What Researchers Learned About Gun Violence Before Congress Killed Funding

[beevul]

78. Your non-denial denial is a confirmation of sorts.

The facts of the matter, is that those on the pro-control side of the issue with very few exceptions, are interested in controlling the guns themselves. generally, their efforts fall squarely into the "reduce availability" catagory. Whether its ammunition, magazines, or the guns themselves, this is where their efforts are largely directed.

They want to make it harder to get "X".

They generally make no effort to mitigate what happens when someone with ill intent gets "X", however.

That definitely calls their motives into question, whether you like it or not.

On top of that, those same people, in response to a terrible tragedy, foist their anti-gun wishlist on the American people. Their wish list contains almost nothing that would have mitigated the tragedy that they're using as justification for this. In addition to that, they talk about things like "weapons of war on our streets", which is an outright falsehood. Characterize so called assault weapons as "weapons that have one use - killing large numbers of people", yet remain silent when law enforcement call those very same rifles "patrol rifles", and DHS calls them "personal defense rifles".

That further calls their motives into question.

Theres no way to hide those things, and theres no wishing them away. They are what they are. Actions, even proposed actions, speak louder and are more telling than mere words. If you want people that give a shit about their rights where firearms are concerned to step up, the state of all that I mentioned above needs to change - drastically. Otherwise, what you're asking, is for people that give a shit about their rights where firearms are concerned, to add their weight to, and give legitimacy, to that which has none. Read that last sentence as many times as it takes, for you to understand the nature of this divide.

"If you guys hide behind the NRA, which is an extremist group, and allow them to be the only voice out there for your side, you will get what you get. You can rail against me all you want, but the voice for your side is the NRA, which is a bunch of morons. So if there are no responsible gun laws proposed by responsible gun proponents, you will get what you get. Cry martyr all you want, but it will be your own fault."

Yeah, we've been hearing that for I dunno...A decade and then some? How many states have passed concealed carry since that meme first started being thrown in our faces? More than you can count on two hands. Everything that can be done without the support of those who value their rights where firearms are concerned, has been done. The singular reason that folks like you, make these sorts of threats - "you will get what you get" - is because you need us. Need our support. What is truly laughable, is that you act and talk as if we aren't acutely aware of it.

As to the "extremist group" comments...I rather think that in the view of the people that like to throw that particular turd against the wall, hopeing it will stick, that anyone thats not interested in complete capitulation to that wish list I spoke of earlier, is an "extremist". Some posters here think any argument in favor of gun rights is "an nra talking point", and often characterize it as that, or worse.

If, by rejecting the words "reasonable" and "responsible" as defined by those whos wish list contains mostly things which are neither, and rejecting by extension, those wish list restrictions that would have no effect on tragedies such as sandy hook, that makes people "extremists", it may be time to start wearing it as a badge of honor.