You're illustrating the problem perfectly. You have to understand that from the other side, you sound every bit as unreasonable as what you're portraying gun owners to be like. You can say that's crazy or wrong or illogical or whatever. But then you have a choice: you can be self-righteous or affect change, not both. Because neither side trusts the other in good faith. That is the point of the link. You've instead doubled-down on the mistrust while failing to acknowledge that it runs both ways. Funny how when it was inner city black kids, no one cared. The suicide rate for middle-aged white men in the western United States is 44 per 100,000 last year, which is over 14 times the U.S. homicide rate. No one protested for them (on the contrary, they were labeled "deplorables" and then everyone was shocked when they lashed out politically.) But please, tell me more about how the gun rights side has a credibility problem....many who call themselves moderate will accuse everybody else of trying to take away their guns...
You guys have alienated yourselves honestly. How do you expect people who are sick of seeing kids die in school shootings, kids shooting each other at home because their parents didn’t keep track of their guns properly too view you ?
What am I portraying gun owners to be like ? I understand that the article is saying we aren’t getting anywhere because of a deep trust issue. I just don’t see how that solves anything. I have never heard a moderate gun rights person propose any legislations that is a good compromise. If we are going to use the argument that it’s the other sides fault that they don’t do that then there has to be a before. There has to be a time where they did go okay okay maybe we could do this and then get paranoid. I emailed my politicians on behalf of somebody who was against more gun control because I didn’t feel the two sides understood each other about 3 years ago in hopes that they could reach a better compromise. I knew what this article was saying 3 years ago. I sat at home with said gun owner and tried to explain to him that he was just being combative and he can’t be mad at the other side for not seeing it his way when he never really explained it. This article isn’t bringing up anything new or interesting. Hell, I bet if you posted this article 3 years ago I would have agreed that people should be more like me. Now ? At this point there is absolutely nothing I can or will ever do that will convince moderate gun owners that we should do something about the whole toddler killing people in America thing, something I’ve brought up on this site every single time this is in the spotlight. You are well aware that I’ve been pretty moderate and understanding of both sides. I stuck up for him, I emailed my politicians but I’m done. Don’t come at me suggesting I don’t give a shit about black kids getting shot and male suicide rates. You want to throw something in my face ? Tell me about a time you came up with a good compromise on gun control, something that would have worked and actually brought that to an argument. Show me a link about a time you tried that instead of just argued about what words meant. That’s what will change my mind about how much you actually care about changing anything and that’s what might just make me think I shouldn’t have given up on your side.
I posted a link about gun violence restraining orders 29 days ago. I also posted the one you replied to, which is the definition of a good compromise on gun control. Here is a comment I made to you, saying that we should be pulling social issues into the conversation. Here is one where I criticized the Florida legislature's actions on this issue. Here I talk about the need to change the way journalists report on mass shootings, since the current method (I believe) actually incentivizes these kinds of killings. Here I criticize gun manufactures for stirring up fears about more regulation in order to drive sales.Show me a link about a time you tried that instead of just argued about what words meant.
You shared a link about the gun violence restraining orders and then you got into an argument about semantics with somebody who tried to engage you on that thread. This article, which I assume is what you meant by the one I replied to, is probably the first I've seen about a good compromise on gun control however that part didn't seem to be your main focus. The bits you quoted were about how the author is right that you're reluctant to give gun control people anything because it feels like a slippery slope. With the first point of his plan he freely points out that gun control folks really don't want it because of the whole slippery slope paranoia. So it seemed like you agree with the issue he talks about not necessarily his action plan. Let's see that comment, Who ? You want someone else to do it. I was the one who said something of worth in this discussion. All you said was "ya that makes sense somebody should listen to you." The article you posted was about how somebody stopped thinking gun control was the answer. All that stuff is an attempt to move the goal posts and go well ya know it's really mental health that's the issue and somebody else should really do something about that. You said UGH and then called something stupid. I am a two time college drop out with dyslexia and even I don't think that's quite enough to really make people feel like you actually care or want to do something. My ex spent plenty of time saying ugh and saying things were stupid. What he didn't spend time doing was actually trying to influence change in his favour. Both reporting on mass shootings and criticizing sales tactics are all well and good but they aren't really about gun control. They are subjects that most sides agree on and more should be done on them. Unfortunately, they tend to get just thrown around as a way to simply derail a conversation instead of something people actually go out and work on. I think this really gets down to how I feel about this topic. People are tired of just talking and going back and forth waiting for somebody else to do things. Before they did need a compromise, they did need to try and debate with the other side. I don't think they need that anymore though or at least they wont soon. Your government is setting itself on fire and so is the NRA. Nobody really cared about the pro-gun counter marches that happened other than to mock the grown men who felt like intimidating children with their guns. Those are the people speaking on the other side and now that the gun control crowd is making waves you want them to sit down and compromise with you ? Sounds like you missed your opportunity honestly. Here is a comment I made to you, saying that we should be pulling social issues into the conversation
I think that's a great parallel, and is absolutely the problem. It'd be nice to see someone pull the issues together, and use that to get some decent compromise.
