Ok, maybe I'm looking for trouble and I should know better, but that never stopped me before, so here goes. Some of you may recall I posted after the Florida school shooting, and some took issue. I understand. You guys know I'm a missionary, and I try to follow Christ's teachings in my life, but often fall short. Like Calvin said, I'm a mess and I'm only saved through my faith and God's grace (I'm Presbyterian).

So the point of my post. I believe everything in life is a bell curve, with extreme views on either end, and the probable answer lying in the middle. So for the discussion of guns, on one end of the curve, the Second Amendment allows me to do whatever I want, and if innocent folks/children are killed, that's the breaks of living in a free society. On the other end of the curve, take all guns away, put them in a pile, and melt them to make a statue in honor of Karl Marx (just kidding).

My questions is this-where is the middle ground? I own guns and like to hunt, so I don't want them taken. At the same time, I don't have a problem with some of the more stringent background checks that are unpopular on this board. I honestly believe that a lack of compromise is the biggest issue in this discussion. I also don't believe the slippery slope defense is legitimate, but that's just my thought.

Ok, I've checked my gas can with a lit match. I'll sit back and listen. By the way, regardless, I hope all of you who are believers will celebrate the risen Christ with me this week.

I think there probably is a middle ground that a lot of us on here could still be happy with. The problem is we don't trust "the other side" to EVER be happy with it. The whole "give them an inch and they take a mile" thing. Anything we give they're gonna want more.

And then there's the whole "criminals don't obey the law" argument and the fact that more gun laws only affect law abiding citizens, which for some reason liberals just can't seem to grasp. Murder is illegal, period, but that doesn't stop it from happening.

Fair enough. You've pointed out some legitimate concerns. How do we work to alleviate those concerns?

I am paraphrasing something i read in another thread weeks ago - by restricting (or outlawing) guns you are telling society we don't care if you kill - we just don't want you to kill as many.

Guns are not the issue - it's mental health and desensitizing to violence.

I reject this entire premise. While OPINIONS may be distributed in a bell curve, you assume the optimal solution is in the middle. Why is the average optimal?


In what other statistic is being average the best place to be? Why should we target the middle ground if that's not what's best?

JJMt said:

---

One-Eyed:

Thanks for your response JJMt. I posted some thoughts below, sharing some personal experiences, but not saying they are representative of others.

Just some random thoughts:

1. We're already at "the middle ground". There are already plenty of restrictions on guns and plenty of background checks. Your proposal to find a new "middle ground" is simply one more step down the slippery slope.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don't believe there's agreement on what constitutes the middle ground.

2. You say that you don't believe in the slippery slope. Why not? Isn't it a cliche that has been proven correct more often than not?

Has it? I don't know. But I don't think if something in the past didn't work out, we shouldn't try do address a current issue. That's a cop out.

3. Why are you looking at additional restrictions on guns right now? Because of the Florida school shooting? Why is no one looking at or addressing the plethora of additional issues that are likely involved (psychotropic drugs, breakdown in the family, etc.)? Why only guns?

I agree there are many other issues to work on that contribute to the current culture in the U.S. After our son Holden died, our youngest son went through severe depression, anxiety and acting out in violence. He had seen his brother die in front of him (Holden was severely handicapped and died just after his 18th birthday). I'm 6'2 and about 275 lbs, and still had difficulty with our youngest. At one point after a violent episode at home, holes in the wall, doors knocked down, we called the cops-we could have him thrown in jail or have him hospitalized on a three day observation in the psychiatric ward. We opted for the hospitalization and perhaps one of the most difficult things we've ever done. I'd like to say that things improved as a result, but he still had some tough times after that, but I'm happy to say he's doing a lot better and scheduled to graduate from college soon (Alabama).

How many people make the same difficult decision that we did, or just boot their out of control kid out of their house? I don't know. I do know after we see things like shooters, or the bomber in Austin, we hear neighbors and friends expressing surpise, but I doubt they know what went on behind closed doors at home.

I agree about family issues as well. Too many people expect life to be easy and walk away when it's not. Holden's neuologist told us 90% of couples with a child like him end up divorces. We had our problems, but hung in there. How would our youngest have turned out with regard to his problems if we hadn't?

4. What restrictions would you approve? How do you keep those restrictions from expanding further after the next mass shooting?

I don't know. Which ones would you be willing to compromise on?

5. Why do you trust the other side? Given the extreme polarization in America, and how the media and the leaders of each side are heavily incentivized to keep feeding that polarization, why do you believe that any kind of long-lasting compromise can be reached?

I believe there's a lack of trust all around, fueled by fear mongering politicians on both sides of the aisle. How do we get beyond that? I don't know, but it has to start somewhere, doesn't it? I don't believe anything will improve in that regard until we can move past name calling, "fake news" from both sides and the like.

---

Ok Tony, I'll bite. I was using it as an analogy. But to respond, do you accept that the answer is to do nothing? By the way, I should have said the answer most likely fell somewhere in between the two extemes; that's what I meant, but didn't state it clearly I guess.

