As soon as we try to engage in discussion, you call us gun-grabbers, natter on about how we're coming for your guns, and remind us that the 2nd amendment means rights shall not be infringed, and if we want your guns we take them from your cold, dead hands. Debate with people in favour of owning guns can be hard.
So if it turns out that you don't actually mind the right to bearing arms being infringed if a person doesn't pass a background check, then the next question is why to bother with the 2nd amendment at all, why not change it so there's a clearer understanding as to who can own a gun and maybe some restrictions if they're shown to not be safe or trusted.
This is precisely why I will not engage the gun fanatics. I'm happy to have a reasoned discussion with pro-gun types who are willing to work on a solution to this country's gun problem. However, I will not engage those who immediately take the debate to "gun grabbers," "the far left wants to take all our guns," "I want to live in a society where 30,000 people die of gun deaths each year because freedom." The argument that a "good guy with a gun" is the best defense to a bad guy with a gun has been proven over and over and over to be false. The vast majority of these "good guy" stories most people can point to are home invasions and such, but the stories of mass shooter events halted by a "good guy with a gun" are in short supply.
I have a difficult time understanding how their thought-process works, but they're clearly not thinking rationally about this entire debate. There's a great essay in the New Yorker from five years ago that is still quite relevant today. It speaks of the moral choice the gun lobby and the gun fanatics have made to oppose gun control and its heavy cost on our society, particularly in the number of children that fall victim to gun violence.
"[T]hose who oppose [gun control] have made a moral choice: that they would rather have gun massacres of children continue rather than surrender whatever idea of freedom or pleasure they find wrapped up in owning guns or seeing guns owned—just as the faith healers would rather watch the children die than accept the reality of scientific medicine. This is a moral choice;"https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-co ... un-control
Indeed it is a moral choice. It's a failure to see the damage their love of guns is reeking on society. It's a failure to understand that the unfettered right to gun ownership hadn't even been decided until 2008. It's an failure to understand that the gun lobby is using them as pawns to further its own deadly agenda. It's sickening.
They don't have a solution. They just need a scapegoat, and Chicago is one of their favorites.
It's funny. They love to use Chicago as the scapegoat while ignoring all those cities/states with strict gun controls AND low prevalence of violent crime.
Oh yeah, douchebag doesn't begin to describe this guy. From everything I've read, he's a grade-A low life. And, as expected, when it actually came down to it, Mr. Macho gun owner ran from the scene. What a shock...