Serious Questions For Those Who Oppose Gun Laws

[SecularMotion]

In the wake of the latest example of America’s ridiculous and indefensible gun culture, a few questions for those who perpetuate this idiocy:

If an armed society is a polite society, then do you agree that the problem in Chicago is that there just aren’t enough guns?

In which of two fantasy worlds—one where everyone had a gun, and one where no one had a gun—would more people die by violence?

How do we tell the difference between an Open Carry activist and a murderer who just came to the fast food place to kill as many people as possible? Do we just wait until they start shooting?

http://www.chicagonow.com/dry-it-in-the-water/2015/08/serious-questions-for-those-who-oppose-gun-laws/

[liberal N proud]

1. Great questions

I will be interested to see how the gun nuts respond.

I am sure they will have to consult the NRA before responding.

[GGJohn]

7. Right away with the insults.

Pathetic.

[Eleanors38]

13. I don't believe you or the quoted one in the OP are serious. nt

[liberal N proud]

16. Another special talent...

The ability to tell ones seriousness based on a few words. This forum is full of special people.

[sarisataka]

18. You think that's special

Check out this group
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262
From a few words they can tell you your fears, motivations, racial views, skin color, body mass, courage, educational level, sexual prowess and genital size.
I know I'm missing a bunch but it is hard to keep track of all their talents.

[Eleanors38]

34. A lot of experience judging from the "activist" visitors!

[ileus]

2. Some folks are just goofy turds.

You can tell an OCer from a soon to be active shooter by looking at him/her.

Is the firearm in a holster on his side? Open Carrier.
Is the person with friends and family smiling and having a good time? Open Carrier.
Is the person non-threatening? Open Carrier.


It's really easy to tell if you're not a "guns kill people" dimwit.


The guy intent on poking holes in folks is pretty easy to spot, just look at the 100's of youtube videos from security cameras. Or use common sense.

[TexasProgresive]

3. If the guy who is intent on killing people has any smarts

he will scan the crowd and target the O.C. people first.

[daleanime]

4. Yes, some people are....

[liberal N proud]

9. You must have some special talent

What, do the good cowboys wear white and the bad ones wear black?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. Unlike the Controllers who just carry the default assumption everyone wears a black hat

Except for the police who will hold an unchallenged monopoly on power. They are to be trusted implicitly and without question.

[liberal N proud]

15. Unlike those of us who don't have a special talent and can't be certain who is the bad guy

And don't want to live in an environment where you have worry about the special talent detector shooting first or the guy in black shooting. Either way we don't want to get caught in you little shootout.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. Where I live lots of people carry, every day. No special talent required to not fear them.

[liberal N proud]

19. Until one of them loses it.

See you in the news!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. Why would one of them "lose it"?

[liberal N proud]

25. Oh dear

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. You seem upset others aren't sharing your delusions. Try to not "lose it."

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. Excuse the intrusion

Are you aware that law enforcement tends to shoot the wrong person a lot more often than civilians do?

[beevul]

23. That pretty well explains why you lot want to stick it to everyone, rather than just the criminals.

That pretty well explains why you lot want to stick it to everyone, rather than just the criminals.

Because you can't be bothered to examine the actions that separate one from the other, or to understand them.

[liberal N proud]

26. And what "lot" would that be?

Sounds like you pre judge everyone.

[DonP]

30. So pre judging is bad ... except for you pre judging all gun owners - ironic, ain't it?

Its fine for you to project some twisted vision where any gun owner can just "snap".

Even though none of these criminals actually did that, they all had long histories of erratic behavior that went unmentioned and untreated by family and friends.

But pointing out that "you lot", e.g. gun control fans, who want more laws that won't address the very crimes you're decrying at the moment is bad.

Good thing gun control has proven to be ineffective or you lot might be a problem. Thankfully you don't seem to be able to get anything done in the real world. And your "impact" is limited to whining online and getting a post hidden now and then.

Have a swell day and keep up the good work.

