Ryotknife said:
the clockmaker said:
xDarc said:
Katatori-kun said:
xDarc said:
Katatori-kun said:
We're trying to discuss reasonable regulation: things like licensing, safety regulations, and bans on certain types of guns.
Nobody is trying to discuss that.
Bullshit. The President and the Vice President of the United States are discussing
exactly that at this very moment.
I'd hardly call executive order sensible, logical or rational- anything you describe.
So again, there is no middle. There is only reality and perception.
I've noticed a trend of you making grand, but meaningless pronouncements. There is no middle? do you honestly listen to yourself?
Life is compromise, and tighter restrictions on who can own a firearm are a reasonable answer. I posted a multi point plan in another thread if you would like an example of a moderate stance.
Problem being that in most gun control measures, half of it is reasonable, half of it is unreasonable or questionable. If you decide to go against it because of the questionable parts, you will be labeled as refusing to compromise because hey look, look at the reasonable part of the proposal! Just ignore the batshit crazy part of the proposal that we snuck in!
It is crap like that that has made both sides severely distrust one another when it comes to guns. So yea, we have one side that is downright deceitful and one side that is jaded and cynical. Hard to get anything meaningful done that way.
I'm going to have to disagree with you there, because while I do often see the situation that you have proposed, I rarely to never see the response that you contend is put forward by the anti-legislation lobby, indeed, I don't believe that I have seen any of the more anti-legislation people here indicate a desire to compromise.
An ideal response to the situation would be 'Okay, I can agree with A and that is something that I think we should move forward on, however, I disagree with B and perhaps we should discuss changing or removing it.' In this, the focus is on the compromise and the intent is to move the discussion forward to a mutually agreeable conclusion.
Far too often I see 'You included B?! how dare you?! You clearly have no intent on compromising.'
or alternatively, and depressingly commonly, 'You used term X?! Due to that I will disregard both A and B'
In addition, I would not say that one side's deceit has led to the other becoming jaded and cynical, but rather that both sides have deceived in the past, which has led to both sides becoming increasingly wary of the other. If you look at statistics post that I quoted on this page, you can see an example of anti-legislation deceit, but, if you look at some of the more extreme elements of the pro-legislation side, you can see that there is deceit there as well.
A key step in progressing the discussion to a mutually acceptable end is acknowledging that both sides have the best intentions and both sides deserve the benefit of the doubt in that they most likely sincerely believe what they are saying.