Another one in Texas. 7 dead, 10 injured (updated)

[SDGuy]

pdq wrote:
[quote=sekker]
[quote=Ombligo]
[quote=hal]
[quote=Mr645]
https://www.aol.com/news/7-dead-car-runs...00365.html

When will it stop.

you seem to be against using cars to kill people - but have no problems with using guns to kill people. That is a very strange stance to take.
That is not fair. 645 has been very clear that he wants action taken to stop the killing. He just does not believe we need to punish law-abiding individuals or throw out the second amendment. Most here seem to think otherwise, but that does not mean his approach to reducing deaths is invalid.
I think there is a middle ground that seems lost in most threads - those that believe we have too many shootings, and that the Second Amendment does not mean we have to live in a free-for-all.
Which is basically the mainstream Dem position.
But THAT message gets lost amongst the calls to "just get rid of ALL the guns"; this forum would be a microcosm of that...

[pdq]

Will you show us links where anyone on this board has said, and I quote, “just get rid of ALL the guns”? Since this seems to overwhelm the current Dem position, there should be quite a few.

We’ll wait.

[SDGuy]

pdq wrote:
Will you show us links where anyone on this board has said, and I quote, “just get rid of ALL the guns”? Since this seems to overwhelm the current Dem position, there should be quite a few.

We’ll wait.

Well - here and here (both from yesterday, in separate threads, by different authors) and this one from last week (by a third author, in yet another thread) are what I had in my immediate memory. You, yourself, responded to that last one (good on you, for that).

My point is that it does no good to have the extremes diluting the message...you challenged that last one, but if that call for all-or-nothing is NOT questioned, then it defacto becomes the message by acquiescence.

[pdq]

Only one of those specifically states we need to get rid of all the guns. And it was promptly challenged (by me).

Was one post enough to overwhelm you massage of moderation?

[SDGuy]

pdq wrote:
Only one of those specifically states we need to get rid of all the guns. And it was promptly challenged (by me).

Was one post enough to overwhelm you massage of moderation?

you seem quite antagonistic; when challenged, I provided three recent examples (two of which were not in the exact wording, but with the same intent, i.e. "no guns" & "getting rid of guns") which you were certain did not exist. Now you acknowledged what you thought didn't exist was actually there, but then proceed to call me out for it.

[pdq]

…and I quote, “just get rid of ALL the guns”

It was a straw man argument; no one has used those words (and you put them in quotes first, not me). I’ll give you one, as being close; the rest are putting words in others mouths, which gunners do a lot of here.

[SDGuy]

pdq wrote:
…and I quote, “just get rid of ALL the guns”

It was a straw man argument; no one has used those words (and you put them in quotes first, not me). I’ll give you one, as being close; the rest are putting words in others mouths, which gunners do a lot of here.

I think we have to agree to disagree; in my mind "no guns" and "get rid of guns" CAN be paraphrased as "just get rid of ALL the guns"...but outside of that, you seem to have lost focus on my original point - that having the extreme views out there dilutes the more mainstream message; I suspect that you and I may actually agree on more points than disagree, but I can't tell what, specifically, you're advocating for. I assume something that's been done in Australia - but have you ever gone into any level of detail what, exactly, that means?

[pdq]

You can read all about it here: Gun Laws of Australia (wikipedia).

[Mr645]

This is something that can only be done to an unarmed population.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-58021718

[SDGuy]

pdq wrote:
You can read all about it here: Gun Laws of Australia (wikipedia).

You can't summarize your own thoughts? It can't be more than a few sentences to do so. Why are you unwilling to just flat-out state what you are advocating for?