Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: A recent thread sort of asked why we can't have cogent discussions about guns. [View all]beevul
(12,194 posts)2. Universes...
It's largely because the two sides of the issue live in separate universes with separate rules of logic and laws of physics.
But only one side lives in the universe where people shouldn't sue ford or jim beam because someone drove drunk and killed someone, therefore nobody should be suing gun makers for equally third party criminal misuse of a legal product.
And only one side lives in the universe where the group isn't held responsible for the criminal actions of the individual.
I could be wrong, but the universe I describe, doesn't appear to be the one you reside in.
The problem I see with the criminologist outlook is that it doesn't address suicide and accidents, analogous to ignoring sexual transmission of Zika.
It isn't intended to. Those are the proper purview of mental health care (assuming one presumes they have a controlling interest in the lives of others, I don't) and education.
Of course, 'mental health' care has been branded by people in one of those universes, seemingly yours, as an nra talking point...
There's also the perceived need to 'win' as if decreasing gun violence is a zero sum game, one side having to lose for the other to win.
The problem with that is, that to gun banners, it is a zero sum game , and you know it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
65 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
A recent thread sort of asked why we can't have cogent discussions about guns. [View all]
flamin lib
Jun 2016
OP
Yes, people will reject you if you attribute to them things they have not said and do not believe.
Nuclear Unicorn
Jun 2016
#14
Noting the same "like this one." I do seem pretty leftist, now that you bring it up.
Eleanors38
Jun 2016
#20
I also note this singling out of the NRA in the context of pre-banned RW sources...
Eleanors38
Jun 2016
#22
Reminds me of an incident in H.S. I was a big civil rights supporter, a redneck friend wasn't...
Eleanors38
Jun 2016
#21
Heh-heh. Those were the good ol' days. (Afraid it sounds like an old tale, too.)
Eleanors38
Jun 2016
#25
Wonder why the OP never responded to your question about the book he was reading.
pablo_marmol
Jun 2016
#32
Oh, look. It's another "It's hard to have a civil discussion because you 'people' suck" thread.
Nuclear Unicorn
Jun 2016
#16
Kleck couldn't research his way out of a paper bag with a road map and a razor blade.nt
flamin lib
Jun 2016
#46
Mr. Johnston did a good job on slapping your nonsense down.....but more points:
pablo_marmol
Jun 2016
#55
Yeah and suppressors will save your hearing. Naaa, they just make your gun longer
flamin lib
Jun 2016
#60
LOL - even though pro-control academics have reached the same conclusions re. DGU's.
pablo_marmol
Jun 2016
#48
I still have yet to see many on the gun control side acknowledge the rarity of rifle misuse,
benEzra
Jun 2016
#53
Part of the reason is faith-promoting rumor like the following-note who the author is:
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
#58