Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Swartz
FWIW, I'm the one who brought up gun elimination, and I didn't do so as a dog whistle. It's a serious proposal. Not one that I personally advocate, but it is what I think is required to get to a level of violence that many would consider acceptable.
I think this is just another example of why it's hard to have substantive discussions on a lot of issues. We just assume people can't be serious about what they're saying or that if they are, it's not worth discussing. But I wasn't being the least bit disingenous. I think that's what it takes if you want to get US violent attacks to a level near what they are in other major industrialized nations. Or we can leave some level of guns out there and accept a higher level for the reasonably foreseeable fuure.
|
I was not saying that you were being disingenuous. What I am meant is that 30 years of having discussions about gun control has taught me that the quickest way to end that conversation is to say that phrase. It is the reason why we have not had any movement on this issue because any actions would be a step down the road to the "elimination of guns." While you were not doing it, we all know how that phrase been used to prevent any and all gun controls. If I believed that all options were on the table not just on this board but in the national debate, then sure let's have the discussion. But that is not the case. Eliminating guns has been brought up before numerous times. It is used as a dog whistle. This is not new. So for me, in an effort to actually have meaningful debate on this issue, I choose not to use what I believe is a dog whistle with people who have made it perfectly clear that the elimination of guns is a real fear and a hard no. If you can have that discussion seriously and have it not delve into chaos, by all means carry on. I am telling you I can't.