This is why I didn't bother commenting on you suggestion that outlawing gun wouldn't reduce the number of mass killings.I'm beginning to think that this mindset isn't actually unusual or unprecedented. We throw out any kind of reason, plan, or ideology in favor of a vague personal loyalty all the time. Moreover, is this really any different from the "I'll always support the Democrat in an election" mentality? The only difference is that now it's applied to a single person rather than a party, but I wonder if maybe that's not actually a meaningful distinction.
Was it that or the fact that I've never actually made that suggestion?
It doesn't automatically follow, you might need to ponder it for a split second. If you meant to suggest something other than getting rid of guns probably wouldn't reduce the chance of mass murder you were so unclear that no one should be faulted for misunderstanding you. It also goes back to a conversation from a while back where I said that gun owner that don't admit that they are a greater statistical danger of dying by a gun are hypocrites who are denying the evident reality of academic data, and that every gun owner is the safest and wisest gun owner of all time until they aren't. You're position was that you were in no way less safe because you owned a gun. I find that hypocritical. The only gun legislation I actively support is that all gun sales have go through a rigorous and timely background check. I think I'm the person who doesn't have any dog in the gun legislation fight, I don't own a gun but also believe that the 2nd amendment should allow any citizen to own a gun. I don't believe that you are dispassionate and objective in your views on the subject, I only have my perception of what you've said about it judge your position.To me this is a really shallow look at things, though. I mean yes, if we were able to magically hand-waive away all guns we'd probably have fewer mass shootings. But it doesn't automatically follow that we'd have fewer mass murders. (The prime example is that the deadliest U.S. mass murder in a school was committed with dynamite.)
I mean, I don't see the words "doesn't automatically follow" as being somehow ambiguous. The only hypocrisy I see is your saying that the academic data is unassailable while then accusing me of not being dispassionate or objective.It doesn't automatically follow, you might need to ponder it for a split second. If you meant to suggest something other than getting rid of guns probably wouldn't reduce the chance of mass murder you were so unclear that no one should be faulted for misunderstanding you.
It also goes back to a conversation from a while back where I said that gun owner that don't admit that they are a greater statistical danger of dying by a gun are hypocrites who are denying the evident reality of academic data, and that every gun owner is the safest and wisest gun owner of all time until they aren't. You're position was that you were in no way less safe because you owned a gun. I find that hypocritical.