> The reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch.
Because the anti-firearm crowd won't budge an inch either.
All the evidence points towards gun-free zones failing to reduce violence. Will the anti-gun crowd work with gun owners to expand where law abiding citizens can carry?
> If people can't get sensible gun regulation
Without making this partisan - you can't have strict gun control without strict border control.
Should we try and meet the conservatives in the middle and help them secure our southern border?
This isn't a game or a horse trade, I win one, you win one.
"I'll agree not to shoot your kids today, but only if you let me beat up your cousin instead." That's more or less what your argument sounds like to me. Can we agree that gun violence is a problem in the US, on a level vastly higher than many other parts of the world? Can we talk about how to move towards a society with less gun violence? Let's work together to find things that will help reduce gun violence. I'm willing to give up a lot of things I care about to move that way. You seem to only be willing to head that direction if you get something else you want in return. And it's especially jarring when the thing you want in return seems a to always move things back in the exact opposite direction, expanding access to and availability of guns.
You don't trust "anti-gun people" so you therefore don't want to enact policies that you think will reduce gun violence? You seem to be saying you'd rather have more gun violence than work together with "anti-gun people". I don't understand that, on a fundamental level.
I never said anything about "gun free zones". I'm not sure what they are, I don't know how effective they are, but I don't see how they hurt either. To me, it seems like more guns, easier and cheaper availability of guns, more destructive guns, less strict and less comprehensive / universal background checks are all things that lead pretty clearly to more gun violence. That's why I'm against those things. I'm willing to change my mind. But the NRA is too busy disparaging victims of gun violence.
I really don't see how arming teachers helps. I've heard arguments for it, but those arguments really just don't ring true to me, and it seems that more guns will lead to more violence. I haven't read studies that seem credible and support what you are saying. Do you have any? I've looked, and there is a lot of really contradictory stuff out there. I'm willing to support anything that will reduce gun violence, in general.
I've been thinking about this thread for a while, and I think what bothers me is this. If you think expanded background checks (for example) will help reduce gun violence, why will you only support it if you get something else in return? Why can't we find things both sides thinks will help, and enact those things? Why must you hold those things hostage until you get some other thing that the other side fears will make the situation worse?
> You don't trust "anti-gun people" so you therefore don't want to enact policies that you think will reduce gun violence?
You have it all wrong. I don't believe they will reduce gun violence.
I'm saying if anti-gun people were trustworthy I'd be willing to try some of these policies - then if they didn't work we could just stop them - no harm done.
> but I don't see how they hurt either.
And that's the problem: You are happy to infringe upon a fundamental right without clear evidence that it's a big win for society.
That mentality needs to be opposed at every step.
> To me, it seems like more guns, easier and cheaper availability of guns, more destructive guns, less strict and less comprehensive / universal background checks are all things that lead pretty clearly to more gun violence.
But the actual evidence for these is not at all conclusive.
Because the US doesn't have a cartel problem so they are not going to have the same demand Mexico does. I really do not know where you are trying to go with this.
Mexico has a demand for guns. US has a supply. The guns go south. US cutting its supply will not increase the demand internally to the level of Mexican cartels, and even if it did it is a stretch to think Mexican cartels can run guns as effectively in the US as they do in Mexico.
We have much more enforcement and LEO structure all around than Mexico.
If your solution is a wall at the border you have completely lost me.
> so they are not going to have the same demand Mexico does
The US has a higher demand for firearms than Mexico does - it's just local manufacturing more than meets the local demand.
> it is a stretch to think Mexican cartels can run guns as effectively in the US as they do in Mexico.
They do just fine running drugs and people. I don't see why guns would be any harder.
> If your solution is a wall at the border you have completely lost me.
Gun bans at the city and state level have been found utterly ineffective at reducing violence - in large part because people run guns over the state/city border.
Why would you expect a nationwide ban to be any more effective?
It would still be easy to run guns over the border - just the border now is a national border instead of a state/city border.
Because the anti-firearm crowd won't budge an inch either.
All the evidence points towards gun-free zones failing to reduce violence. Will the anti-gun crowd work with gun owners to expand where law abiding citizens can carry?
> If people can't get sensible gun regulation
Without making this partisan - you can't have strict gun control without strict border control.
Should we try and meet the conservatives in the middle and help them secure our southern border?