Show me someone who is for healthcare, unions, college, but also doesn't want to take a black marker to the second amendment, I'll wait. Until the left stops going after guns, single issue voters will keep voting the way they do.

Well I'm right here, but I don't know how to run for office and I probably would get crucified for entirely unrelated opinions (which I would be willing to change if given adequate reason). Probably a lot of people like me (and I assume you?) out there. We just aren't on the ballot, even if sometimes we might be entirely qualified.

Have you ever considered why there is a strong correlation between beliefs in healthcare, unions and college and a belief in gun control laws?

Show me someone who opposes single-payer healthcare, unions, affordable college costs but also believes that the second amendment did not and does not constitute an unfettered right to do more or less anything with guns. I'll wait. Until the right stops viewing the 2nd amendment as the benchmark issue, progressives will continue to see their position on it as just another part of their uniform opposition to a more modern society.

Then they can continue to lose the opportunity to do real, valuable reform by throwing a fit over a wedge issue.

Well that's exactly my point. People like you who think gun rights supercede everything else. It's ludicrous. Almost nobody needs a gun. Most other wealthy democracies have universal healthcare and near total bans on private gun ownership and they're doing way better than America. Proof is in the pudding.

But even so, your opinion is clearly colored by propaganda. Gun control isn't a popular topic on the left. The second amendment remains inviolable and has greatly expanded in the last twenty years. "They're coming to take our guns" is a cry of right wing media because they know it will scare people into voting irrationally.

> People like you who think gun rights supercede everything else. It's ludicrous. Almost nobody needs a gun.

> But even so, your opinion is clearly colored by propaganda.

> "They're coming to take our guns" is a cry of right wing media because they know it will scare people into voting irrationally.

Generally speaking, this is a poor way to convince someone. Comments like this are likely to embolden the parent's views. I say this as someone who holds neutral views on the matter.

Consider for a moment you have actually proved his point.

I honestly have no idea what would convince someone who is so bent on being irrational. But one thing I find does get people riled a bit is convincing them they've been tricked. And a lot of gun rights people definitely have been tricked.

Yes, it's weird that infringement of the fundamental right to self-defense is taken more seriously than things that are not fundamental rights.

Weirdest thing I've ever seen. Those wacky Americans and their crazy belief in liberty, or like, not wanting to be a victim of democide.

Say what you want about Hitler and his whole disarming-the-Jews thing, but healthcare for everyone else was pretty top-notch.

And if you ever feel sad for all the people murdered by Stalin after being disarmed, just remember how good the USSR mathematics program was.

Yeah. But replace your sarcasm with sincerity. Proof is in the pudding. Germany, France, Britain, Japan, Australia and many others have long ended the right to gun ownership and it has not decreased their freedom at all. The second amendment was a direct descendant of British Common Law and Britain severely curtailed personal gun ownership over the course of the 20th century and managed to not only remain a vibrant democracy, but have even marginalized their monarchy through popular sentiment without shooting anyone. They even survived a wave of terrorism without. The reach of the second amendment goes far beyond what is needed for personal defense and, in fact, was most certainly not intended for personal defense but rather defense of the nation. We could shrink gun ownership laws by 90% and not prevent people from defending themselves. But, really, we can't because the second amendment says Congress, states and cities are not allowed to.

Have you not paid attention to anything at all going on in Australia right now?

New Jersey (along with NY, CA) has the most unconstitutional gun control laws in America.

If I have a daughter who's returning home late at night from University, I would want her to be armed for her own protection. Things like "taxation" are not the most important thing to her.

When my daughter(s) returned home late at night (or perhaps better described as early in the morning) in Berlin, they didn't need guns, and the taxes helped pay for a transportation system that meant they didn't need to drive either.

Well the difference between your daughters and my daughters is that they're reliant on a giant system and the good will of others and mine are reliant on themselves. When they walk home late at night they don't need to worry either, because they have guns.

the giant system is more powerful and has been around much longer than the guns. and when you say "they're reliant", you make it sound as if somehow the citizens of berlin get offered the chance make a daily choice to be nice, when in reality, it's baked in at a much deeper level. there are hardly any crazy people in berlin (in the sense of wanting or needing to assault people). your daughters live in the middle of a giant system too, but instead of one that puts a priority on the kinds of things that berlin does, its a giant system that "requires" them to have guns. not only that, but they still have to worry: you don't get to pull out a gun in a dangerous situation without adding to the potential danger.

btw, i live in new mexico now, and my daughters are both grown women who live in chicago and philadelphia, and still do not carry guns.

