Concerning America's mass shootings epidemic

[Shrugging Khan]

Wall of Text.

+1.
It's easy for left-wingers to complain about the NRA and it's easy for right-wingers to complain about Obama. A bit too easy, maybe, since that really does appear to be all anyone ever does in these debates.

[Cyborg]

Before he was even president, Obama was referring to people as "bitter clingers", and his rhetoric has only gotten worse since then - "Terrorists" is one of the nicer things he's called the NRA these past few years. 

References please. For anything you wrote, but I'd like to see one for this sentence.

The great mistake is for people who are not educated about what's going on to say, the left doesn't like the right, and the right doesn't like the left, so why bother?

It's just ignorant. There's a difference between the two. And frankly, anything is going to be the left compared to the Republican Party today. Even a centrist idea is considered liberal next to that.

[Misery]

Wall of Text.

+1.
It's easy for left-wingers to complain about the NRA and it's easy for right-wingers to complain about Obama. A bit too easy, maybe, since that really does appear to be all anyone ever does in these debates.

Well, that's politics for ya.

[Wingflier]

I mean I'm just as weary of the pseudo-intellectualism and political correctness of the extreme left as I am of the religious zealotry and blatant racism of the extreme right. I don't have to choose a side. I see various problems with both sides whether it be 3rd Wave Feminists and Social Justice Warriors or NRA members and conservative Christians. It's all the same extremist ideology wrapped in different packaging to me.

It's just that on any given issue, I might be undecided because there are good arguments from the more moderate populace. I know not all NRA members are extremist just as not all Feminists are man haters, but when the biggest organization in representation of one side of the debate declines the invitation to debate, that ends the debate for me.

The NRA could have suggested a different venue, could have compromised on the rules and structure of the debate, or even asked for their own moderator. I think the President is reasonable enough to abide with some kind of fair agreement. But instead it was an unconditional refusal and surrender. To make matters worse the NRA ended up protesting that Town Hall meeting in which they had been invited to debate on Twitter while it was airing. Firing cheap shots behind the comfort of Internet anonymity instead of addressing the man head on.

Edit:

When the NRA was interview on Fox News about the subject of their refusal, Executive Director Chris Cox stated:

“What are we going to talk about, basketball?” Cox said. “I’m not really interested in going over and talking to the president who doesn't have a basic level of respect or understanding of the Second Amendment or law-abiding gun owners in this country.”

So within the span of 2 short sentences, you have a double logical fallacy.

First a Red Herring. The subject is gun control and gun legislation, not basketball. Why wouldn't you talk about that? You're the freaking NRA.

Second is an Ad Hominem attack, citing the President's stupidity or inadequacy to understand the most basic tenets of the U.S. Constitution, which is more blatant slander.

When interviewed about the same question, Obama responded:

“What I’ve said consistently throughout my presidency is I respect the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms,” Obama told the audience.

During the town hall meeting, Obama denied accusations — often voiced by paranoid NRA members, gun nuts and Republican lawmakers — that he wanted to take away people’s guns.

Obama said charges he’s taking away guns are a “conspiracy.”

“I have been now President for over seven years and gun sales don’t seem to have suffered during that time. I have been very good for gun manufacturers,” Obama quipped.

Anyway, you have two sides making mutually exclusive statements. One of these sides is full of sh*t. I'll let you be the judge.

[Cyborg]

Before he was even president, Obama was referring to people as "bitter clingers", and his rhetoric has only gotten worse since then - "Terrorists" is one of the nicer things he's called the NRA these past few years. 

References please. For anything you wrote, but I'd like to see one for this sentence.

Still waiting for a reference.

[Cinth]

I really want to respond to this but I don't want to write an essay on it.

Let me say guns aren't the problem.  They never were (they were always here and available).  Stricter gun control laws won't fix it either (though some are certainly needed).  It's societal and has been long brewing.  The housing bubble bursting and economic downturn that followed was the catalyst and now we are still in the aftermath effect. 

[Cyborg]

I really want to respond to this but I don't want to write an essay on it.

Let me say guns aren't the problem.  They never were (they were always here and available).  Stricter gun control laws won't fix it either (though some are certainly needed).  It's societal and has been long brewing.  The housing bubble bursting and economic downturn that followed was the catalyst and now we are still in the aftermath effect.

I'm still waiting for a reference. I wonder if there isn't one?

Common sense gun control regulation will help fix the problem.

[Shrugging Khan]

Common sense gun control regulation will help fix the problem.

Common sense isn't all that common; meaning to say that everyone will not be in agreement on what constitutes sense in any given matter.

[Cyborg]

Common sense does exist. Unfortunately, fortune cookie philosophy doesn't take you very far in this conversation.

[Cinth]

I'm still waiting for a reference. I wonder if there isn't one?

Common sense gun control regulation will help fix the problem.

Not a reference from me, that was my first contribution to this thread.

Gun control regulation only hinders regular people who might want to own a firearm for whatever reason.  If you want a firearm in the US there are so many ways around what controls there are, it's silly.  This isn't a problem that you can legislate away.

[Shrugging Khan]

Common sense does exist. Unfortunately, fortune cookie philosophy doesn't take you very far in this conversation.

Common sense exists?
My common sense tells me the most important thing is for every individual to be able to protect themselves, your common sense tells you that it's more important to minimise the need for protection. I'm not trying to be philosophical about it; but is there really not a natural cause for an absence of common sensibilities in the fact that different people have different priorities?

[Cyborg]

- "Terrorists" is one of the nicer things he's called the NRA these past few years. 

Still waiting on those references! 

Humans organize themselves in very recognizable patterns of acceptable behavior that are common across cultural boundaries. Each species, including ours, has a common sense on what's acceptable.

The NRA has bought and paid for the lines from the pamphlet you are all reciting here, about how gun regulations only help criminals. But that's not true. We have had multiple occurrences of persons with mental illness going through legal channels to buy guns with nothing to stop them or flag anyone. If you have mental illness in your home, and you are my neighbor, I don't want you owning a gun. We have regulations around driving cars, traffic rules, medical, legal, taxes, and so on, but for some reason guns are exempt? Only because of the money put into keeping it that way. It's shocking to me that people are willing to go along with bad behavior and having extremely rich people profit over this stuff.

[Cinth]

Having gone back and read the body of this thread, I no longer wish to contribute to this mess.  I'm going to park my happy South Carolinian ass somewhere else.

[Wingflier]

Common sense does exist. Unfortunately, fortune cookie philosophy doesn't take you very far in this conversation.

Common sense exists?
My common sense tells me the most important thing is for every individual to be able to protect themselves, your common sense tells you that it's more important to minimise the need for protection. I'm not trying to be philosophical about it; but is there really not a natural cause for an absence of common sensibilities in the fact that different people have different priorities?

Not to be coy, but how does introducing legislation which makes it more difficult for mentally unstable individuals or people with a history of violent crime, to obtain a weapon specifically designed to kill human beings, prevent you from protecting yourself?

I'm sorry I just don't understand the all-or-nothing attitude. What, we can't have some restrictions on firearm purchasing? It's Libertarianism or Obama is comin to take our guns away?

[Shrugging Khan]

Something like libertarianism, I'm afraid. I'd agree that violently insane people shouldn't be armed, but:
("state" referring to federal or actual state institutions where applicable)

• I don't think the state ought to decide who is or is not too unstable to go armed.
• I think it's a slippery slope towards even more restrictive laws - "There still are shootings, we must tighten the law!"
• I think there generally should be a massive reduction of state responsibilities, while giving lower levels of communal organisation the power to decide these matters.

These reasons, to me, make country-wide legislation further limiting access to arms undesirable.