Fake Gun Store, NYC

[Run To State]

You had initially asked a question that very much seemed to be an honest, fair and thought provoking one that obviously had potential to be answered in a various number of ways.

 

At first no one replied prompting you to point that out. You might've looked a little anxious to hear someone, anyone's thoughts with regard to your question.

 

Then some replies eventually came and with them the sense that you had previously set parameters within your own mind what would be acceptable or non acceptable answers to your question. Almost as if you expected and hoped that some answers would not be acceptable to give you an open door to object and direct some conflictual language back at whoever you objected to.

 

As a result in hindsight if feels like a set up to be walked into and a chance for you to express your distaste for some answers that you expected to get from the very beginning of your questioning and perhaps even the primary reason in order for you to express objection and make your points.

 

Your points, no matter how valid and worthy, could have been made without inviting the question that you expected to get objectionable answers to in order so that you could experience the conflict of discussion that you perhaps seemed to desire. You obviously wanted to make these points to begin with so you most certainly could have minus any conflictual dialogue.

 

Am I personally comfortable with those who seek to ultimately engage others into conflictual dialogue owning guns? Not really. Something about it metaphorically says entice your subject with conflict in order to have a reason to shoot back.

 

Just a thought.

 

I don't know. I think he may have been a little surprised by the rather extreme response he got.

[Twotoplace]

When it comes to guns, you're as left as one can get.

Since you like to hurl accusations at anyone who isn't in lockstep with your guns uber alles thinking, how about you amplify on post 191 -- where you said firearms provide the basis for your "livelihood." Right now I'm wondering whether your 2nd Amendment fervor is more money-driven as opposed to being a matter of principle.

[Run To State]

Since you like to hurl accusations at anyone who isn't in lockstep with your guns uber alles thinking, how about you amplify on post 191 -- where you said firearms provide the basis for your "livelihood." Right now I'm wondering whether your 2nd Amendment fervor is more money-driven as opposed to being a matter of principle.

 

Nope, felt this way before I worked here and would regardless of where I worked. Yes, I'm more sensitive to it, obviously, but come from a pro gun family which may have a lot more to do with it than anything else.

 

 

I know it's hard for you to accept, but because I disagree with someone based on many posts they've made, it isn't lobing insults. I leave that for you to do.

[Bert]

Are you familiar with Australia's gun-control measures? Haven't they significantly reduced gun violence in that country?

 

Not really

The Australian Gun Ban Conceit

[Run To State]

Not really

The Australian Gun Ban Conceit

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say he won't like your source.

[Run To State]

I am seeing two primary issues here. Mental health, and drugs/criminals. An oversimplification for sure, but these seem to be a couple of the overarching issues with respect to the debate.

 

I read a fascinating passage in a novel the other day, focusing on the second of those two issues.

 

"For almost one hundred years, your (our) government has tried to limit the amount of drugs entering this country, They have spent trillions of dollars. And the end result is that more drugs pass through your borders than ever before. Yet your politicians still expect a solution from the supply side. Stop the Afghani or Peruvian farmer from producing! Arrest the importer. The distributor. When will your countrymen accept that the problem is one of demand? Reduce demand and the market goes away. But somehow such a voice in your debate is considered to be 'soft' on drugs. What is 'soft' is the rigor of intellectual honesty."

Your point is?

[Bert]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say he won't like your source.

 

That article in some ways corroborates the answer I gave him when he asked why you don't see gun by backs anymore. The answer is, the really are not that effective. The fact the gun ownership in the US is increased as dramatically as it has in the past 20 years but gun violence has decreased just as dramatically basically tells the story as the article states.

[Bert]

Worth a shot? Tacoma mulls gun 'drop boxes' | Fox News

 

The George Mason University professor in this article agrees.