[beevul]

32. Since you just cleared the bases...

I guess I don't need to take a swing at that one after all.

[DonP]

33. Sometimes the irony is so thick you need a bow saw to cut through it

I also just noticed that one of the absentee Hosts of the "other group", is up in ATA again, demanding that we be immediately purged from DU as not "True Democrats".

It's the one that I'm pretty sure hangs out in coffee shops to dispense his gun control wisdom to eager undergrads, not the Calculuz Teacher, he's gone again, the other hypocrite who can't be bothered to post in the group he demanded.

I wonder if Skinner cuts a notch in a tree in his yard every time that happens?

If he did all his trees would be on the ground by now.

[beevul]

35. WOW, I hadn't seen that.

I also just noticed that one of the absentee Hosts of the "other group", is up in ATA again, demanding that we be immediately purged from DU as not "True Democrats".

"Its just SO unfair that people say things we disagree with, maybe if we call those things 'right wing' we can shut them up somehow".

I was juried for replying to this:

Yet 99.9% of firearms will never be used in a crime, and 99.9% of firearm owners are responsible, law abiding citizens.

With this:

Inconvenient facts, those.

Somehow, it has to be unfair for you to bring them up...or something.

Besides, you know the drill:


The 99+ percent that don't commit gun violence have blood on their hands for the actions of the less than .1 percent, and should be shunned, ridiculed, lambasted, mocked, belittled, and in every other way hassled, because guns.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027120820#post4

I guess the truth hurts, fortunately, the jury did not see things the alerters way:

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is NRA propaganda. You can choose to let this kind of shit slide, or you can take a stand, DU. We shouldn't be having a debate with these people, who are as Republican as they get. That's what Disscussionist is for, not DEMOCRATIC underground. If you stop them from posting these right wing talking points that could've come straight out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth, maybe they'll take their shit elsewhere.

Your choice, jury. Do you want this to be a place for right wing nonsense, or will you take a stand?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Aug 29, 2015, 03:16 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: DU is a discussion board, and this is relevant discussion. If you don't like the comment, you have options: read and think about it, reply, question, argue, pass on by, or Ignore the user. The Alert button is not a substitute for the Reply button.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Dear alerter, nonsense.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation:
A debate requires both sides
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Note the identical talking point. You ever notice, that its never a regular DUer that complains, but always the doctrinaire anti-gun folks??

[DonP]

36. Well that alerter is now out of the thread

I guess they tried twice with the same complaint.


ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is NRA propaganda. You can choose to let this kind of shit slide, or you can take a stand, DU. We shouldn't be having a debate with these people, who are as Republican as they get. That's what Disscussionist is for, not DEMOCRATIC underground. If you stop them from posting these right wing talking points that could've come straight out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth, maybe they'll take their shit elsewhere.

Your choice, jury. Do you want this to be a place for right wing nonsense, or will you take a stand?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Aug 29, 2015, 02:02 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's a civil post and some Democrats choose to legally carry guns. Not me.

Besides, "you can take a stand" sounds too much like actual NRA propaganda.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Opinions vary. Nothing wrong with these posts.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hey Here's an idea alerter, a lot of Democrats own guns and they don't need a junior league DU keyboard commando treating them like they're second class citizens. Ether shut up and do something in the real world about repealing the 2nd amendment and changing the Democrat platform that confirms the 2nd, or stop trying to hide every opinion you don't agree with.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While I agree with the alerter's sentiments, I don't think this rises to the level of a hidable post.
Alerter, use some of this passion to argue your point in the thread.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[beevul]

37. That was a second alert on that same post??

If that is an alert on the same post, by a different poster, that's direct evidence of organization and collusion to game the jury system imo.

I think that's a thread that needs some tugging on.

[beevul]

39. You don't by chance have the link to which post that alert was on do you? N/t

[Duckhunter935]

38. I see that now

Talk about whining, lol. Skinner shut him down once again!!

[beevul]

40. In other news..."Socks Gone Wild"...

Theres a "Socks Gone Wild" presentation in GD...

