Re: Oregon incident.
 

A start has to be made somewhere though doesn't it? One single piece of legislation is not going to eliminate all gun violence over night. It's back to the analogies of eating an elephant one mouthful at a time/every journey starts with the first step/when your house is flooding, first thing to do is to turn off the tap

Re: Oregon incident.
 

Yeah, but what you and the other gun-banners don't get, is that by making the eventual banning of guns your goal, you are making a significant obstacle to implementing commonsense gun controls consistently across the US.

Re: Oregon incident.
 

Correct.

They should instigate commonsense controls first. THEN ban them on down the line. ;)

Re: Oregon incident.
 

"If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow."

Re: Oregon incident.
 

One tactic that the gun crowd uses to stifle discussion is to refer to everyone who supports any kind of restriction as a "gun-banner."

It's a handy trick because it builds a straw man and creates a false black-and-white dichotomy at the same time.

Re: Oregon incident.
 

Boiler, you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

Post #333:
Read this and tell me in what universe does me saying (and I paraphrase) "I have no issue with bans or restrictions on handguns, since shotguns and rifles are not affected" mean I think all guns should be banned?

Throughout this entire thread my argument has been along the lines of "I don't want to ban guns, but we need to get smart". Perhaps you should concentrate a lot harder on the last two words of that sentence ...

Re: Oregon incident.
 

He's trolling you.

Re: Oregon incident.
 

I did suspect that but I'm buggered if I'm going to allow him to put words in my mouth either way.

Re: Oregon incident.
 

He's only shooting himself in the foot (pun intended) by appearing to be illiterate while accusing others of lacking reading comprehension.

Re: Oregon incident.
 

It would make as much sense to talk about "pro child killers" or "pro mass shooters" (in reference to those who wish to keep all their weaponry) as it does to talk about "gun banners" or "anti-gun nutters" when referring to those to ask for a sensible approach to the issue.

Re: Oregon incident.
 

It's all in the implied tone, isn't it?

It's like the 'pro-life' movement. They're not pro-life anymore than I am pro-death because I support the right to choose. If they were pro-life, then they'd give a shit about the child after it's born, not before it's a child.

Nobody in this discussion that I know of, and nobody in a meaningful position in public office that I am aware of are gun abolitionists anyway. All anyone wants is to stop the shootings. How anyone can be opposed to that is beyond me.

Re: Oregon incident.
 

Evasive.

I've read what he wrote and in no way, shape or form does it support your contention that:

Please point to some posts on this thread that would lend support to this contention.

Re: Oregon incident.
 

They can't.

It's been 125ish posts proving what I wrote in #266

I have yet to see a second amendment fetishist make any kind of suggestion about what they think can be done about the growing pile of corpses.

Re: Oregon incident.
 

The fact that the gun homicide rate is going down indicates something is working?

Relatively easy access to guns is something I like about the US and I pay my dues to the NRA to help keep it that way

If you want to reduce gun crime in the cities institute "stop and frisk" (I have many reservations about this but it will work)

If the country has the political will to amend the constitution then get on with it

It is very sad when innocent people are gunned down but most killed are gang members living their life the way they choose.

Re: Oregon incident.
 

it is noticeable on this thread that the vast majority of people trying to have a constructive conversation are those who prefer some solution which means, to quote Sultan, getting 'smart' about guns.

The only people are talking about banning guns and constructing straw-men are firmly pro-gun. I do despair of the attitude shown in statements of the type "guns - it's too hard, do nothing". How can a country go from being the exciting, forward looking, go-getting advanced nation that put a man on the moon 46 years ago (and within 10 years of the stated aim!) to this?

Personally, I'm in the camp that thinks if nothing changed after Sandy Hook, then nothing will change in the short term. I think it will take a generation or more for a cultural change to be able to eventually introduce such measures as UK-style licensing, gun tracking, requirements for guns to be securely stored when not in use, laws which say if your gun is used in a crime you lose your license for life etc.

All of those measures would still allow hunting for the pot, self-defense, pest control, sports, whatever. But hopefully make things safer for the rest of the population.