Here is one where I criticized the Florida legislature's actions on this issue.
Ugh. (Although FWIW an assault weapons ban is stupid.)
I'm genuinely surprised you can't see how much you embody the problem I'm trying to address. Your criticism is that "talking back and forth waiting for somebody else to do things" is bad, but you're unwilling to give up your own zealotry long enough to think about what might actually work. You'd rather be uncompromising than get anything done, and I can't respect a position that values ideological purity over results. The NRA has nothing to do with me, so I'm not sure why you're bringing them up. That's like saying you won't talk to me about religion because of Westboro Baptist Church. You want to talk about doing something? All you're doing is showing me that I was wrong to think that the gun rights and gun control sides can find common ground, and can listen to each other long enough to find things that will work for everyone. Truth be told I expected this to be the case, at least on this site, but I'm still disappointed. As I said before, you can be self-righteous or actually effect change. It's clear to me which one you've chosen.
I think I made it pretty clear. Three years ago I would have been for this article. Unlike you though I had three years to know your side isn’t going to come around in any real way. This is the first article you’ve posted about compromise after companies themselves chanaged the way their stores will sell guns, after companies dropped the NRA, after a ton of people marched and made it pretty clear this one wasn’t going to be swept under the rug. They don’t need you anymore and now you want to discuss working together ? You didn’t want your seat at the table, you wanted somebody else to do the work and guess what ? They are, you just don’t like who is at the table and you can’t really blame anybody other than yourself for not being represented.
"The first article I posted about compromise," except for the others. And I've cringed every time I even talk about this issue, because I know I'm going to get yelled at by someone like you. But I try it anyway, because it's important to find common ground, and I want gun control advocates to understand the people they're so cavalier about demonizing. It's the only way any progress will be made. I want a conversation, but all I get is being told that I'm either a closeted psychopath or compensating for something. I respond to inaccurate arguments with actual facts, but this too is somehow wrong (unlike all the times people criticize Republicans for playing fast and loose with facts....). But you don't want an actual conversation. You're not remotely interested in understanding where I'm coming from, but then you have the gall to say that "[my] side isn't going to come around in any real way." Compromise to you apparently means I give up what I want, and you give up nothing. You can justify it to yourself however you want; blame the NRA if it makes you feel better. It's certainly easier to vilify someone than engage with them. You're taking close-mindedness as something to be proud of, and have decided that because I disagree with you on this issue in some unspecified way, that I also believe all these other things that I've never said that I do. Then when I suggest compromise, you say that no, that's no good, because it's too late. It's frankly appalling to me that you would rather nothing gets done than something, while simultaneously claiming the moral high ground. Your hypocrisy is beyond disgusting.
You’re still not getting it. I know that, I readily admit to this. What I’m telling you is I used to be on your side. I gave up on you and given recent events I’m okay with that. You don’t take a plea deal when you’re winning, you take it when your afraid you’ll lose. I’m pretty hopeful about the strides this next generation has made so I just don’t think now is the time to try and compromise. You want to compromise now that things are changing. When they weren’t you were happy to patiently wait out the attention it was getting by arguing semantics and calling things stupid. You admitted this when you said you were reluctant to actually rally for change because you were worried what it meant. You aren’t an uneducated kid, you could have made different choices about influencing the world in your favour. I’m not going to feel bad and see you as a victim when you had years to rally change in your favour. It’s like people who don’t vote complaining about who gets elected. Things are getting done though and you know it. The articles have been posted here. You are an adult who went to law school, you had plenty of opportunity to do something and you didn’t. You aren’t some victim now that the world is moving on without you because of choices you made as a well educated adult. But you don't want an actual conversation. You're not remotely interested in understanding where I'm coming from
t's frankly appalling to me that you would rather nothing gets done than something,
You literally have no idea what my positions are on most areas of gun control, or what I have or haven't done on the issue. You've just decided all these things about me, and are content to stick your head in the sand if I try to say anything different. I still remain hopeful that there are enough grown-ups left in the US such that we'll eventually come to a good compromise, provided people like you don't fuck it up for us. You know, there aren't many places in this world where it's possible to actually talk to someone, and hubski has generally been such a place. But with the blind hostility I've gotten on this issue, combined with someone editing tags into stories I've posted, I'm beginning to question that. At the least, I'd considered you among those that make this place a good one to be. It makes me genuinely sad to see how wrong I was.