Gun ownership poll

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Is your profile picture/avatar Ken Holtzman?

Yes. It's pen and ink: The sole surviving piece of my art work.

Modeled after a Baseball Digest Cover:

Baseball Digest September 1973 Ken Holtzman.jpgBaseball Drawing (2).JPG

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I'm a Conservative Republican who voted for Trump twice. I stay away from these discussions because they always turn ugly and in thd end, nobody ever has their mind changed. So, I don't see the point.

Well, if you voted for him TWICE, we can assume there are a lot of points you don't see.


.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Well, if you voted for him TWICE, we can assume there are a lot of points you don't see.


.

Well, I honestly don't care what you think.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by jim65

well, i honestly don't care what you think.

exactly my point

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Yes. It's pen and ink: The sole surviving piece of my art work.

Modeled after a Baseball Digest Cover:

Attachment 519443Attachment 519444

Awesome, even though I was way too young his first go around with them he is still one of my favorite all time Cubs.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

exactly my point

I simply stated why I stay out of these discussions and you saw that as an excuse to insult me. This is exactly why I stay away from political discussions, because of people like you.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I simply stated why I stay out of these discussions and you saw that as an excuse to insult me. This is exactly why I stay away from political discussions, because of people like you.

The very first reply to your post really proved your point.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I simply stated why I stay out of these discussions and you saw that as an excuse to insult me. This is exactly why I stay away from political discussions, because of people like you.

James- I sincerely apologize. I was a lifelong republican pre-trump and am just shocked by all that don't see him for what he always has been and always will be.


and I DO care what you think and what everyone thinks ,but, I do worry.



again, I do apologize.

.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

James- I sincerely apologize. I was a lifelong republican pre-trump and am just shocked by all that don't see him for what he always has been and always will be.


and I DO care what you think and what everyone thinks ,but, I do worry.



again, I do apologize.

.

Apology accepted. No hard feelings.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Apology accepted. No hard feelings.

But...my Braves are going to win the East again.




(maybe...LOL)



.

[Directly]

Native Americans did fine with Bow and Arrows until the Europeans invaded with gun powder--Guns and gun powder have killed a lot of people.

[SAllen2556]

Here in Michigan, we arrested the parents of the 14-year old who shot up his school. Now I just wonder if some other kid thinks, hey, I can shoot up my school AND get my parents arrested. Win, win.

What I haven't seen discussed is the fact that shooting up a school has become a copycat crime. Why? What is some disturbed kid watching when one of these events occurs that makes him think, 'yeah, I wanna do that too' ? Is it the images of the sobbing parents and friends? Is it the media portrayal of the shooter as 'evil' ?

I sometimes wonder what would happen if these shooters were portrayed as the mentally retarded losers they actually are and were actually somehow made fun of. I know you couldn't do it out of respect for the victims, but whatever we're doing now as a society is not working.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by Directly

Native Americans did fine with Bow and Arrows until the Europeans invaded with gun powder--Guns and gun powder have killed a lot of people.

Native Americans also scalped, enslaved, and cooked and ate their enemies. So, personally, I'd rather be shot.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Directly

Native Americans did fine with Bow and Arrows until the Europeans invaded with gun powder--Guns and gun powder have killed a lot of people.

The same comparison can be made with horses and cars.

[G1911]

According to the FBI statistics, you are more likely to be killed with a blunt instrument than a rifle. You are over 4x more likely to be murdered with a knife than a rifle (any rifle, including grandpa’s old single shot, not just the scary looking ones). Who would like to ban or restrict hammers and knives, since it’s the tool that is at fault, alongside the rifles? Or is this logic only applied to the one tool that has political overtones, regardless of the fact it causes less deaths?

[irv]

Originally Posted by G1911

According to the FBI statistics, you are more likely to be killed with a blunt instrument than a rifle. You are over 4x more likely to be murdered with a knife than a rifle (any rifle, including grandpa’s old single shot, not just the scary looking ones). Who would like to ban or restrict hammers and knives, since it’s the tool that is at fault, alongside the rifles? Or is this logic only applied to the one tool that has political overtones, regardless of the fact it causes less deaths?

The politicization is over the top, there is no doubt about it. And then there is this.
https://www.tiktok.com/@knowledgeequ...s1E9K75DC&_r=1

[AustinMike]

I had intended to make my last post the last one I made on abortion in this thread. However, I realized something about you and I decided to make one more last post to point that out.