10 posts in GD: P - the first 10...then seven strait posts of old news in GD, about shootings.

I smell dirty socks.

[Duckhunter935]

42. would not surprise me

some do not seem to follow the DU rules very well and must be very disrespectful of the admins to do that.

[beevul]

43. Short lived.

The sock, and the posts, have been hung out to dry.

It makes me wish I had access to IPs for a short time, to investigate my suspicions.

[sarisataka]

44. They have been

send back to their bridge

[beevul]

45. I'm about 90 percent sure...

I'm about 90 percent sure that its only the sheeps clothing that was relegated back under the bridge, and that the wolf remains.

[sarisataka]

46. I don't doubt that you are correct

[Duckhunter935]

59. I see he is still whining to Skinner

the first shutdown was not enough and he had to respond.

[DonP]

60. Hates the 2nd amendment, not too keen on the 1st or 5th either

Whines and demands a safe haven group for his petulance.

Gets it, stays fired up for about a 3 weeks, loses interest and chases another shiny piece of tinfoil for a year or more and never posts in his own group.

Then, announces that he is "recommitting" to the cause when everybody starts going to his safe haven group. I'm sure he's still waiting for the gratuitous applause from the peanut gallery.

Then, demands (again) that Skinner get rid of all those "Right Wing Nut Jobs" down here, so he doesn't ever have to deal with any difference of opinion.

Skinner is always very patient with them, like a grown up dealing with a spoiled child that doesn't understand the concept of "no".

He's a weasel of the first order and based on their track record, a dismal failure as a gun control supporter.

Try asking him what he actually does, besides whine in coffee shops and the grad student lounge, to support gun control. I did a while back.

"I vote my conscience about gun control" Yeah, that is having a major impact on the laws.

Nada.

[Duckhunter935]

61. one word....

[liberal N proud]

41. NO - I was saying you can't tell which one is going to snap.

You said you could tell the good from the bad.

But since I have an open mind and don't pre-judge people it is impossible to know who is going to pop and pull a gun

But since you are good at twisting what others say, you have judge all those calling for some control.


Cleared the bases ha!

[DonP]

47. Sure you were. Why you'd never stereotype or pre-judge gun owners, right?

Sorry, I checked and nobody believes you, based on your posting history here.

Don't have such an "open mind" that everything falls out when you lean over. That's a big problem with gun control folks. They are open to everything ... except talking to and cooperating with actual gun owners about what might really work to reduce crime and violence (which is still at historic lows).

But be sure and let us all know what you are doing in the real world to make your gun control dreams come true?

I'm sure you're not like most gun control posters on DU, just sitting around posting online and celebrating when you get a post or two hidden. You must be pretty active in the control movement right?

Share with us the many things you do to get more gun control laws enacted, Petitions to repeal concealed carry in your state? Attending Town Halls and Zoning meetings and speaking up about new shooting ranges going up? Demanding gun safety course be taught in your area?

We'll all be watching to see if you actually do anything besides just post about it.

[liberal N proud]

49. I don't pre-judge anyone

That is one of the qualities of being liberal. Live and let live, but not live and let kill.

But you and most on this thread have misinterpreted most of what I said

Not sure why I keep trying to have a civil discussion in this forum? Everyone is too damn defensive and aggressive about their need to tote guns.

[DonP]

56. Sorry, yes you do, all the time

Ummm, where are the examples of your work in the real world top support gun control? I didnt see them in your response? Maybe I missed them?

Don't tell us you just whine online about it and are too lazy to get off the couch and do anything about your deeply held gun control beliefs?

Sorry, you make a habit out of pre-judging others with your "anybody can snap" crapola. You just can't see it for what it is. Try substituting "Black" or "Gay" for "gun owner" in any of your posts and see how it sounds.

You're really kidding yourself if you think you are being "open minded and tolerant", based on just this thread, you are anything but.

But that's OK, just accept that you are a judgemental sort that is comfortable passing judgement on people you don't know with different opinions and interests.

