Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Crazy Talk
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Roadkill Coyote" data-source="post: 2798228" data-attributes="member: 13568"><p>Well, in the first place, I don't have a plan. I have a couple of suggestions, one of which needs a lot of work. But assuming I had a complete plan, Its goal would be to substantially reduce the sort of public mass killings that are driving the gun control debate. You can't completely eliminate the problem, but these spree killings, the ones that dominate the news and drive the debate are intentionally visible and spectacular because the killers are seeking just that media reaction. If we can reduce them, we can remove the popular outcry and cut the support out from under those that do want to register and confiscate. </p><p></p><p>Speaking of registration and confiscation, did you read the third part of my original post? The part where I pointed out that trying to control the means used won't work no matter which one you choose to focus on? I realize that you are implying that my "plan" won't provide 100% safety, and then another will be required. But my suggestions have afar more limited goal than 100%, and they attack the root cause of that limited problem. The real controversy in this thread isn't about whether it would work. The real objection is whether the cost to our freedom would be too high, and whether it would further lubricate the slippery slope of governmental control. Both are very legitimate concerns.</p><p></p><p>I recognize that these are precarious times for freedom. I just believe that the confluence of the attention seeking mentally ill, the 24 hour news cycle, and political demagoguery is a greater threat than the approach I'm suggesting. I think that we are on a tightrope, and stonewalling the issue is the equivalent of freezing in place, which makes a fall less likely in the short term, but far more likely in the long.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Roadkill Coyote, post: 2798228, member: 13568"] Well, in the first place, I don't have a plan. I have a couple of suggestions, one of which needs a lot of work. But assuming I had a complete plan, Its goal would be to substantially reduce the sort of public mass killings that are driving the gun control debate. You can't completely eliminate the problem, but these spree killings, the ones that dominate the news and drive the debate are intentionally visible and spectacular because the killers are seeking just that media reaction. If we can reduce them, we can remove the popular outcry and cut the support out from under those that do want to register and confiscate. Speaking of registration and confiscation, did you read the third part of my original post? The part where I pointed out that trying to control the means used won't work no matter which one you choose to focus on? I realize that you are implying that my "plan" won't provide 100% safety, and then another will be required. But my suggestions have afar more limited goal than 100%, and they attack the root cause of that limited problem. The real controversy in this thread isn't about whether it would work. The real objection is whether the cost to our freedom would be too high, and whether it would further lubricate the slippery slope of governmental control. Both are very legitimate concerns. I recognize that these are precarious times for freedom. I just believe that the confluence of the attention seeking mentally ill, the 24 hour news cycle, and political demagoguery is a greater threat than the approach I'm suggesting. I think that we are on a tightrope, and stonewalling the issue is the equivalent of freezing in place, which makes a fall less likely in the short term, but far more likely in the long. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Crazy Talk
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom