I didn't read the GP comment as political, but using logic and referencing facts to support their point.
e.g.
> I will advocate for armed guards at schools to help dissuade would-be shooters from attempting anything. I would also advocate for the abolition of "Gun-Free Zones" as they only advertise to criminals that nobody is likely to be armed in these areas.
That seems logical to me. Who will adhere to Gun-Free Zones? Only law abiding citizens. The murderers will walk in there with a gun or a machete and do their thing knowing there won't be anyone equipped to effectively stop them.
Yes, the population at large will politicize these issues, but in the context of this discussion here on HN, why not try to be better and avoid politics as much as possible. Instead, discuss on the basis of logic and facts. I think HN in general, does this better than other online forums (e.g. Reddit). Not perfect of course, but better.
That you right off the bat accuse the GP of being political for expressing a viewpoint and supporting their arguments with logic and facts inhibits open discussion and ironically is a catalyst for politicization of the issue.
Proponents of firearms always seem to fall back on the same argument against a ban:
“Take the guns away and the bad guys will be the only people armed”.
This isn’t true though. Guns are used to shoot people because they are available, not because they are legal.
In the UK it is still possible to acquire guns illegally, but they are rare and difficult to come by. There were only 28 homicides from shootings last year.
If you just make it a lot more difficult to acquire a weapon the shootings disappear.
> Guns are used to shoot people because they are available, not because they are legal.
It's fairly easy for Italian citizens to obtain a gun (they need permits just like US), yet their mean death rate from mass shootings is one of the lowest, (lower than UK's) [1]
The problem with changing US gun culture is, right or wrong, the Second Amendment has been literally foundational to our history and culture.
If people disagree with the second Amendment, then it needs to revoked or changed. Until then, it's the law of the land. Changing the second Amendment won't happen. There isn't enough support for that in this country. A half-solution of restricting guns ties the hands of the good guys and empowers the bad guys.
> If people disagree with the second Amendment, then it needs to revoked or changed. Until then, it's the law of the land.
I own eight firearms, including a semi-auto centerfire rifle and autoloading shotgun. None of them would be banned under the original terms of the FAWB. My Second Amendment rights would perfectly intact if we brought it back, even if we omitted the grandfather clause.
I guess there's always a world where we bring it back and criminals 3D print high capacity mags for Model 740s but we have to start somewhere.
It's literally an argument about guns. The poster literally said pictures of dead kids wouldn't change their minds, and then made pro-gun comments.
On a thread that was supposed to be about how guns are so political that no one will ever change their minds.
That was my point. I don't care if they argued with logic.
They were making the point for op by just entirely skipping past the original argument (gun is political and no one is changing their minds) to talk about their stance on guns.
To me, politically encamped means that you have decided upon a viewpoint without much thought. You sway one way because it's the position of your "camp" or tribe. And because of that you won't change your mind.
"pictures of dead kids wouldn't change their minds" does not necessarily fit the definition of political encampment. If they won't change their mind because it would go against their party's line then they are being political. If they won't change their mind because they believe their stance is correct (based on logic, facts, morality, etc) and/or the other alternatives are wrong (based on logic, facts, morality, etc) then that is not political.
I guess your saw encampment in the GP's comment? I didn't.
e.g.
> I will advocate for armed guards at schools to help dissuade would-be shooters from attempting anything. I would also advocate for the abolition of "Gun-Free Zones" as they only advertise to criminals that nobody is likely to be armed in these areas.
That seems logical to me. Who will adhere to Gun-Free Zones? Only law abiding citizens. The murderers will walk in there with a gun or a machete and do their thing knowing there won't be anyone equipped to effectively stop them.
Yes, the population at large will politicize these issues, but in the context of this discussion here on HN, why not try to be better and avoid politics as much as possible. Instead, discuss on the basis of logic and facts. I think HN in general, does this better than other online forums (e.g. Reddit). Not perfect of course, but better.
That you right off the bat accuse the GP of being political for expressing a viewpoint and supporting their arguments with logic and facts inhibits open discussion and ironically is a catalyst for politicization of the issue.