You repeatedly railed about me and others not agreeing to the Merriam Webster definition of “pro-life.” Yet, there are countless examples of you not applying “common sense, context or the dictionary” to the meaning of words.

(A) You displayed your lack of understanding regarding the definitions of “choice,” “law,” and “right.” You seem to apply your own definitions.

(1) For example, you think that if a “law” is passed, it automatically removes a person’s right to a “choice.” That is absurd. For example, there are speed limits set by law. Let’s say the speed limit on the road I’m driving on is 60 mph. Do you really think that takes away my choice of going 75? No, it doesn’t. I also think it is humorous that you think I could tell the officer giving me a ticket, “But officer. I had no choice. A law was passed regarding the speed limit and that took away my choice. The fact that I was going 75 isn’t because that was my choice, because I had no choice. It was probably an act of nature or divine intervention, but it wasn’t my choice. So, since it wasn’t my choice, I don’t think I should get a ticket.”

Originally Posted by G1911

You cannot believe in an absolutist, hardline with no exceptions “right to choose” and any meaningful rule of law. Law is intended to constrict and punish certain choices people make, that is the purpose of every law. You clearly know this, as you even specify prison as a result of unlimited free choice.

(2) You conflate “choice” with “right.” Look up the definitions and you’ll see you’re not using the words properly.

Example 1:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Making a law does not take away a person's choices, there is no correlation between a "law" and a "choice."

Originally Posted by G1911

Okay. So everywhere in the world there is the right to have an abortion and always will be. It's just the law punishing people for their free 'choice'. What's the point of discussing abortion at all if you think there is a universalist right to it is already present?

Example 2:

Originally Posted by AustinMike

So, let's get back to my original question. What choice(s)s do you think people should not have? And a follow-up question, how do you propose to take that choice away from people?

Originally Posted by G1911

What choices do I think people should not have? - Already answered. I think you are picking your words wrong again. I am not in favor of rolling back rights.

(B) You change the definition of “and” to “or.” Here’s a little logic for you. If you say “A” and “B”, that is only true if “A” if true plus it is only true if “B” is true. If you say “A” or “B”, then that is true if either “A” is true or “B” is true or “A” and “B” are true. You claimed you only posted after I and BobC posted. I pointed out that wasn’t true because I didn’t post until after you did. You said that since you posted after BobC posted, that makes it true. Hence, you want to redefine “and” to be “or.”

Originally Posted by G1911

You and BobC just had such nutball extremist takes I couldn’t resist pointing out the absurdity of the false pretenses of ignorance.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

My first post in this thread was Post 115. You first posted on this subject in Post 97. But, yeah. You didn’t post until my “nutball extremist takes.” Sure, if it makes you feel better, disregard the truth and keep telling yourself you only posted because of me.

Originally Posted by G1911

Read. The transcript is public and visible to all. What I said and you even quoted was "You and BobC just had such nutball extremist takes I couldn’t resist pointing out the absurdity of the false pretenses of ignorance." Post 97 is me replying to BobC. So... exactly in line with what I said...

(C) You ironically want to change the definition of abortion. Look up the definition of abortion and tell us all how you can have an abortion after birth.

Originally Posted by G1911

I think it is extremely sad that “women’s rights” has largely become a phrase to mean access to any abortion at any time for any reason, among the hardliners even after birth. Post birth abortion is beyond vile and disgusting.

All these posts because:

Originally Posted by G1911

You and BobC are the only ones evidently incapable of understanding that words have meanings, that are not picked on the whims of any single individual.

Originally Posted by G1911

You are not reasonable because you refuse to accept that language is not up to your sole arbitration and refuse to apply common sense, context or the dictionary.

And yet, you constantly applied you own definition to commonly used words.

So, I have choices. I can decide that you’re a hypocrite. I can decide that you’re a “performance artist.” Or, I can decide that you’re not nearly as smart as you think you are. I lawfully have those choices because it’s my right. Can you guess which one I'm going to choose?

[clydepepper]

158334081_4054641537901246_8461246587244529788_n.jpg258244971_2658033547676122_8610287704204713611_n.jpg

[G1911]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

I had intended to make my last post the last one I made on abortion in this thread. However, I realized something about you and I decided to make one more last post to point that out.

You repeatedly railed about me and others not agreeing to the Merriam Webster definition of “pro-life.” Yet, there are countless examples of you not applying “common sense, context or the dictionary” to the meaning of words.