I don't wasn't to do SOMETHING, I want to do the RIGHT thing. Giving up freedom just to say you've done something when it won't help the problem is stupid.

Which of the myriad of proposed gun laws would have prevented a mass shooting?


I would love to be able to consider mental health or other possible solutions but the other side wont

Tony, I agree with you. We need to do the right thing, and I don't see how that ever happens in the current climate. I believe both sides have to be able to sit down in good faith and figure out what that is, and anyone who thinks there is only one issue involved is mistake, like others have pointed out. But I also believe to sit down in good faith means everything is open for discussion, don't you?

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

Ok, maybe I'm looking for trouble and I should know better, but that never stopped me before, so here goes. Some of you may recall I posted after the Florida school shooting, and some took issue.

---

I remember you making apparently an emotional argument and ultimately stop posting when you couldn't answer with logic. Yeah I remember.

I get your desire that we should find solution thru compromise on our issues as a whole.

But, and I know this is the OB and not the politics board, we have one side that has clearly stated that they do not believe in the articles of the constitution (electoral college) or Bill or Rights (2a) and are actively trying to impeach and unseat a duly elected president. Not to mention you are a privileged racist and so am I.

That sounds more like an enemy to me than anything. And why would I negotiate my right to a gun, or anything else for that matter, with an enemy?

Quote:

---

I honestly believe that a lack of compromise is the biggest issue in this discussion

---

I agreed with this, however, it's the Left who won't comprise at all. What stupid gun laws get overturned if we agree to some of the "common sense" changes they want? Absolutely none. This is why we can't give an inch

I'm trying a different tactic. I'll be the first to say I don't know the answer. Do you accept things the way they are? Were you outraged by the loss of liberties as a result of the Patriot Act?

I'm trying to be civil and have an honest, intelligent conversation about how two very opposed sides can get past the current rhetoric to work on the matter. By the way, I wasn't trying to hide anything. I mentioned my earlier post of a few weeks ago. Maybe that helped.

I'm glad I made an impression. But seriously, does having a different view on a topic make me a bad guy or the enemy, or stupid? Maybe we just have different views. And by the way, I'm not any of those things, and don't think those things of you.

Hoss said:

---

I think there probably is a middle ground that a lot of us on here could still be happy with. The problem is we don't trust "the other side" to EVER be happy with it. The whole "give them an inch and they take a mile" thing. Anything we give they're gonna want more.

And then there's the whole "criminals don't obey the law" argument and the fact that more gun laws only affect law abiding citizens, which for some reason liberals just can't seem to grasp. Murder is illegal, period, but that doesn't stop it from happening.

---

At the stupid rally this past weekend they came directly out and said they would take a mile if they got an inch. The only compromise the left will make is to not strip everything away immediately, but rather to do it a bite at a time. We don't get anything in return, so no, not willing to budge on this one.

In order to compromise, both sides have to be looking for the middle ground. In this case, one side wants to take away all guns and has said so many many times. If we give ground, we are not going to get closer to the middle ground of an honest compromise, we are just going to get closer to the cliff our opponent is shoving us toward.

My answer? Enforce the laws we have and truly seek to "help" those that are mentally ill, instead of just treating them until they are stable enough to release. In the case of two of the most recent shootings the shooter should have never been able to purchase a gun if government officials had done their jobs. So my response as a gun owner is supposed to be to give up more of my freedoms so that I can rely more heavily on those same government officials to protect me?

In the case of Newtown, if we had an effective means for parents and friends to get Long term help for mentally ill young people instead of just 3 or 7 day holds to stabilize them, the shooting would not have happened. That kid could not legally own a weapon and stole one instead. Tell me again why I should give up my rights because somebody else abused theirs.

Would you favor banning all yelling in crowded places because somebody once yelled "fire" and caused a stampede? No, you punish the person who did wrong, and not the rest.

And lastly, I refuse to accept your premise that this is a "something must be done" situation. School shootings are declining, not increasing, and constitute a very tiny fraction of the deaths of school age kids. If you want to do something "for the kids" ban private ownership of dogs and swimming pools, as both claim far more lives of children each year than school shootings.

A few thoughts:
- First of all, as a poster above mentioned, this is the Outdoors Board, not the Politics Board so let's all try to keep the discussion civil and not get personal.

- Next, God bless you One-Eyed Fat man for trying to have an honest discussion. This topic is right up their with religion, abortion and others that are tough to find any middle ground on. And by "tough to find middle ground on" I mean it is because those topics by their very nature are almost impossible to compromise on.

- And lastly, I think a lot of the wariness about agreeing to further restrictions on firearms is based on the fact that the folks wanting more gun control are not homogeneous. There are in fact some of them that honestly just want some more restrictions and they are done, There are others, including the leadership of the Democratic party, Bloomberg and others that will not be happy and will not cease their efforts until all that is legal is a single barrel break-open shotgun and your allotment of 10 shells a year.

I don't know what the answer is. But I will say, and you allude to it, no solution is comprehensive until we address the mental illness aspect of these shootings.

