Ors Might wrote:Tobleste wrote:
I do think we should put thought into the topic. Serious thought about how to prevent gun violence. Unfortunately including (most) gun control opponents in that discussion is like bringing a priest to an orgy. They would rather the whole thing was cancelled and they certainly won't contribute. As I've said before, I won't discuss this with you because my aim is to prevent gun violence. Yours is to prevent gun control. I can accept gun control if it leads to less gun violence. You would not accept more gun control if it led to less gun violence and would possibly accept the reverse.
I'm probably repeating myself for the third or fourth time at this stage so if you want to try and goad me into arguing, insult me or just say I'm wrong you can refer to my previous posts to know how I'd respond.
Or we refuse to limit the rights of others if there are other solutions? You understand that’s a possibility, right? That gun control isn’t the only way to tackle gun violence?
I know it isn't the only option but I hear far more from conservatives about how awful they think gun control is than how great mental healthcare reform would be and that's normally after they've given up on the "let's not politicise this" line. I doubt you'll actually read what I posted earlier but as I said to WRA, opponents to gun control focus on arguing against gun control after mass shootings. They don't discuss these other, supposedly great options. They instantly shut down and deny any possibility of gun control working. If they really thought other options would work, they'd be pushing them. Instead they push back against gun control.
To repeat myself: to gun control opponents, Gun Access > Public Safety. Stopping Gun Control > Stopping Gun Violence.
That doesn't mean gun control opponents don't care about the victim of gun violence, it's just that they care about their own gun rights far more.