"Gun violence" - Dan the Serene
Whenever I read these two words together I get irritated because they don't mean anything. "Gun" doesn't cause "violence". "Drug War" certainly does, as does "Legal and Illegal Substance Abuse", and "Mental Illness", among other things.
Many people hate and fear inanimate objects, and will abandon logic and reason to attack them. Unfortunately, we'll never be able to address the real problem until it is expressed accurately.
On a related note, is there any other argument outside "unilateral personal disarmament", to use Jeff Cooper's accurate if unwieldy term, that so starkly places those who know what they're talking about on one side and those who do not on the other? Evolution and Climate Change are possible contenders, but I don't think they rise to the level of trying to reason with a hoplophobe (another Cooperism).
It's brief because it's BlackBerry
I can't take seriously any person that uses the terms "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" when supporting the use of those terms in legislation.
That's a definite red flag. See also, using "semiautomatic" when the speaker clearly don't understand what it means.
You mean we shouldn't ban all those semi-automatic machine guns that all the thugs spray crowds with?
Thugs don't follow laws anyway. And as long as there is a request, there will always be a market for anything, even if it's illegal, because it does make profit.
Well, yeah, but that doesn't change the fact that full-auto semi-auto guns don't exist, nor the application of other nonsensical/nonexistent terms. :)
Thugs will also always find how to get their uzis and assoult rifles because they don't rely on legal market anyway. And these guns will be produced because they were invented and they sell. As a producer of anything, would you give up your best selling product? As long as you're not forced to, you probably won't. But no-one will force the manufacturer to do not produce certain guns anymore because, let it alone, they're also needed for war and governments create the right out of this circumstance for such weapons to exist - because they need them for your safety.
Nearly all prototypes (I do not know about all of them) of modern assault rifles and machine guns were invented shortly after WWII, so they are designed for war, and no-one ever stopped this development for a "better mankind", they added fire to these developments because alone of the Iron Curtain, so Pandora's box is already open. There is no turning back anymore - and there is no way to a explain a civilian why they are not allowed to buy a certain gun and an army or a gangster can buy it, if they find a way.
"gun violence", "gay marriage", "pro abortion", "assault weapons" - these are all poorly used terms to define complex arguments.
While I see what you're saying, I don't see how "gay marriage" (or "same-sex marriage") fits into that list, as that item is perfectly rational and not particularly complex. Would it require significant changes in paperwork? Sure, but that doesn't make the argument complex.
Well that one is nitpicking. Marriage equality doesn't make it feel as exclusive. I believe every legal adult should be able to marry any other legal consenting adult or the government shouldn't have the power over the word marriage at all and it's boring old federally protected unions for all.
I agree with you, though I think it's as simple as "Civil marriage for all, with all rights currently granted by states and the Feds to current 'marriage'; religious marriage is completely separate, and confers no legal rights whatsoever." The term "marriage" is too entrenched to change anything to "civil unions"..
I could see that being effective. As long as there is a clear separation of church and state when it comes to people's rights.
Agreed -- and, of course, churches wouldn't be required to perform any ceremony that they didn't want to perform. If they want to be bigoted, that's their prerogative -- but any two* consenting adults should be able to get a civil marriage.
* I'm honestly not opposed to 3+, but that would require a lot more contractual wrangling.
I'm also not opposed to multiple spouses. I think one of the ways to defend against bigotry (in the sense of other spouses not being aware of each other) would be requiring any current spouses to sign as witnesses to the marriage. However, figuring out the taxation and legal paperwork would be a little tricky. However, our government seems to love complicated and tedious paperwork.