(06-27-2016, 05:38 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(06-27-2016, 05:01 PM)playwrite Wrote: Unfortunately, you're correct.
I think there needs to be a significant outright win on limitations followed by years going by where the basic right is never serioseriously challenge for everyone to calm down.
Alas, others might want to see the constant serious challenges to stop first. Every time a spree shooter goes into an area where guns are prohibited and spree shoots, the blue politicians inevitably cry out for more limitations on weapons. The two factions just see cause - effect totally reversed, and the evidence is so ambiguous that both perspectives can be and are embraced.
Thus, both sides think there 'needs' to be a victory by their side first.
Don't care who gets the victory first, the side with momentum is as apt to try to steamroll rather than step back and be reasonable. If the goal is reasonable, you'd want to go for both sides being reasonable at the same time.
Preemptive reasonableness?
Not holding my breath.
Pssss, the other side already has their military grade gun platform; what do they want to win more of, bazookas, tanks, ICBM???
Reasonable people, including gun owners like myself, want these high velocity, large mag guns out of civilIan hands and, of course, we're going to get angry every time these f'n things are used in mass shootings because that exactly why we want them gone.