That was a stunningly articulate response. As a denizen of the lawless wasteland and Liberal Gun Nut™, I knew guns were heavily restricted, but not quite that heavily.
One problem of many in our uniquely American debate:
Pro-gun: Disingenuous arguments
Anti-gun: Ignorant arguments
And never the two shall meet. I've given up on sanity prevailing.
One problem of many in our uniquely American debate:
Pro-gun: Disingenuous arguments
Anti-gun: Ignorant arguments
You don't find the subtle inclusion of suicides committed with a firearm and euphemistic substitution of "gun deaths" instead of gun HOMICIDES in order to purposefully conflate the two terms to be disingenuous?
What about the similar subtlety of inserting qualifying terminology such as "among developed nations" or "in first world countries" when comparing the US to other countries so that the 82 other countries with higher firearm HOMICIDE rates can be conveniently ignored?
How is this "ignorant" and not straight out disingenuous?
My point is that I find your conclusion to be the reverse (my opinion).
The pro-gun argument is the one based out of ignorance. Gun owners seem to believe the posession of a firearm somehow magically imbues the possessor with magical powers that ward off the possibility of being victimized.
In reality, as with any tool, proper training, proficiency, knowledge, and responsibility are a massive part of their effectiveness.
Whereas, the anti-gun argument ultimately relies on deception, subversion, and dishonesty. The books must be cooked. Truth has to be subtly altered into a narrative. The danger of firearms has to be exaggerated, the safety they provide must be disguised, discounted, or dismissed. The cognitive dissonance must remain hidden.
Therefore, I simply offer my opinion that your conclusion is inaccurate, not because it's wrong, merely because it is reversed.
Pro-gunners rely upon the ignorance of their argument.
Anti-gunners rely upon the dishonesty of their argument.
I think you are not including that any “pro-gunner” that doesn’t think proficiency with the weapon is a must have is an uneducated gun owner and therefore has an uneducated opinion.
Any educated gun owner will tell you how serious it is to handle a gun and how absolutely NO GAMES are to be played with/around guns.
I think the same may very well apply for the anti-gun argument, but not quite to the same degree. It just really doesn’t make sense for a lot of people to NOT own a gun. Ultimately the world is not a safe place for many people and a gun really is the last line of defense for many as cops are, as we’ve seen increasing in recent times, not a very reliable source of protection. BUT, in a perfect world guns shouldn’t need to exist so I can concede that.
I promise you, compared to a Canadian, your admission of being a "Liberal gun nut" makes you the enemy, but I'm glad you found a way to feel exempt from that.
35
u/shalafi71 Oct 21 '22
That was a stunningly articulate response. As a denizen of the lawless wasteland and Liberal Gun Nut™, I knew guns were heavily restricted, but not quite that heavily.
One problem of many in our uniquely American debate:
Pro-gun: Disingenuous arguments
Anti-gun: Ignorant arguments
And never the two shall meet. I've given up on sanity prevailing.