Is it possible to have an honest discussion about guns?

[imayid2]

Guns.

What type of drastic changes? Ban high capacity weapons? Constitutional amendment to revoke the right to bear arms at all?

[CountValentine]

According to you, what is politics?

You are a R and just yell 2A!!! You are a D and just yell ban guns!!!
You can have a discussion without all that non-sense. The gun legislation passed last year was not about politics. People tried to make it political so it would fail but they are the ones that failed.

[EliJelly]

Guns.

This country is breathing guns. You can move to a country where life is cherished more than the second shmendment. 

[CountValentine]

What type of drastic changes? Ban high capacity weapons? Constitutional amendment to revoke the right to bear arms at all?

First you would need to discuss is there to many guns? Do more guns make us safer?
Depending on the answers then you need to discuss remedies.

[Yehuda57]

You are a R and just yell 2A!!! You are a D and just yell ban guns!!!

Any legislation at all, gun related or otherwise, is by definition politics. Especially when there is debate involved.

If you think the civil rights movement started about politics, then you know very little about this country.

Of course it was politics, it was the biggest political issue of its day.

And today, guns are one of the biggest political discussions. One cannot separate any aspect of the gun discussion from politics - it is the very definition of politics.

You can have a discussion without all that non-sense. The gun legislation passed last year was not about politics. People tried to make it political so it would fail but they are the ones that failed.

How? The very notion of enacting legislation restricting gun ownership is political. The very notion of NOT enacting restrictive gun legislation is political.
 
If your question is "is it possible to have an honest discussion about guns *where no one argues*?" The answer is obviously no.
If your question is "is it possible to have an honest discussion about guns *where people are willing to entertain other viewpoints without automatically dismissing them*? I'm afraid that too is a no.

BTW, as discussed elsewhere, we're probably on the same page on this issue - if anything I might be more to the left of you.

[CountValentine]

Any legislation at all, gun related or otherwise, is by definition politics. Especially when there is debate involved.

Of course it was politics, it was the biggest political issue of its day.

And today, guns are one of the biggest political discussions. One cannot separate any aspect of the gun discussion from politics - it is the very definition of politics.

How? The very notion of enacting legislation restricting gun ownership is political. The very notion of NOT enacting restrictive gun legislation is political.
 
If your question is "is it possible to have an honest discussion about guns *where no one argues*?" The answer is obviously no.
If your question is "is it possible to have an honest discussion about guns *where people are willing to entertain other viewpoints without automatically dismissing them*? I'm afraid that too is a no.

BTW, as discussed elsewhere, we're probably on the same page on this issue - if anything I might be more to the left of you.

You believe everything is politics. I disagree.

[aygart]

BTW, as discussed elsewhere, we're probably on the same page on this issue - if anything I might be more to the left of you.

+1

[Yehuda57]

You believe everything is politics. I disagree.

When you say you want *something* to be done, what is that something, legislation?

[CountValentine]

When you say you want *something* to be done, what is that something, legislation?

Yes most likely it would have to be legislation/SCOTUS. Yes, in the technical sense of the word and government action would be political/politics but that is not the context here.

Trump gets charged because he is a R. He doesn't get charge because he is a D. That would be political.

Saying there are too many guns in circulation does not make that political. You can have a discussion about that and leave politics out of it.

[Yehuda57]

Saying there are too many guns in circulation does not make that political. You can have a discussion about that and leave politics out of it.

The second you want to suggest *what* to do about too many guns, it's political.

So

  but that is not the context here.

Is simply not true. It absolutely is the context here.

[CountValentine]

The second you want to suggest *what* to do about too many guns, it's political.

So
Is simply not true. It absolutely is the context here.

I totally disagree. When I have an honest discussion about to many guns (not here) politics has nothing to do with it.
You and others are not capable having that conversation it seems.

[aygart]

I totally disagree. When I have an honest discussion about to many guns (not here) politics has nothing to do with it.
You and others are not capable having that conversation it seems.

