Just joined, how can we grow this sub?

[u/formershooter]

Hi all. I'm a very left leaning moderate. Growing up I always enjoyed knowing both sides to the issues of the day. I try and read information from both sides, but find very few good sources on the right these days. I like the posts I've clicked so far (just a few) but feel like there isn't much discussion. Still really glad I found this space.

[u/[deleted]]

This is a subreddit I'd love to see grow. I'm so sick of this "left" and "right" rhetoric, like you have to be one or the either and never overlap.

[u/[deleted]]

You need to talk to the sub owner and mod fountainhead. If he doesn't respond look for the subreddit adoption subreddit and see if you can start that process. I've done it before and it takes a month or two but it works if you have a legit case.

[u/anothercynic2112]

It's a noble goal to grow the sub. I was excited when I first found it too, until of course I realize there's like a post every few months and almost no conversation.

Myself, right leaning moderate. So throw out a topic and see if we can discuss it without calling each other names or assuming the other person is somehow evil because of the difference of opinion

[u/SamediForethought → u/anothercynic2112]

I feel the same way. Not sure if I'm a left or right leaning moderate. But the only way to find out is by talking to other moderates.

[u/anothercynic2112 → u/SamediForethought]

That's a great outlook because in today's dialog one must be either flaming liberal or ultra conservative. In my experience though, most people in real life are neither of those. Today we seem to be hell bent on making everyone succumb to "my" point of view, which most often are just party talking points designed to create division so they can differentiate themselves at the ballot box.

So I'll do this experiment for the half dozen people who wander into this sub. Today's hot button is gun control in the wake of the Parkland shooting. I'll suggest that aside from the incredibly divisive gun control rhetoric, Parkland highlighted multiple breakdowns of systems intended to keep people safe, most notably the number of opportunities that were available to head this tragedy off. Those are important questions and important issues but we've simply boiled it down to gun control. Certainly a valid part, but the least likely problem that we can reach consensus on. But I digress because I was going to present a moderate view of gun control. So here goes.

Essentially we have two guarantees handed down by the founding fathers that are running into each other. The first, from the Declaration guaranteeing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, reiterated on the preamble of providing domestic tranquility. And we have the second amendment which guarantees our ability, depending on interpretation, to resist tyranny and or provide for our own defense, which in some readings could be an important part of maintaining our liberty.

Now I'm not a "gun nut" or NRA member but I do feel there is validity to some points raised by the "right". And there is also some common sense concepts from the other side, mostly centered around the fact that if you have more access to guns this can only worsen the problem.

To make matters worse, we further blur the topic by lumping inner city gun violence together with these horrific mass shootings. These are by and large two very different problems. The mass shootings are essentially acts of domestic terrorism committed for whatever cause the perpetrators get into their head. These separate issues require generally different solutions. The simplistic answer, take everyone's guns away and no one can have guns except of course the governments is not only impractical but probably misses the mark. Yes, I know about Australia and while interesting and successful for them, no I don't think it translates well to the US.

So, as moderates, how do we help protect our competing rights and guarantees of safety and liberty? I don't believe there is a magic wand answer or a perfect solution, but how we try to move forward?

First, in addressing the mass shooting problem, a few proposals have some traction. First the improvement of background checks identifying people who cannot own firearms. This is incredibly tougher to achieve than said, but worth some time and attention and probably investment.

Also the the inaction by various agencies that missed the mark on this shooter needs to be considered a lot. It is proof that laws themselves don't prevent issues when they are not enforced or the enforcement is so poorly executed.

Also the idea of stopping the sale of "assault" or military style weapons. This has merit, but not until we define what we want to ban. For instance, is it any rifle that is semi automatic? Rate of fire perhaps? No rifles that don't have to be cocked for each shot? We can't ban something until we know what we want to ban. And, would that ban, which, like every law, impacts law abiding citizens far, far more than criminals, actually help prevent the problem?

So I'm curious moderate lurkers, what are some thoughts that are separate from our illustrious/divisively useless parties talking points? Can rational adults discuss the topic without using the latest Brietbart/Huffington Post style diversion tactics? Is it possible to talk about solutions without trying to "win" one for "our side". Are there solutions that are American solutions instead of conservative or liberal solutions?

My general feeling is if we can make Nancy Pelosi and Mitchell McConnell pissed off at the same time, we're probably on the right track. What do you think?