It's not like your prejudiced, based on limited experience or anything.

We'll be sure to keep pointing that out to you with every new post down here.

We're all looking forward to your posts about your gun control activities in the real world.

[beevul]

48. And yet we know, historically, how many do and do not 'snap'.

You said you could tell the good from the bad.

Its called observing peoples actions and behavior. Folks who are 'peoplewatchers' understand this.

But since I have an open mind...

I've seen some examples of your openmindedness:

"My anti gun side..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027025962#post2



"Advocates of the gun will deny that word means "REGULATED"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022749029#post77


"...these killing machines."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101791167#post23

Yeah, that sure is some openmindedness there.

Moving right along:

...and don't pre-judge people...

I've also seen some examples of you not pre-judging people:

... gun nutters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172152023

Moving right along again:

...you have judge all those calling for some control.

Pot meet kettle.



Besides that, you aren't just wanting 'some gun control', you support a ban on the least misused most popular rifles in America. Don't bother denying it, its there in the links for anyone that wants to look. The question is, is that all you want to ban or is there more?

[liberal N proud]

50. Don't put words in my mouth

Because you have no fucking clue what I want!

[beevul]

54. Don't I?

I don't even darken the threshold of the Gun Nut forum on this site.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022008390#post9

And yet, here you are. That speaks to your honesty , now, doesn't it?

We're just supposed to believe you, though, right?

Anything that can fire more than 10 rounds is excessive.

I guess you didn't mean that huh?

And we thought we got rid of organize crime

In reference to the nra.

And that is the whole problem - their right to carry and kill trumps their victims right to life

That's dangerously close to 'blood on all their hands', careful!

The Gun Nut forum has been here a long time. Most of us just avoid the discussions until recently when the time has come that we stand up for our children against the gun nuts.

Children vs guns, your premise.

We will ban pressure cookers but not guns?

How stupid we are!

Yeah, you're not interested in banning guns no sir.

Well regulated could be restrictions on certain types of weapons

Newsflash: Amendment 2 and indeed the bill of rights itself, restrict only government.

Could just change the one to Gun NUTS

That's you, speaking about this group.

I have so many other thoughts about this group, but I can't use them.

That's you speaking about this group again.

Until the gun nuts are wiling to have a civil discussion, nothing will be done.

That's you, claiming want of a civil discussion, after referring to 'gun nuts', in a thread more or less about the AWB and sandy hook.

The gun nuts are extra nuts

Tell us more this civil discussion you claim to want.

Because you have no fucking clue what I want!

Don't I? I think it can be quite reasonable concluded, from your own words above, what you want.

I could go on. For a long long time, too. Theres no shortage of you saying things like above.

[liberal N proud]

55. Starting to look like a stalker.

But I will reiterate it is impossible to have a civil discussion on this topic because gun nuts are aggressive. And the aggressiveness goes to the tag nut!

But please continue, it will keep you occupied for a while and then we will know where you are!

[beevul]

57. I bet you say that to everyone you can't bully.

But I will reiterate it is impossible to have a civil discussion on this topic because gun nuts are aggressive.

If you define 'agressive' as unwilling to be pushed around or bullied, unwilling to stay silent while being dealt with in a dishonest fashion, and unwilling to accept anti-gun lies and misrepresentations, then you are absolutely correct.

The first sign that you are uninterested in a civil discussion, is your historically demonstrated unwillingness or inability (I'm not sure which, maybe you can tell us) to be civil.

You don't just get to run around name calling and labeling us, then cry foul that we are the ones not being civil, and not have your own incivility pointed out.

Sorry.

Don't like someone taking a slightly less than cordial tone with you? Fine. Then don't show up on a threshold you claim not to darken loaded for bear with snide snark and condescendion. No one's going to handle you with kid gloves when you lead off by being an ass.

Or do go ahead and pull that shit...but then don't be a hypocrite and whinge when you get a little back in return, m'kay?