How do we discuss what to negotiate when the left (you) only brings obstruction to the topic? All I've taken from these debates from the left is "guns are bad". As was stated above, laws don't do anything to change the mind of a motivated criminal.

IDAGG said:

---

A few thoughts:
- First of all, as a poster above mentioned, this is the Outdoors Board, not the Politics Board so let's all try to keep the discussion civil and not get personal.

- Next, God bless you One-Eyed Fat man for trying to have an honest discussion. This topic is right up their with religion, abortion and others that are tough to find any middle ground on. And by "tough to find middle ground on" I mean it is because those topics by their very nature are almost impossible to compromise on.

- And lastly, I think a lot of the wariness about agreeing to further restrictions on firearms is based on the fact that the folks wanting more gun control are not homogeneous. There are in fact some of them that honestly just want some more restrictions and they are done, There are others, including the leadership of the Democratic party, Bloomberg and others that will not be happy and will not cease their efforts until all that is legal is a single barrel break-open shotgun and your allotment of 10 shells a year.

I don't know what the answer is. But I will say, and you allude to it, no solution is comprehensive until we address the mental illness aspect of these shootings.

---

You are kidding yourself if you think they would be happy to allow you to own ANY firearm... They want them all...except for the ones their private security details carry.

Thanks for your comments, IDAGG. Several posters have stated that I've said things which I haven't. And yes, you're correct, lot's of emotion on both sides. My original question was, and still is, how do we find a middle ground?

Then answer mine. How do we(conservatives) negotiate anything with a side that doesn't believe in the constitution or the bill of rights and is trying to impeach a president?

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

Thanks for your comments, IDAGG. Several posters have stated that I've said things which I haven't. And yes, you're correct, lot's of emotion on both sides. My original question was, and still is, how do we find a middle ground?

---

You find a middle ground when both parties honestly seek that middle ground. Until then, you have the same situation as the Israelis find themselves in. The Palestinians are committed to driving the Israelis into the sea, and the Israelis want to live their live without being driven into the sea. Do you honestly think that if the Israelis will just give them a little bit more land that the Palestinians are going to suddenly decide that is enough and stop wanting to kill the Israelis? When the Palestinians honestly seek to find a peace that allows Israel to exist, then there will be room to find a middle ground. Until then, giving any ground is foolish. Same situation US gun owners find ourselves in.

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

Thanks for your comments, IDAGG. Several posters have stated that I've said things which I haven't. And yes, you're correct, lot's of emotion on both sides. My original question was, and still is, how do we find a middle ground?

---

OEFM,

I assume you believe that we live in a fallen, broken world. What makes you believe that we can fix this? It's a heart problem.

agsalaska said:

---

Then answer mine. How do we(conservatives) negotiate anything with a side that doesn't believe in the constitution or the bill of rights and is trying to impeach a president?

---

Ok. I believe the Constitution provides for a repeal of an article contained in the Bill of Rights. I also believe it includes provisions for the impeachment of a president. Do you take issue with an action being taken which adheres to either of these provisions if they pass, per the Constitution?

Personally, regardless of my personal opinions, the Constitution has to be followed, agreed?

Aggie Chemist, I couldn't agree more. We all need to work on our hearts and love our neighbors as ourself, even when our neighbor is an ******* By the way, since I don't know which side of predestination I fall on, I'm going to try to keep working on mine.

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

I'm glad I made an impression. But seriously, does having a different view on a topic make me a bad guy or the enemy, or stupid? Maybe we just have different views. And by the way, I'm not any of those things, and don't think those things of you.

---

Did you mean to reply to me here? I didn't call you anything.

My apologies, not directing those things at you. Again, just trying to reinforce the desire of a civil discussion.

I asked this question of someone else, and I'll ask it of you. Were you outraged by the enactment of the Patriot Act?

This seems like a good change to me.



I don't think School staff should be forced to carry but if they already met carry requirements, I see no reason to put signs up that tell potential shooters "hey we're a soft target!" aka no gun signs.

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

I asked this question of someone else, and I'll ask it of you. Were you outraged by the enactment of the Patriot Act?

---

Yes, and for the same reasons. It did nothing to improve the situation, but did increase the power and scope of government while infringing on our personal freedoms.

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

I asked this question of someone else, and I'll ask it of you. Were you outraged by the enactment of the Patriot Act?

---

YES! and let my representation know that too.

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Then answer mine. How do we(conservatives) negotiate anything with a side that doesn't believe in the constitution or the bill of rights and is trying to impeach a president?

---

Ok. I believe the Constitution provides for a repeal of an article contained in the Bill of Rights. I also believe it includes provisions for the impeachment of a president. Do you take issue with an action being taken which adheres to either of these provisions if they pass, per the Constitution?

Personally, regardless of my personal opinions, the Constitution has to be followed, agreed?

---

but that's not whats happening nor is it how they are doing it. Instead they tried to manipulate electoral college voters, use the popular vote to deligitimize the president, and create barriers of entry that make exercising the 2nd amendment more and more difficult.

And repealing anything in the Bill of Rights would, IMHO, lead to war.

I'll tell you what, in the spirit of the OB im just going to let this one go. Have a good day.