It doesn't require them to have guns. There are wild animals outside too, maybe we can make a system where that doesn't exist.

Berlin sounds real nice. You never need to think about protecting yourself when things are going great. It may feel baked in at a deeper level, but don't forget, Berlin has at one time relatively recently been a very terrible place to live, especially for those that didn't have guns.

The entire idea of having a gun is to make a dangerous situation more dangerous, it creates symmetry, an aggressor is now equal to his or her victim.

New mexico is pretty nice too. Did you know that anyone who wants to can openly carry any gun they want in new mexico?

Your daughters ARE worrying. And the proof is that they have guns.

That's a ridiculously empty self supporting meaningless assertion, care to elaborate?

Statistically, gun owners are far more likely to be injured by their own weapons than the weapons of others, and the sheer availability of firearms forces law enforcement officers to escalate situations far more quickly than they otherwise would. It follows that people who are walking around with guns live in fear of confrontation with other people who have guns.

I have had five personal relationships with people who have died due to firearms. They are as follows:

1. My cousin, who killed himself while hunting ducks

2. My childhood friend, who killed himself while cleaning a rifle

3. My childhood friend, who was killed by cops after falling asleep at a railroad crossing and dropped his phone in the car when the police approached

4. My uncle, who committed suicide

5. Another childhood friend, who was drunk and disorderly and shot to death by cops while unarmed in the front yard of his house

On the flip side, I don't personally know a single human being whose life was either saved or made better by possessing or being around someone who possessed a firearm.

Statistically, you're an extreme outlier if you know 5 people who died of gunshot wounds.

Of those 5 though, two were killed by cops. Can I draw from the fact that you included those that you don't want police to have firearms either?

When you say "killed himself" for 1 and 2, do you mean deliberately?

Again though, you're an extreme outlier. And even more so that you don't know personally a single individual who even once was saved by proximity to a firearm, such as for example saved from domestic violence by the arrival of armed police. I live around guns and people with guns, there are literally hundreds of guns around me within a quarter mile radius right now, I only have three gun deaths of anyone I have ever known, one was a suicide, one was an old lady who defended her orphanage from an armed intruder, and another was a man shot by his ex girlfriend while he attempted to assault her. The last two of course are examples of lives saved or made better by possessing a firearm.

Then there are the other reasons to have them besides personal protection. Particularly there's the ethereal "deterrent to tyranny" you hear cited, but practically speaking there's also the ability to procure meat without a massive supply chain and the ability to defend against wildlife in areas where that is a tangible threat.

It would be better to live in the kind of country where girls can walk home at night safely without guns?

It would be better to live in the kind of country where girls can walk home at night safely. Whether that's with or without guns doesn't really matter.

Yup, now OP just has the choice to make...completely rewrite American society, or go down to the gun store and buy a gun.

I am originally from India.

Hmm. Doesn't India have severe gun laws? Why aren't women safer in India yet?

Well, India's population is a multiple of that of the US.

However, many areas include Delhi - the rate of violence against women is just unbelievable!

If such a city had gun laws like Texas, you might see the crime rate come down drastically.

In India, the rich can afford guns. That is the sad truth.

India has extreme gun control laws unfortunately. If you are rich or politically connected, you can own guns or have bodyguards in India. Most people don't have that luxury there. Going through the process and it costs more than the average Indian's annual salary. Carrying guns in public places in most of India is prohibited.

At least in the US, you can afford one fairly easily as long as your background check passes.

That's irrational. She's probably 100X more likely to be hit by a car than be a victim of crime. And more likely to be victimized by someone she knows than random street crime. Not to mention the risk of serious illness or injury via accidents. A reflective vest and health insurance will do far more for her safety than a gun. Not to mention, no one is really saying that personal weapons will be ever be gone. She can protect herself with pepper spray. Or really she can kill whoever she wants with a small caliber revolver and we can still ban military-style weapons (or we could if voters were rational).