Maybe it is because you use a very narrow definition of politics and printed it on everyone? As soon as you are discussing making policy you are by definition discussing politics and if you ignore how to actually get something to happen then it is not an honest discussion.

[CountValentine]

Maybe it is because you use a very narrow definition of politics and printed it on everyone?

It is different context. You want to make it about politics, and you can't comprehend how it can be discussed without the political slant. Sorry but I can't help you with that. Like I said before then this discussion is not for you.

[yuneeq]

It is different context. You want to make it about politics, and you can't comprehend how it can be discussed without the political slant. Sorry but I can't help you with that. Like I said before then this discussion is not for you.

Maybe I can help sort this out. This discussion can be a meta-political discussion without bringing in political biases. Ie. If you want to discuss what positive changes can possibly get instituted, politics will always play a role in what can practically get done. But the discussion itself does not have to be mired with views that are politically slanted.

[yuneeq]

@CountValentine I admit that there is a problem, but don't have any idea other than  - get the gun out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. And find a way to make sure they can't access guns that belong to normal folks. How to roll it out and effectively enforce on a federal level? No clue.

What are your thoughts on what can be improved and actually be effective?

[CountValentine]

@CountValentine I admit that there is a problem, but don't have any idea other than  - get the gun out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. And find a way to make sure they can't access guns that belong to normal folks. How to roll it out and effectively enforce on a federal level? No clue.

What are your thoughts on what can be improved and actually be effective?

Mentally ill having guns is a major issue. IMHO it is just too easy to get a gun and we have to many guns out there.
Mentally ill - It will take major funds to address this issue. Red flag laws need to be strengthened and enforced.
Criminals - Where are they getting the guns? AFAIK they are not buying them legally.
Guns - Is there to many out there that makes it too easy for any criminal, mentally ill person, nut case or just evil person to get?

[yuneeq]

Guns - Is there to many out there that makes it too easy for any criminal, mentally ill person, nut case or just evil person to get?

Don't have answers for the rest, but for this - while there are a ton of guns in the US, I don't think quantity matters as much as WHO owns it and HOW they got it.

Take a guy like you for example. I believe you are a pleasant person. Whether you owned 1 gun or 100 I don't think the US murder statistics would change. On the other hand, a single gun that was bought without any background check or that was smuggled into the US - with every additional one of these guns in the US you'd expect the murder rate to tick a drop higher.

[CountValentine]

Take a guy like you for example. I believe you are a pleasant person. Whether you owned 1 gun or 100 I don't think the US murder statistics would change. On the other hand, a single gun that was bought without any background check or that was smuggled into the US - with every additional one of these guns in the US you'd expect the murder rate to tick a drop higher.

You have to ask yourself why is the choice in the majority of these shootings the AR style of weapon?
Why is it that a gun is the choice to commit suicide?

I agree who owns it does matter. How they get these guns is another major problem.

Does anyone really believe the more guns in circulation makes everyone in the country safer?

[yelped]

Don't have answers for the rest, but for this - while there are a ton of guns in the US, I don't think quantity matters as much as WHO owns it and HOW they got it.

Take a guy like you for example. I believe you are a pleasant person. Whether you owned 1 gun or 100 I don't think the US murder statistics would change. On the other hand, a single gun that was bought without any background check or that was smuggled into the US - with every additional one of these guns in the US you'd expect the murder rate to tick a drop higher.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but there still is a difference between someone owning one or 100 guns. With 100, there is a possibility of some getting lost and stolen.

[Definitions]

You have to ask yourself why is the choice in the majority of these shootings the AR style of weapon?
Why is it that a gun is the choice to commit suicide?

I agree who owns it does matter. How they get these guns is another major problem.

Does anyone really believe the more guns in circulation makes everyone in the country safer?

I'd assume because ARs have bigger bullets so more damage.
Guns are a quick way to end life.
No

It sounds like you're going for a point. I'm not drawing the dots together.