(A) You displayed your lack of understanding regarding the definitions of “choice,” “law,” and “right.” You seem to apply your own definitions.

(1) For example, you think that if a “law” is passed, it automatically removes a person’s right to a “choice.” That is absurd. For example, there are speed limits set by law. Let’s say the speed limit on the road I’m driving on is 60 mph. Do you really think that takes away my choice of going 75? No, it doesn’t. I also think it is humorous that you think I could tell the officer giving me a ticket, “But officer. I had no choice. A law was passed regarding the speed limit and that took away my choice. The fact that I was going 75 isn’t because that was my choice, because I had no choice. It was probably an act of nature or divine intervention, but it wasn’t my choice. So, since it wasn’t my choice, I don’t think I should get a ticket.”



(2) You conflate “choice” with “right.” Look up the definitions and you’ll see you’re not using the words properly.

If there is no correlation between law and choice and rights, then law serves no purpose at all. If law is not intended and created to restrict choice by punishing those who do that which the law criminalizes, it has no purpose. The state does not have complete physical control of every humans every action. One can choose to break a law, but that is why we have laws. Laws restrict choice by punishing those who violate it, to make most people conform and to lock up, kill, shame, or harm those who make the choice not allowed by the state.

A right is something specifically protected by the law.

A person who supports a right to choose something is against criminalizing one of the two choices. Pro-choice abortion activists do not think that choice is protected regardless of the law; they are pro-choice because they want that choice to be allowed without getting a murder charge. We all know this. Pro-choice people are not pro-choice because they think the law does not matter and they may make a choice to violate the law and take the punishment. Supporting choice means that one does not support criminalizing one of the sides. You know this, this is extremely disingenuous. You surely possess an ounce of common sense and can apply context. You cannot possibly be this dumb and be a functioning adult.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

(B) You change the definition of “and” to “or.” Here’s a little logic for you. If you say “A” and “B”, that is only true if “A” if true plus it is only true if “B” is true. If you say “A” or “B”, then that is true if either “A” is true or “B” is true or “A” and “B” are true. You claimed you only posted after I and BobC posted. I pointed out that wasn’t true because I didn’t post until after you did. You said that since you posted after BobC posted, that makes it true. Hence, you want to redefine “and” to be “or.”

Yes. Good job, you finally made a correct point. It's utterly irrelevant, but you are correct.

We can do this forever in perpetuity. You just said "You repeatedly railed about me and others not agreeing to the Merriam Webster definition of “pro-life.”" In actuality, only you and Bob C pretended to be too stupid to know what they mean. That means it should be "you repeatedly railed about me and one other..." instead of "others". Ha! I got you! I win now! See how silly this is? You probably don't.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

(C) You ironically want to change the definition of abortion. Look up the definition of abortion and tell us all how you can have an abortion after birth.

You appear to be referring to 'post birth abortion'. Post birth abortion, or after-birth abortion, is not my term whatsoever. I did not make this up, popularize it, write a single one of the many news articles about it, or author any of the passed or pending legislation related to it. I am not selecting the terms used by political factions in American culture. For the thousandth time, you already know this.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

So, I have choices. I can decide that you’re a hypocrite. I can decide that you’re a “performance artist.” Or, I can decide that you’re not nearly as smart as you think you are. I lawfully have those choices because it’s my right. Can you guess which one I'm going to choose?

We agree I am not smart, I don't know much. I am simply aware of what some common terms mean as is everyone here except for you and BobC. You can choose to believe whatever you want about anything, nobody has said you cannot think whatever you think. If you want to pretend pro-life is a hardline absolutist universal philosophy but pro-choice is not held to the same rule, you may. It's absurd and stupid, and some will tell you that, but people believe many absurd things.

No matter how stupid I am, a point which I will happily concede, and how satisfied you are with your virtue signaling redefinition, everyone here still knows exactly what pro-life and pro-choice actually mean.

[clydepepper]

A Little Stonehenge Humor:

Daylight Savings at Stonehenge.jpg244469314_10208758796485072_9121062018896317629_n.jpg

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Attachment 519396Attachment 519397

I will add my opinion and highly agree with the opinions in this post.

[Deertick]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/i-...122eb91c00e055

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Deertick

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/i-...122eb91c00e055

Thanks for this. I'm glad they mentioned social media and cable news. Many operators in both spaces are in the business of manufacturing and amplifying outrage and anger in order to maximize engagement.

