How about "responsible gun owner"?
No thanks, because that implies that someone like me who disagrees with you is an "irresponsible gun owner" and I don't believe that to be the case.
Chris, honestly, I think I'm just kind of done with this discussion. Three responses from you to me, and in all three of them you are sarcastic and snarky toward me because of who you think I am. You seem to be incapable of having a conversation about this that doesn't involve mocking anyone who doesn't completely agree with you. Given that, why would I engage in the conversation at all? It's just setting myself up to be made fun of because I'm not as all-knowing as you.
That's fine, you are welcome to walk away.
If I'm passionate and arrogant about this issue, I'm okay with that, given the amount of absolute garbage legislation passed by ignorant politicians catering to ignorant constituents who want "something done" on gun violence, whether or not that "something" makes any sense or will have any effect on the problem.
Quite frankly, you can almost never go wrong underestimating the level of ignorance around firearms and firearms laws presented by people who want more laws governing them. The other day I read a post on another board about someone insisting that we need to make a law preventing people from driving to Indiana, buying guns from their buddy, and driving back to Chicago and murdering people with it, all the while completely ignorant of the fact that there IS such a law already.
So yes, I will own up to the fact that I assume anyone arguing for more gun legislation has no idea what they're talking about, given that most of the time, they don't.
Absolutely not. And therein lies your error, and the problem. You think in zero-sum absolutes, and that anyone who disagrees with you is touched in the head or an idiot, apparently. Since you think of yourself as a "responsible gun owner," and you yourself just said that means that I'm an irresponsible gun owner, then you are not someone who can be talked to or reasoned with.
No, I generally give the benefit of the doubt and think "well meaning but ignorant." You want to talk to the real gun freaks (I'm a rank amateur) and they'll tell you it's because you ultimately desire to control me. I give people more of the benefit of the doubt than that.
Also, I think you misunderstand my responsible versus irresponsible thing. I believe you are a responsible gun owner based on your statements here. I also believe you are more risk averse than I am. I therefore think that if you believe part of being a responsible gun owner is keeping the guns locked up, and I do not do that, you think I'm irresponsible. I don't, in turn, think that because I think I'm responsible it makes you irresponsible, I just think you're more risk averse. Think of it as a sliding scale, on the scale of gun owners, you're a 2, and I'm a 5, and I think anything under, say, 7, is responsible. I get the feeling you'd put that line more at a 2 or a 3.
Sigh. And there you go again, arguing with your straw man. I'm out. You don't need me for this conversation. You can go have it with the version of me you've created in your head.
Read my next post. Tell me you didn't made a very specific statement that "if guns are locked up, they are controlled". If I'm reacting to that, how can it be a strawman? It's what you said. If it isn't what you meant, then fine, but don't be mad when I react to what. you. said.
Oh, for God's sake.
If guns are locked up, that is ONE WAY of their being controlled.
Dude, I have three guns. None of them are locked up. I don't even have a gun safe.
Christ, is there ANY point in this conversation?
Why so hysterical?
Yes, given what you say NOW, agreed, it's ONE WAY.
Do you see how, reading what you initially said, snark included, I interpreted that you meant it's the ONLY way and reacted accordingly?
No. No, I don't.
I mean, I see THAT you interpreted it that way. Not WHY you interpreted it that way. So don't try to once again shift the blame onto me for your erroneous interpretation, and your repeated failure to see that it was indeed erroneous.
Because someone who actually wanted a dialogue would have perhaps ASKED instead of presumed and stuffed words in my mouth repeatedly.
Or, perhaps READ what I said the FIRST time I said it was ONE WAY (see one of my posts above) and not the ONLY WAY instead of making me say it repeatedly because you seem much more invested in assuming you know what I think.
Or perhaps not used derogatory language and mockery all along the way in pretty much every single one of their responses.
Or perhaps acknowledged they had made erroneous assumptions -- hell, maybe even apologized -- when it was pointed out to them that I'm a gun owner and therefore actually do know a thing or two, or that I haven't actually proposed any laws here.
Or perhaps allowed me to be called a "responsible gun owner" instead of a gun grabber, instead of actually
reserving that term for yourself because you apparently didn't think I had a right to call myself that unless I believed exactly what you do.
And then finally, when you FINALLY manage to understand what I have been trying to say all along, you call me "hysterical," and add just a pinch more of condescension to the mix.
Hilariously, you said to Malum that you tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. I'd say you've got a pretty heavy burden of proof on that, given the way you've treated me in this exchange.