Defend your right to own a car.

[Sinfix_15]

First of all, you make a distinction between criminals and non-criminals as if people are always one or the other. The fact is, every criminal was at one point a non-criminal before they committed a crime. The ease of which non-criminals can get a gun is therefore not an entirely separate issue from the ease with which a criminal can get a gun. Further, a large number of guns used in crimes are stolen. If those guns were not purchased legally, they could not have been stolen and subsequently used in a crime. What it boils down to is this... if there are less guns available to the general public, there will also be less available to criminals. (keyword is LESS, not NONE)

Now obviously you can't legislate away crazy people killing others, nor can you make the millions of guns already in the country go away, nor will we ever prevent all gun crime. But it is not irrational to think that over a long period of time, having less guns could lead to at least a small decrease in gun crime.

As I have stated before, I do not personally think that we need an assault weapons ban but I do understand where the proponents of such a ban are coming from and I don't think they are morons for the thinking that way.

This is simply not a stance that i agree with. It is an option that are forefathers were aware of when they disagreed with it. To me, thinking it is an option is offensive. When you start removing freedom for the sake of safety, you are no longer free. Freedom is dangerous. Making guns less available to everyone, for the sake of making guns less available to criminals.... is NOT something i would ever support. There's no confusion between sides of this issue. I understand their stance... and strongly oppose it.

Also, the left side of the isle confidently speaks out that less guns equals less crime. Show me a place where that is proven to be true? statistics seem to show the opposite.

[bu villain]

When you start removing freedom for the sake of safety, you are no longer free. Freedom is dangerous.

Definitely true, however you can't ignore that every law we have is a limiting of some freedom. Many of them are for the sake of safety. Driving tests, background checks, seat belt laws, and many many more. So by your definition, we haven't been free for a long long time. So, this is not going to be a very persuasive argument.

Making guns less available to everyone, for the sake of making guns less available to criminals.... is NOT something i would ever support. There's no confusion between sides of this issue. I understand their stance... and strongly oppose it.

And this is something we agree on which is why I'm trying to point out that beating someone over the head with your opinion is not going to change as many minds as recognizing the concerns of the other side and responding to them in a persuasive way.

Also, the left side of the isle confidently speaks out that less guns equals less crime. Show me a place where that is proven to be true? statistics seem to show the opposite.

The fact is there are not sufficient statistics to prove either side but there is plenty of statistics that could support either side. FACT: countries with less guns generally have less gun crime. FACT: Switzerland has a lot of guns and little gun crime. Both are true but support opposite conclusions. Both sides speak confidently because they believe their facts are more important than the other sides facts. The reality is, most people believe what they want and then find facts to back it up afterwards.

[Sinfix_15]

Definitely true, however you can't ignore that every law we have is a limiting of some freedom. Many of them are for the sake of safety. Driving tests, background checks, seat belt laws, and many many more. So by your definition, we haven't been free for a long long time. So, this is not going to be a very persuasive argument.

Having lost *some* freedom is not reason to volunteer more. I do feel our freedom is being chipped away in more areas than guns. Some things are a compromise and they are also conditional of a public space. I can drive a car without a license or seat belt on private property. Wearing a seat belt and having a license is a condition of driving on the public street. If you want to impose rules for carrying a gun on public property, that's fine. It is to my understanding that is already the case. A club can restrict access to someone carrying a gun. We have gun free zones. Your permission to carry a weapon is conditional already. Not that criminals do or ever will give a shit....

And this is something we agree on which is why I'm trying to point out that beating someone over the head with your opinion is not going to change as many minds as recognizing the concerns of the other side and responding to them in a persuasive way.

There is no common ground with the liberal left to be shared. Theyre on a mission to remove guns, not make guns safer, not make schools safer, not punish criminals..... One thing about a bleeding heart is that theyre all terrified of their own blood. The best thing in my opinion we can do is continue reminding them of the mountain they will have to climb to accomplish their goal. Knowing the opposition that stands in front of them will break their spirits. The left rides the wave of public opinion and attempts to sway it as much as possible. When that wave crashes, they tuck tail.

The fact is there are not sufficient statistics to prove either side but there is plenty of statistics that could support either side. FACT: countries with less guns generally have less gun crime. FACT: Switzerland has a lot of guns and little gun crime. Both are true but support opposite conclusions. Both sides speak confidently because they believe their facts are more important than the other sides facts. The reality is, most people believe what they want and then find facts to back it up afterwards.

I agree, but it's a little too easy to poke holes in the left's argument. Every city where they got what they want, it turned out to be chaos. Now theyre using the excuse that neighboring cities and states not adopting their laws is why they have a problem. Ok, so at what point would that argument become invalid. If the entire US was a gun free zone, guns would still be imported. No place in the US is it legal to harvest cocaine, but we still have it. So what do we have to do to accurately prove that liberal policy does not work? convert the entire world? Make no mistake...... theyre trying.

[bu villain]

Having lost *some* freedom is not reason to volunteer more. I do feel our freedom is being chipped away in more areas than guns. Some things are a compromise and they are also conditional of a public space. I can drive a car without a license or seat belt on private property. Wearing a seat belt and having a license is a condition of driving on the public street. If you want to impose rules for carrying a gun on public property, that's fine. It is to my understanding that is already the case. A club can restrict access to someone carrying a gun. We have gun free zones. Your permission to carry a weapon is conditional already. Not that criminals do or ever will give a shit....

