiction any highly-developed society would enact upon itself to effect a sustainability of civic order...domestic society is neither a battleground, nor a battlefield. Domestic society should be, in effect, a place of neutrality, where all people, regardless of their ethnic background, religious belief, or political persuasion, are able to go about their daily business in equal freedom, being able to exercise their liberty to their needs unfettered and unassailed by any threat upon those freedoms from any direction, whether it be governmental, political, religious, or any other form of ideological impositioning. Domestic society should be that place where each of us feel most free and unafraid...our home.

Our home, is incapable of arising out of thin air. It has to be built, over time, with care and precision, with the right materials fulfilling the right standards, and it has to be pieced together in such a way so as not to crumble down upon itself when storms of any kind fall upon it. Its very existence is its own defence, built not as a fortress, but as a home. We build our home to represent our freedoms and our liberties, and they in turn, are not mere trappings of furnishment, they are not walls or a roof, they are beliefs, not of purpose, but as self-propagating effects that arise from peaceful co-existence with our neighbour. Their greatest defence comes not from the gun or the bullet, but from their practice, even in the face of all fears and threats, even as bullets zing past our ears.

No war, no weapon, not a single bomb or bullet, ever emancipated man from fear, only peaceful co-existence can beguile the heart and mind from such unease. If we allow it, fear will make changes to our home despite all our noble aspirations, it will cause us to behave inversely to them. Fear will blind us to its insidious toxicity, to its sarcomic fractures that snake cracks deep into the very bedrock of everything we hope to build, leading ultimately to the shakiest of foundations.

If we are to prevent this, we must first cognize and accept that we do live fearfully, and that our ill-conceived responses do nothing more than propagate it even more. After accepting this percept, we must identitfy what it is that we fear, and ask ourselves with all honesty...is the 'threat' of what is feared actually real? We should also ask, if the thing/s we fear contain in themselves something of reality, do we allow them to prohibit any and all attempts for peaceful co-existence, or are we simply to tolerate each other with suspicion from behind the barrel of a gun? Are we only capable of feeling free and at liberty because we hold a weapon?