(All you LP)

[hack89]

5. It would seem to me that Chicago's gang culture is the problem

care to bet that the distribution of gun deaths in Chicago does not match the distribution of guns?

[gejohnston]

6. my answers

If an armed society is a polite society, then do you agree that the problem in Chicago is that there just aren’t enough guns?

It isn't how many guns, it is who has the guns. In Chicago, it is only the bad people killing each other over money and another banned substances like heroin an cocaine.

In which of two fantasy worlds—one where everyone had a gun, and one where no one had a gun—would more people die by violence?

History archaeology shows that the pre gun world was very violent and rife with political repression.

How do we tell the difference between an Open Carry activist and a murderer who just came to the fast food place to kill as many people as possible? Do we just wait until they start shooting?

Anyone who is half way observant knows anything about human behavior can.

It isn't either or. There are an almost infinite number of reasons why place or time A is more or less violent than time B. To assume the existence of one tool would actually make a significant difference is the mark of either a shallow thinker or an ideologue. Or to use Piers Morgan's words "a very very stupid man"

[sarisataka]

8. I don't oppose gun laws

But I do oppose ineffective laws.

Still I'm always willing to help. What are your questions?

[virginia mountainman]

10. I still can't figure out where anti-gun folks get that

anti gun control folks want "EVERYONE" to carry a gun?

That is one of the biggest "Red herrings" in the anti-gun advocate's quiver of bent arrows .

Do they seriously believe that if pro gun folks get their way that THEY (anti gun folks), will be required to have a gun, and carry it??

[Eleanors38]

11. The questioner isn't "serious," he/she is just spewing the usual. Trash this.

[spin]

20. The problem in Chicago is illegal guns and the warfare between drug gangs ...

fighting over turf. More legal firearms might cause a slight decrease in violent crime but would have little or no effect on drive by shootings. Better enforcement of existing laws or the legalization of certain drugs might do more to stop gun violence in Chicago than disarming honest citizens.

Obviously if there were no civilian owned firearms, legal or illegal, there would be no gun violence. Unfortunately any attempt to confiscate all firearms in our nation might lead to even more violence than we have today as it could cause to a revolution that would split our nation down the middle in the end. At the least many otherwise honest and productive citizens would end up in prisons for simply refusing to turn their weapons over to the government.

Many states do allow open carry without significant problems. All states permit some form of concealed carry. How do you tell the difference between a person legally carrying a concealed firearm from a person intending to misuse it?

In passing while we do indeed have a gun violence problem in our nation it has decreased significantly since the mid 1990s despite the skyrocketing sale of firearms in the same time frame and the spread of laws permiting the legal carrying of firearms in public.

MAY 7, 2013
Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
Pace of Decline Slows in Past Decade

BY D’VERA COHN, PAUL TAYLOR, MARK HUGO LOPEZ, CATHERINE A. GALLAGHER, KIM PARKER AND KEVIN T. MAASS

National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. Beneath the long-term trend, though, are big differences by decade: Violence plunged through the 1990s, but has declined less dramatically since 2000.

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

[krispos42]

21. How do you tell the difference between a guy in a coat...

...and a guy in a coat with a couple of hidden guns, who just entered a fast-food restaurant to kill as many people as possible?


No visible gun does not mean no gun... it just means no VISIBLE gun. I await your side to start pre-emptively attacking people in bulky clothing because you can't tell the difference. Go on, show me the courage of your convictions...

[virginia mountainman]

31. No joke....nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. So when do we get the serious questions?

[Buzz cook]

51. I see that no one answered the Op's questions

Is an armed society a polite society? Would that mean that levels of violent crime would decrease if everyone in Chicago were armed?

In which society would one expect to find less violent death; one with no firearms or one with everyone armed.

The third question got some responses, but it allowed room for equivocation. How do you tell the difference between a bad guy with a gun and a good guy with a gun? That of course leaves out the clumsy,reckless, stupid, or just unlucky, men with guns.

[branford]

53. Post hoc ergo propter hoc

We don't accept the questions as presented.