Your right having lost some freedoms is not a reason to volunteer more but it also means that it's not a strong rebuttal for the opposite. I think the public/private space argument is a good argument to make and could lead to some compromises. Although many people on the pro gun side are arguing the opposite, that guns should be allowed into nearly every public location including schools. Also, not an important point but clubs aren't public property.

There is no common ground with the liberal left to be shared. Theyre on a mission to remove guns, not make guns safer, not make schools safer, not punish criminals..... One thing about a bleeding heart is that theyre all terrified of their own blood. The best thing in my opinion we can do is continue reminding them of the mountain they will have to climb to accomplish their goal. Knowing the opposition that stands in front of them will break their spirits. The left rides the wave of public opinion and attempts to sway it as much as possible. When that wave crashes, they tuck tail.

Interesting take on things but it does have the downside of inhibiting compromise for those who really do care about safety which I think is more people than you are willing to accept.

I agree, but it's a little too easy to poke holes in the left's argument. Every city where they got what they want, it turned out to be chaos. Now theyre using the excuse that neighboring cities and states not adopting their laws is why they have a problem. Ok, so at what point would that argument become invalid. If the entire US was a gun free zone, guns would still be imported. No place in the US is it legal to harvest cocaine, but we still have it. So what do we have to do to accurately prove that liberal policy does not work? convert the entire world? Make no mistake...... theyre trying.

Actually I think you are more right than you want to be. Banning handguns in Chicago city limits doesn't do much if there are so many guns freely available within a 5 minute drive of the city limits. So it really doesn't prove or disprove anything. Honestly, to know for sure, we would need similar bans for the entire country and then analyze statistics for the next decade or two. The real world is messy and social sciences are always up for debate. We have to make our best judgements with imperfect data.

[Sinfix_15]

Your right having lost some freedoms is not a reason to volunteer more but it also means that it's not a strong rebuttal for the opposite. I think the public/private space argument is a good argument to make and could lead to some compromises. Although many people on the pro gun side are arguing the opposite, that guns should be allowed into nearly every public location including schools. Also, not an important point but clubs aren't public property.

You understand the point, its more aimed at having conditions for particular spaces.... which we already do anyways and it has zero effect on criminals. If anything.... it assists criminals. If a criminal wants to kill a bunch of people, theyre not going to go assault the barracks at ft benning, theyre going to search out a place where they will find the least resistance, nothing advertises that more than " GUN FREE ZONE "

Interesting take on things but it does have the downside of inhibiting compromise for those who really do care about safety which I think is more people than you are willing to accept.

The mistake you make is that safety is a side of the fence. Both sides want safety, where we differ is in how to accomplish it. The left has a habit of making emotional policies vs rational ones. They also have no issues with burning down the forest to remove a tree.

Actually I think you are more right than you want to be. Banning handguns in Chicago city limits doesn't do much if there are so many guns freely available within a 5 minute drive of the city limits. So it really doesn't prove or disprove anything. Honestly, to know for sure, we would need similar bans for the entire country and then analyze statistics for the next decade or two. The real world is messy and social sciences are always up for debate. We have to make our best judgements with imperfect data.

Ok, so since that option simply is never going to happen........

let's build a 30 foot wall around chicago and patiently watch as it becomes a thriving economic paradise without interferance from the outside world..... lol

[David88vert]

They also have no issues with burning down the forest to remove a tree.

We all know that liberals are tree huggers and would never cut or burn a tree...... :-p

[bu villain]

You understand the point, its more aimed at having conditions for particular spaces.... which we already do anyways and it has zero effect on criminals. If anything.... it assists criminals. If a criminal wants to kill a bunch of people, theyre not going to go assault the barracks at ft benning, theyre going to search out a place where they will find the least resistance, nothing advertises that more than " GUN FREE ZONE "

I don't understand where you are going with this. These seems to be going off on a tangent. The point is, we do regulate where you can do certain dangerous activities even though people will break those rules. You can argue about what the effects of that are but I was never arguing that point.

The mistake you make is that safety is a side of the fence. Both sides want safety, where we differ is in how to accomplish it. The left has a habit of making emotional policies vs rational ones. They also have no issues with burning down the forest to remove a tree.

No you are mischaracterizing my position. You were the one who side one side doesn't care about safety. I was saying that wasn't true and your unwillingness to accept that the other side has valid concerns prevents progress from being made between the people on both sides who care about safety.

Ok, so since that option simply is never going to happen........

let's build a 30 foot wall around chicago and patiently watch as it becomes a thriving economic paradise without interferance from the outside world..... lol

Not at all what the implication was. My point was purely that Chicago doesn't prove or disprove the effectiveness of gun control at a national level.

[Sinfix_15]

No you are mischaracterizing my position. You were the one who side one side doesn't care about safety. I was saying that wasn't true and your unwillingness to accept that the other side has valid concerns prevents progress from being made between the people on both sides who care about safety.

I do not think the government is interested in anyone's safety but their own. When i say "both sides care about safety" i'm speaking on behalf of someone who thinks banning guns would make their kids more safe, however wrong or misguided they may be. "The left doesnt care about safety", im speaking to the ones in power. Not their flock of sheep.

Not at all what the implication was. My point was purely that Chicago doesn't prove or disprove the effectiveness of gun control at a national level.

It's simply a coincidence that other cities where guns are wide spread are doing just fine. Chicago's only issue is guns being imported from all of the violent places surrounding them. We should all bend to chicago's will and adopt their policies..... How does this make sense? The left always finds a way to blame something else for their failure. Why cant the left ever lead by example? A state like texas can say " we did this and look at this " the liberal states always have to say "we could do this if not for this"