[clydepepper]

Everyone can't be right?

245180343_3077959305785183_5387845861749360297_n.jpg260621739_10226942249884825_2600395535095714606_n.jpg

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by bobbystrawberry

thanks for this. I'm glad they mentioned social media and cable news. Many operators in both spaces are in the business of manufacturing and amplifying outrage and anger in order to maximize engagement.

+1000!

[steve B]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

A Little Stonehenge Humor:

Attachment 519554Attachment 519555

It must be Chiffon!

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

If there is no correlation between law and choice and rights, then law serves no purpose at all. If law is not intended and created to restrict choice by punishing those who do that which the law criminalizes, it has no purpose. The state does not have complete physical control of every humans every action. One can choose to break a law, but that is why we have laws. Laws restrict choice by punishing those who violate it, to make most people conform and to lock up, kill, shame, or harm those who make the choice not allowed by the state.

A right is something specifically protected by the law.

A person who supports a right to choose something is against criminalizing one of the two choices. Pro-choice abortion activists do not think that choice is protected regardless of the law; they are pro-choice because they want that choice to be allowed without getting a murder charge. We all know this. Pro-choice people are not pro-choice because they think the law does not matter and they may make a choice to violate the law and take the punishment. Supporting choice means that one does not support criminalizing one of the sides. You know this, this is extremely disingenuous. You surely possess an ounce of common sense and can apply context. You cannot possibly be this dumb and be a functioning adult.





Yes. Good job, you finally made a correct point. It's utterly irrelevant, but you are correct.

We can do this forever in perpetuity. You just said "You repeatedly railed about me and others not agreeing to the Merriam Webster definition of “pro-life.”" In actuality, only you and Bob C pretended to be too stupid to know what they mean. That means it should be "you repeatedly railed about me and one other..." instead of "others". Ha! I got you! I win now! See how silly this is? You probably don't.





You appear to be referring to 'post birth abortion'. Post birth abortion, or after-birth abortion, is not my term whatsoever. I did not make this up, popularize it, write a single one of the many news articles about it, or author any of the passed or pending legislation related to it. I am not selecting the terms used by political factions in American culture. For the thousandth time, you already know this.





We agree I am not smart, I don't know much. I am simply aware of what some common terms mean as is everyone here except for you and BobC. You can choose to believe whatever you want about anything, nobody has said you cannot think whatever you think. If you want to pretend pro-life is a hardline absolutist universal philosophy but pro-choice is not held to the same rule, you may. It's absurd and stupid, and some will tell you that, but people believe many absurd things.

No matter how stupid I am, a point which I will happily concede, and how satisfied you are with your virtue signaling redefinition, everyone here still knows exactly what pro-life and pro-choice actually mean.

Glad the point was conceded.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Glad the point was conceded.

Your personal obsession is weird.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by steve B

It must be Chiffon!

If you think it's butter, but it's not... it's Chiffon

[KMayUSA6060]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-injured.html

This just a few days after a 30+ person massacre at a church in Nigeria(?) and a firebombing at a pro-life facility in NY. Violence isn't gun-related. Violence is people-related. It's also not restricted by country, so let's quit pretending like the rest of the world has it right. Not saying we're perfect as a country, but America's positive qualities attract caravans of immigrants for a reason. Quit blaming inanimate objects and focus on how we can improve the people that control the objects.

[cannonballsun]

I own no guns.
Statistically, you or a member of your family is more likely to be killed or injured by a gun if you own one than if you don't own one.
That's enough for me.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cannonballsun

I own no guns.
Statistically, you or a member of your family is more likely to be killed or injured by a gun if you own one than if you don't own one.
That's enough for me.

Statistically, should the need arise, you are virtually defenseless.

