Comment: Kindness and Bleeding Hearts

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: What they want (see in situ)

Kindness and Bleeding Hearts

The problem with "they" is it's a form of collectivism. "They" are not all the same.

The fact is, most people who want guns banned, want it, not because they want to order people about at will, but because they believe it will save lives. And, not only their own lives, but because they are very kind (e.g., bleeding heart liberals) and want to protect others. Their motives may be good, and perhaps the same as ours, in other words.

History and crime statistics are not on their side; we know that, they don't. Plenty of people are not "math people," and they're doomed to repeat history.

If you were to accuse some of these well-meaning folks of wanting a class of disarmed peons who can be ordered about, they would see it as proof you're in need of some kind of help. It's not an argument that will work on them.

I think it's a mistake to focus on the few who are comic-book villians and potential despots, and instead try to reason with those who think they're doing a good thing and saving lives by opposing gun ownership. Get them to at least agree that violent criminals should not only be the first people disarmed, but not until all violent criminals are locked up or rehabilitated, should we discuss disarming anyone else, since big muscular villians would still be a threat to little old ladies who don't have a gun.

I have confidence that the day will not come in my lifetime that violent criminals will all be jailed, and everyone else was safe from attack, but if it did, wouldn't it be wonderful? We can talk about it, then.

To me, the key to bridging the gap and getting support of anti-gun voters is to ask them why they would want to disarm the physically weak by leaving them to defend themselves from criminal attackers, using only their fists.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/