Areoflyer09
Master
Last night my wife shared a conversation some her extended family were having regarding gun control on Facebook. It was kept quite civil actually, despite the topic and then ability for it to create havoc. Some of the arguments that were made for GC have left me wondering how you counter it. The first is more mundane, but the second is the one that really has me baffled.
1) Her aunt stated should be willing to have longer wait on purchases of that meant they were more inclusive background checks, particularly in regards to mental health.
2) Someone I didn’t know made the comment that recent events demand action and inaction will condemn more people. When confronted about how this change (longer background checks) wouldn’t have prevented the FL shooting, she maintained that any action is better than none.
I can see, but don’t agree, with her aunt’s view. She is part of a hunting family and thy don’t really get into the SD/AR scene. I can see that she wants a better system that would prevent unstable people from legally procuring firearms. I don’t agree this method will work, but the desired outcome is not unreasonable. I don’t have a good way to show someone that it wouldn’t work though, the Texas shooting isn’t a bad example though. The system doesn’t work if things aren’t properly reported. I think I could shift her view to why it wouldn’t work if we had a face to face about it.
The other argument baffles me though. How do you counter the idea that a bad idea is better than doing nothing? I’m not particularly fond of wasting time, money & effort on things that won’t change anything, Do you try and find proof that it wouldn’t have changed? If a person never gets reported to the system, how can they become prohibited? If he never saw a psychiatrist, he wouldn’t have been reported for being mentally unstable. I understand people’s view that doing nothing is a worse decision than making a wrong decision, but I don’t agree that inaction is worse than a knee jerk reaction. It feels like every “solution” is created as knee jerk reaction to an event, not a planned and thought out solution to the cause.
Typically I choose to avoid the conversation when family is involved. Things get heated too quickly and it seldom ends well. I don’t why this particular conversation got stuck in my head, but it’s biuncing around there all morning.
I am curious to know how others would respond to the above views. Thought/opinions?
1) Her aunt stated should be willing to have longer wait on purchases of that meant they were more inclusive background checks, particularly in regards to mental health.
2) Someone I didn’t know made the comment that recent events demand action and inaction will condemn more people. When confronted about how this change (longer background checks) wouldn’t have prevented the FL shooting, she maintained that any action is better than none.
I can see, but don’t agree, with her aunt’s view. She is part of a hunting family and thy don’t really get into the SD/AR scene. I can see that she wants a better system that would prevent unstable people from legally procuring firearms. I don’t agree this method will work, but the desired outcome is not unreasonable. I don’t have a good way to show someone that it wouldn’t work though, the Texas shooting isn’t a bad example though. The system doesn’t work if things aren’t properly reported. I think I could shift her view to why it wouldn’t work if we had a face to face about it.
The other argument baffles me though. How do you counter the idea that a bad idea is better than doing nothing? I’m not particularly fond of wasting time, money & effort on things that won’t change anything, Do you try and find proof that it wouldn’t have changed? If a person never gets reported to the system, how can they become prohibited? If he never saw a psychiatrist, he wouldn’t have been reported for being mentally unstable. I understand people’s view that doing nothing is a worse decision than making a wrong decision, but I don’t agree that inaction is worse than a knee jerk reaction. It feels like every “solution” is created as knee jerk reaction to an event, not a planned and thought out solution to the cause.
Typically I choose to avoid the conversation when family is involved. Things get heated too quickly and it seldom ends well. I don’t why this particular conversation got stuck in my head, but it’s biuncing around there all morning.
I am curious to know how others would respond to the above views. Thought/opinions?