[cannonballsun]

The chance anyone would have to defend themself with a gun (in a holdup or something like that) is very small. I can't think of anyone I know that had to do that.
I did have a coworker commit suicide with a gun. I did have another coworker who almost shot his son in the middle of the night. His son had forgot his keys and snuck into the house. It was a really close call.
I did have another coworker who was shot and killed by his wife. I don't know the details on that. The rumor was he was abusive to his wife, but I don't really know.
I had another coworker get loaded and stoned and go to his mother and father in laws house to pick up his daughter. They wouldn't give him his daughter (as he was drunk and stoned), and he started waving his gun around and put a few bullets in the walls or floor. Thankfully he didn't shoot anybody, but he spent over a year in jail. If his in-laws had a gun, he would probably be dead now.
By now you're thinking, what kind of place do I work at. There are a lot of people that work there, probably over 500. Anyway, guns are dangerous, beyond a doubt.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by cannonballsun

The chance anyone would have to defend themself with a gun (in a holdup or something like that) is very small. I can't think of anyone I know that had to do that.
I did have a coworker commit suicide with a gun. I did have another coworker who almost shot his son in the middle of the night. His son had forgot his keys and snuck into the house. It was a really close call.
I did have another coworker who was shot and killed by his wife. I don't know the details on that. The rumor was he was abusive to his wife, but I don't really know.
I had another coworker get loaded and stoned and go to his mother and father in laws house to pick up his daughter. They wouldn't give him his daughter (as he was drunk and stoned), and he started waving his gun around and put a few bullets in the walls or floor. Thankfully he didn't shoot anybody, but he spent over a year in jail. If his in-laws had a gun, he would probably be dead now.
By now you're thinking, what kind of place do I work at. There are a lot of people that work there, probably over 500. Anyway, guns are dangerous, beyond a doubt.

That is your opinion and everyone is entitled to theirs. I don't think guns kill, I think people do. And I would rather have the option of defending myself, with a gun, in my own home than not having the option.
.

[cannonballsun]

I really can't argue with your opinion. It is a valid point of view

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cannonballsun

I did have another coworker who was shot and killed by his wife. I don't know the details on that. The rumor was he was abusive to his wife, but I don't really know.

Neither of us knows, but it could be that he was trying to kill her and the gun saved her life.

My point is that guns can be used for different purposes, and a gun in the hand of someone being violently attacked can save an innocent person's life. There are two sides to it and it all comes down to the person, not the gun itself.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cannonballsun

Anyway, guns are dangerous, beyond a doubt.

I notice that in all four of these incidents no gun discharged itself of it’s own volition. People choose to do things, and some people make terrible choices (though it’s not clear to me the wife one was necessarily in this category). People make bad choices with all manner of tools. One is more likely to be bludgeoned to death with a heavy object than to be killed with any kind of rifle (mostly what the regulators and banners want to regulate and ban).

A friend of mine was stabbed in a street robbery a couple years ago. Was that the fault of the criminal who chose to rob and stab him, or of the knife itself? I think almost everyone would say the person who did the stabbing.

Guns themselves are extremely safe (some collectors pieces from long ago are a different story), and have numerous safeties that eliminate any chance that they will discharge without a person putting their finger on the trigger and pulling it.

Criminals will commit violent crime with any tool at hand, legal or otherwise, as history shows us. I don’t see how a responsible citizen being permitted to defend themselves should they be the victim makes the world or society less safe instead of more safe. Places swamped with guns are often the safest places. There has never been a crime committed at my sportsman’s club.

[jimjim]

Disregard

[irv]

Originally Posted by cannonballsun

I own no guns.
Statistically, you or a member of your family is more likely to be killed or injured by a gun if you own one than if you don't own one.
That's enough for me.

Originally Posted by cannonballsun

The chance anyone would have to defend themself with a gun (in a holdup or something like that) is very small. I can't think of anyone I know that had to do that.
I did have a coworker commit suicide with a gun. I did have another coworker who almost shot his son in the middle of the night. His son had forgot his keys and snuck into the house. It was a really close call.
I did have another coworker who was shot and killed by his wife. I don't know the details on that. The rumor was he was abusive to his wife, but I don't really know.
I had another coworker get loaded and stoned and go to his mother and father in laws house to pick up his daughter. They wouldn't give him his daughter (as he was drunk and stoned), and he started waving his gun around and put a few bullets in the walls or floor. Thankfully he didn't shoot anybody, but he spent over a year in jail. If his in-laws had a gun, he would probably be dead now.
By now you're thinking, what kind of place do I work at. There are a lot of people that work there, probably over 500. Anyway, guns are dangerous, beyond a doubt.

https://youtu.be/tad1jm-jbl8

[jbhofmann]

As a nearly 20 yr teacher I’ll chime in on just the educational front.

1. A school I taught at for 8 years was compromised by an ex student who shot out a side door. Luckily the school and law enforcement received information that this was about to happen from his mother. Police were on the scene immediately and entered behind him.

