I was initially disappointed by your insistence that everyone be an expert in firearm terminology before being allowed to argue, but I've come around. If someone wants to "control" something, but can't articulate what they want controlled, there are not arguing for any policy that can be implemented. You may have seen this dialog in "Talking Productively About Guns." https://popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-about-guns Me: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers. You: So what do you propose? Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog. You: Wait. What's an "attack dog?" Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs. You: Huh? Rottweilers aren't military dogs. In fact "military dogs" isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds? Me: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs. You: I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now. Me: You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds. You: What the fuck. Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don't need to own. You: Can we?
I'm having a scary moment. I can't find much of anything I disagree with regarding the major points in this Bill O'Reilly commentary on gun regulation in the US. http://video.foxnews.com/v/4686927800001/the-truth-about-guns-in-america/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips I think this means I am officially old.
Oh that's an excellent analogy. I can understand why someone wouldn't want to learn about a piece of machinery that they are not overly fond of but it is, in my mind, very difficult to take someone seriously when they themselves don't take the subject seriously enough to learn about it. It's a significant advantage that conservative voters have in the debate; it's serendipitously easy to find a picture of an anti-gun advocate talking about gun safety while holding a gun in a completely unsafe manner for example. These aren't the actual focuses of the argument in any way, but they do immediately discredit the opponent and make it seem like they're not willing to make any effort to work on the problem.