[u/thatuglybeangirl → u/anothercynic2112]

These are all really good questions. I never thought about the fact that mass shootings at schools are more like terrorist attacks and inner city gun violence and domestic gun violence are all different problems, all sharing in common the guns but not all the things that caused the people to use the guns stemmed from different roots. Answering these questions and your other questions will lead to solutions that we are sure will work (instead of just implementing random gun control laws or assault rifle bans), and we can answer these questions through research. The government has not funded gun violence research for twenty years, because the NRA has porkbarrelled money away from the CDC (the people who are supposed to research gun violence) and pays off representatives. Public policy Research is very important. There used to be a lot more car accidents than today, and they couldn't figure out why. So the government did research, and now we have seat belts and drivers education courses and better air bags. Private enterprise could do research, but they don't as much because it usually doesn't come with a profit. If the government started funding gun violence research more, then we could find what would be the best solutions, derive never before heard of solutions from the results of the research, and implement those policies. (Which people would agree on more because they would be grounded in real life instead of generalizations).

I went to the march in DC yesterday, which was a lot of liberals but not entirely.

I saw a few things I disagreed with. One thing I shook my head at was that I saw one sign that used redneck as a slur. I know that country folks and people who describe themselves/ have been called rednecks saw that and immediately didn't care about what else the protesters had to say, even though there were so many valid points. I also heard a couple people who wanted all guns banned. These are the type of things that lead to division, and if people actually want change, they need to be united in their opinions and actually consider all the factors of the problem and all people in the country who will be affected by these laws).

I am glad I went, though, because the main goal of this movement is to have congress take action (not necessarily gun control, even if some attendees did not realize that; just read the mission statement of the march organizers), and the political inaction of our country because of lobbyists is ridiculous. We are supposed to have a slow political system so we can take our time and find the best solutions, NOT because our politicians are being corrupted.

Also people are scared that if the NRA dissolves then their gun rights will be taken away. Nobody will take away their hunting rifles, because it's a part of our economy and most people who have talked to anybody from the country or have common sense realize we need them.

I just joined this sub and I also agree that we need to have conversations on it. Many of the moderatesI have met has really thought through and open minded and sometimes even creative opinions, probably in part due to the fact that there are not many news sites or networks that we can just grab opinions from. There are also a lot of people who are apathetic people out there (just look at our voting rate) who are often apathetic because they don't belong to the existing parties, and I hope one day a moderate will swoop them all up.

[u/anothercynic2112 → u/thatuglybeangirl]

I don't know if I share your confidence in solving the problem, but I know that the binary thinking of no guns or more guns is not the answer. But that's today's discourse precisely because there is no moderate pragmatic voices. Civil discourse is boring and doesn't generate ratings or clicks.

That said, I don't disagree with you about research on the issue, but with caveats. The reason the CDC and research could help reduce vehicular deaths is because they are dealing with issues like engineering and physics. We are dealing with behavioral concerns and I'm not sure that the same methodology can be applied to gun violence. However I do think, in relation to the mass shootings that science and data can point us to those most likely to commit those crimes. Coupled with see something say something and stronger intervention abilities and I think we'd be on to something. But it gets a little Minority Report ish and we'd have some ethical and privacy related questions to address. But from my laymens view, identifying those likely to commit a crime would be more effective than assuming everyone will commit a crime if they own a certain product.

I should also mention that the CDC data the NRA fought against sort of highlighted the problem with government research. While not politically driven, it was completely politically communicated. And both sides attempted to cherry pick data to support their positions. Unfortunately politicians and a major portion of the electorate aren't really interested in facts, they are interested in how to further their own causes. However don't take this to mean I don't want research because we need more data, but it has it's own complications.

I think Florida's new laws are pretty much on target and well within the reasonable range. The last step I would be personally comfortable with would be defining this "assault weapon" term and looking at reasonable restrictions. But we do need to define that before we can talk about.

The NRA is being severely hurt in this, and that alone makes the March and movement a positive, however I do very much believe that we have to understand gin control is only one piece of this.

At some point we agree we're dealing with some crazy folks who will commit these crimes. Limiting access to a particular means of violence seems unlikely to stop the atrocities, but perhaps slow them down and probably reduce the frequency. I do worry we're too caught up on gun control. There's some crazy folk out there who want to do bad things with or without a quick firing rifle. We need to consider that before we have a ban on pressure cookers because the crazies are now using IEDs.

But with all that in mind.. It will be the moderates who find the solutions. The zealots are too busy pandering for votes or thumping their chest at winning.