2. The school had locked internal doors that the shooter tried but couldn’t enter classrooms. The camera system allowed the principal to keep LEO updated in real time where the shooter was.

3. His gun choice imo was a huge factor in only him dying. A bolt action rifle. The idea that high capacity magazines aren’t a problem in these events seems to ignore school massacre evidence. Each time this happens law enforcement talks about how they were out armed. This particular time they weren’t and the shooter took his life knowing he was cornered in a stairwell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[clydepepper]

275440238_3131908303764493_5208242249982181210_n.jpg275569253_10227288217373923_6763651897885935029_n.jpg

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Attachment 520290Attachment 520291

That side by side pic of Ortiz is awesome.

[irv]

How old are you?

Just because you don't find this topic, in the off topic section, important, interesting nor wish to engage in conversation about it doesn't mean that others don't.

Would you like it if someone did the same to one of your threads or posted random, off topic pics in one of your BST posts for example?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by irv

How old are you?

Just because you don't find this topic, in the off topic section, important, interesting nor wish to engage in conversation about it doesn't mean that others don't.

Would you like it if someone did the same to one of your threads or posted random, off topic pics in one of your BST posts for example?

+1...and it's against the rules that few have read. They have been posted since day 1....

.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by irv

How old are you?

Just because you don't find this topic, in the off topic section, important, interesting nor wish to engage in conversation about it doesn't mean that others don't.

Would you like it if someone did the same to one of your threads or posted random, off topic pics in one of your BST posts for example?

Just my opinion but subjects like this have no real conversations going on. You have people posting their very biased opinions. No one is going to change that opinion so threads like this turn into name calling because we all believe we are correct and others are idiots on the subject.

Personally I enjoy reading them as humor and the silly/funny pictures add to that enjoyment. I am 53 if that matters.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Just my opinion but subjects like this have no real conversations going on. You have people posting their very biased opinions. No one is going to change that opinion so threads like this turn into name calling because we all believe we are correct and others are idiots on the subject.

Personally I enjoy reading them as humor and the silly/funny pictures add to that enjoyment. I am 53 if that matters.

I don't know about this. I'm a gun owner and I'm actually starting to change my mind on parts of the debate. For example, would it be terrible to have to be 21 to buy a gun?

I think that when you have to write your opinion, as opposed to shouting it on tv, it's more likely to influence others' opinions - at least those who know how to read and are willing to read opposing views. I actually enjoy these threads once in a while.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

I don't know about this. I'm a gun owner and I'm actually starting to change my mind on parts of the debate. For example, would it be terrible to have to be 21 to buy a gun?

I think that when you have to write your opinion, as opposed to shouting it on tv, it's more likely to influence others' opinions - at least those who know how to read and are willing to read opposing views. I actually enjoy these threads once in a while.

+1. A thoughtful, reasoned opinion can often sway me.

I'm an NRA member but think 21 sounds reasonable too. I also think it wouldn't keep guns out of the hands of teenagers. Cocaine is illegal everywhere and has been for decades. Yet it's quite readily available nationwide (so I hear.) Passing more laws does not mean the bad guys will obey them. Still, we need reasonable laws.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

I think that when you have to write your opinion, as opposed to shouting it on tv, it's more likely to influence others' opinions - at least those who know how to read and are willing to read opposing views. I actually enjoy these threads once in a while.

+2. I have shifted my opinion on many subjects because I found a better, more logical argument than I had crafted myself.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

I don't know about this. I'm a gun owner and I'm actually starting to change my mind on parts of the debate. For example, would it be terrible to have to be 21 to buy a gun?

I think that when you have to write your opinion, as opposed to shouting it on tv, it's more likely to influence others' opinions - at least those who know how to read and are willing to read opposing views. I actually enjoy these threads once in a while.

+3! I've found this thread mostly respectful and have learned a few things.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

+3! I've found this thread mostly respectful and have learned a few things.

I understand where the poster was coming from that big issue discussions don’t typically change minds but guns might be different. Abortion, death penalty, those probably don’t go anywhere. With guns, there might be a chance of reaching a better position than the one we’re in. I think the basic starting point is the right needs to understand the left doesn’t want to take away all of their guns. The left needs to understand the right isn’t in favor of mass shootings or even singular, unjustified shootings. We have a long history of gun ownership and there are an abundance of guns in this country. So both sides need to see if there are changes that can be made that result in a net benefit without all of the demonizing of the other side.