For instance,

If an armed society is a polite society, then do you agree that the problem in Chicago is that there just aren’t enough guns?

Guns do not cause violence, they are potentially a means to inflict violence, a tool. Would the gangs and other miscreants in Chicago be less violent without guns, or would they purportedly just use guns less in their violence? Large cities like London and Paris in countries with stricter gun laws than the United States still suffer from comparable levels of general violent crime like assault, rape, burglary and robbery as large cities in the USA like Chicago, NYC and LA. It's the reason why plastic cutlery has warnings labels and age restrictions in the UK. Similarly, although two-thirds of death from firearms in the USA are suicides, our suicide rate is comparable (and sometimes lower) than much of Europe, Canada and Australia, and significantly lower that gun control havens like Japan and South Korea.

Since Heller and McDonald expanded gun rights in Chicago, including concealed carry, has gun crime increased in the city, no less from those lawfully empowered to own and carry firearms? Does permitting law-abiding citizens the means to defend themselves under current standards make Chicago more violent or less "polite?"

Simply, you and the OP (or the OP's Google dump sources since he rarely, if ever, actually shares his own thoughts or participates in his own threads) do not set the terms of the gun debate, particularly since the current status quo, polling trends, electoral realities and established jurisprudence favor those supporting firearm rights.

[Buzz cook]

63. Post Hoc doesn't quite fit.

Because the OP wasn't pointing at something that had happened and then claimed that something had occurred because of that happenstance.

He was using the rather silly quote that anti law people use to defend gun ownership and then applying that to Chicago. A simple answer to that question from the anti law side would be that Heinlein was a sci-fi author and what he has to say is irrelevant to the gun law debate.
Instead you and others take umbrage to the question.

1.Since Heller and McDonald expanded gun rights in Chicago, including concealed carry, has gun crime increased in the city, no less from those lawfully empowered to own and carry firearms?

This is a very poorly written sentence. From what I can scan from it you mean, has there been an increase in violence amongst those people who have recently purchased guns in Chicago?
If that is your question my answer is I don't know. Do you?

2.Does permitting law-abiding citizens the means to defend themselves under current standards make Chicago more violent or less "polite?"

If guns are used as a means of self defense and there are more people with guns, then by definition violence would increase. You would argue that the violence in those cases would be justified, but none the less it is violence.
But your question is flawed, because it assumes that all uses of a firearm purchased and owned legally will be legal. The odds don't favor that position.

Simply, you and the OP (or the OP's Google dump sources since he rarely, if ever, actually shares his own thoughts or participates in his own threads) do not set the terms of the gun debate, particularly since the current status quo, polling trends, electoral realities and established jurisprudence favor those supporting firearm rights.

And yet the OP started this thread and in this thread he has set the terms of this thread, is that not so?
Setting the terms of any debate requires that sides agree on those terms. So far on the national level I have yet to see any agreed on terms or even clearly defined sides. The same is true of the micro level here on DU.Then each thread is its own island.

[sarisataka]

58. I offered

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175039
But the OP has failed to respond with any questions. All we have is an opinion piece full of leading questions that starts from a false premise.

[Buzz cook]

62. No you diverted and tried to shift the burden.

There are three questions on the table. Asking questions of your own doesn't answer those three questions.

How you respond is your own choice, take the OP seriously or not, but you can't claim to have responded in good faith by answering a question with a question of your own.

[sarisataka]

64. I think if I am expected

to take my time to answer a question, the person should add a comment or two of their own, not just copy/paste. That effort would show that perhaps the person is actually "serious" and interested in the answers.

Since the OP has made no contribution to the entire thread outside of the copy/paste, which is typical for that poster, it tells me he is neither serious nor interested in the answers.

[juxtaposed]

52. I've had guns all my life. I have bought and sold guns all my life.

I've had guns that are part of the history of this country.
If the state wants to take them to make lives live longer I have no problem with that. I would like to see after they take my guns they get rid of theirs..
Just my thoughts