Banning bump stocks was dumb as far as I'm concerned. That is not going to stop some lunatic from mowing down a bunch of people with a gun if they want to. It's not even going to give them a hassle. People who don't know jack about guns are going to be pleased as a peach and walk around feeling oh so safe again until more mass shootings happen without bump stocks to realize it was just a complete waste of time. That's if they even remember the ban at all shortly after. You can be sure though if by some chance just one mass shooter happens to use a gun with a bump stock, even if they don't do near as much damage as others who didn't use a bump stock, that the media will blow it out of proportion and use that to prove how right they were, apparently.

You didn't answer the question. I am asking you how you draw the line between what is a reasonable restriction and what isn't (that both allows you to be against gun control as described above, but for removing firearms from criminals).

I am not asking for you to give me your opinions on various gun control proposals.

I'm not sure what's you're asking. It looks to me as if you think, that I think, that there should be no gun regulation whatsoever, which would lead to how do we keep guns out of criminals hands. If that's the case, which I'm not sure it is, then that's not what I think, as everything needs checks and balances.

I really don't know how else to say this...

You say you are fine with some policies but not others. What logical framework do you use to decide when one policy is good and another is bad?

Ah ok. I think I get where you're headed with this.

It's partially how I think and feel myself, obviously, but also how everybody else thinks and feels as well. The thinking part matters much more than the feeling part though. A logical person will feel safer with a stronger weapon, who knows how to use it and only in self defense against another individual, and will never agree that not having those weapons is a better idea, if you know others may have them and could use them against you. Now sure, some gun owners change their minds, after their kid dies in a school shooting, but this is because their emotions and feelings have clouded their judgement. Like I said earlier, the thinking part is much more important than the feeling part, and allowing feelings to override the thinking will lead to a worse outcome.

It's also because I believe you should leave people alone for the most part. If guns are a problem where you are, fix the problem there but leave everyone else alone. Gov is necessary but needs to remain small. Large Gov just creates more problems by getting into everyone's business to look like they are necessary in those situations when they are not.

And this was the core of my issue with your argument. It is a vague and fairly arbitrary personal value judgement.

Like I said before, that isn't really an argument anymore than it would be for me to say "Immigration is bad because I don't like it". What can I say to that? You say the "thinking is more important than feeling" but all you are doing is feeling here. There is no logical rational for why you should be against certain gun control policies. Its just, you like the gun and you FEEL safer with it, so end of conversation.

Do you understand where I'm coming from?

The regulations you seem to think are necessary, which you haven't explained either, don't exist yet. Why? If it was so clearly logical and rational that they should be in place, why aren't they?

It's not that simple, that's why. Just because some people feel scared, doesn't mean you bypass thinking.

This of course leads into another problem of, 'we only want to add some new regs, just a few.' Next thing you know it's ban all guns. Just look at this conversation. You wanted a question answered, and once I was clear on what you wanted, I gave you one that you obviously accepted based on your response, and yet now you want more. 'Tell me your entire stance on guns', sure, because that's what's needed to come to terms with each other, right? What happened to 'just this one thing'?

Sure enough, projecting onto me and trying to make me out to be the bad guy because if someone else dies from a gunshot, while I had a gun, I'm a bad person then. Yet if I gave up my gun, 'for the good of everyone', and that someone still get's killed by an illegal gun, along with me as well, then everything would be great, I guess?

Please don't drag political discord to tabloid level. It'll only hurt your and everyone else's case.

You're right! I apologize to everyone whose feelings I have hurt for being a political tabloid.

I also apologize for my Donald Cuck post.

In other news, the US President posted arrest warrants for these two:

There are at least three different directions I can go with this, but I'll leave it up to your imagination =)

Again! I'm sorry Vivster, I have some kind of political satire post Tourettes...
I wish I could tell you what makes me tick.

I'd say the biggest problem people have regarding a solid "line" about what is and isn't ok for gun control is the classic slippery slope argument.

Many people pushing for gun control want to point out cases where the lack thereof may have led to mass shootings, murders, etc.

This leads to certain legislation, that by itself, is probably reasonable. But the mass shootings, murder, etc, continues to happen. Even if at a reduced rate, they will still always happen.

The original people who wanted the restrictions now push for more restrictions, and this continues happening.

Your current people who appreciate owning guns (and do nothing illegal with them) get concerned that this will eventually lead to guns being completely banned. As a result, rather than being ok with the original reasonable gun restrictions, they push against all of it.

While the people pushing for legislation will frequently say they have no intention of completely banning guns, rules frequently tend to be progressive (in the sense that people's initial assumptions about a small change leading to more and more small changes that in total equates to a large change is reasonable).

I'm not saying this justifies just doing absolutely nothing, but I completely understand why some people are so against ALL legislation restricting gun ownership.


An example of people's initial concerns turning out true is in a town I grew up in. We were told a 1/2% additional sales tax was needed for just 10 years in order to fund a new convention center. The sales tax ultimately passed, but people were concerned that the tax would eventually be made permanent as we would be "used" to paying this and they would just find other things to use this money for after the convention center was paid for.

Fast forward 10 years, and exactly what people suspected (despite being absolutely assured it would only be a temporary tax) happened, and it is now a permanent 1/2% sales tax.

This is why people are scared about gun legislation. We ultimately want to still own guns (even though some restrictions are ok). But we are constantly assured that this legislation isn't just one more step towards completely banning guns. But these assurances that our government provide us constantly turn out to be lies (this goes for ALL politicians btw regardless of side).