Nothing will make me regret the 2nd amendment.
I used to think like that. Or, I thought I did. In hindsight I think my former more extreme pro gun beliefs were me falling victim to the kind of group think I now see so frequently in others. Everyone around me believed it so id slowly drift into believing it too. Difference is I kept questioning myself and eventually grew out of it.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying the 2nd amendment is a bad thing. I might not be fanatically pro 2nd amendment like I once was, but I still truly believe that nonviolent sensible people, and especially women, have a right to a weapon to defend themselves. I think society should make a way available for such people to defend themselves.
But, if I became convinced that ultimately more innocent people die from enforcing that right with firearm availability than are protected by it, and that the only way to solve that problem was to outlaw their possession, I'd support it.
Im just speaking hypothetically though, I don't think that's the case in reality, but truthfully I don't know for sure. I think it's more likely that such people's rights to possess weapons can be retained and still keep society safe by better gun control. Gun control that works, that is people focused and evidence based, as opposed to gun focused and emotion based.
One viewpoint I think is very naive and misguided is the suggestion that ordinary people shouldn't ever be allowed to own weapons as a general principle. I wonder how many of those people have ever actually been in a situation where someone was trying to hurt them, or worse. And that sensation of utter terror and powerlessness that goes with it. I wonder if they'd be so willing to give up their right to have a weapon to defend themselves so quickly if they had.
But of course, my whole point has been how emotions cloud your judgment and lead people away from making the best choices, and I admit that what I just said is entirely emotion driven. I'm not suggesting it's actually a food argument for opposing gun control or anything like that. I'm just talking about how apathetic some people are. Just as bad if not worse are the ones who express an attitude that if you have or want to have a gun then you're weak.
Honestly I find that sentiment borderline sexist in how totally oblivious it is to the fact that not all of us are strong 20something men able to hold our own against such a person. Not to mention such people usually don't know anything about self defense or fighting themselves, it's just a lazy and poorly thought out appeal to masculinity.
I think there's a lot that are genuinely interested in helping society, but like with climate change theres too many that don't want there to be a discussion at all because allowing any discussion will lead to a rational solution that naturally opposes their personal and financial interests and goals. Its far too easy to straw man anyone that disagrees with them as somebody that wants to take away everyone's guns, and that's exactly what DOES happen, all the time. I don't know a single person that thinks everyone should unequivocally give up their right to own a firearm nor have i ever heard a single person honestly argue for that. Just like with another hot button issue, "gun control" is not "everyone should give up their guns", gun control is that there should be regulations to ensure people are responsible and trained enough to safely and responsibly own firearms before being allowed to own them, and that's it. Its not a perfect solution because those don't exist, but arguing that we shouldn't do anything because it won't be perfect and flawless is the nirvana fallacy.
Also, this isn't exactly a gun control debate thread, but general gun debate, which includes gun control but that's not the sole discussion.
And ofc the obvious and easy solution is for everyone to give up their guns, but that's an unworkable solution that isn't feasible.
I would say there isn't much risk of discussion resulting in a rational course of action. Yes some people try to avoid the discussion entirely, but even when it's had it's virtually never sensible and rational.
Yes, in the US it's very rare for someone to outright say they think all guns should be banned, but that doesn't mean they aren't being unreasonable and extreme.
It's very common for the anti gun side to show profound disrespect to people on the pro gun side, by mocking their beliefs, mocking their hobby, etc. You can't get compromise if you show your political counterparts no respect.
Then there are the actual compromises that are suggested. They almost always involve stopping people from buying this sort of gun or that sort of gun. Usually arguing that "nobody needs" it and then mocking them for wanting it. It shouldn't matter if anyone needs it. If people want it, there should be some evidence that stopping them will serve a greater good. And there usually is no evidence. Just assumption.
On top of that, since the anti gun people don't know almost anything about guns, their ideas about what to prohibit often make no sense.
Say, wanting to ban high capacity magazines. It takes so little time to reload as to be of little consequence, but high capacity magazines are unreliable. It's not impossible that more people at the aurora theater killings might have died, but Holmes was using a high capacity magazine and it malfunctioned.
Now I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm saying it's possible, and I'm making the point that this is a complex issue that requires that the people making the laws understand it. It's not as simple as assuming reality is like a Hollywood movie.
Yes, the progun side creates strawmen, they have a vested interest and naturally only see options that don't involve more gun control as the only options. But the anti gun side are no saints either. They've been caught knowingly lying and distorting the evidence. They've been caught creating fake gun advocacy groups in an attempt to divide the gun lobby and splinter the membership of the NRA.
And it's a basic reality that in every place its been tried, it starts with small gun controls and keeps going till almost everything's banned. Death by a million cuts. They aren't entirely unfounded in strawmaning them.
There is much well earned mistrust on both sides, and unlike you I don't think most people are rational about this.
They might have a more moderate overall feel for the issue, but nothing they do or suggest tends to be with an eye towards discovering the solutions. No matter where they stand, they decide what they believe and try to make it happen. They don't discover the solution, they decide the solution then try to make reality fit with it. And that applies to nearly everyone.
