Toddler reaches into purse and gun goes off killing mom

So, to get this straight, you think that moving away from prohibition of some things is progress, while moving towards prohibition of other things is also progress? Solid.

 

Do you see things in black and white? How can you not process this? Here's an example of how this works in my mind:

Prohibiting women from voting - not progress
Prohibiting child labor - progress!

 

You have the direction wrong.

 

I'm just trying to follow your logic. Basically if the government stops prohibiting things you are in favor of while adding prohibitions of things you are not in favor of, in your mind, that's progress?

How is that not the same thing just ruled by a different interest group?

 

By which metric?

Social progressivism is blind to interest groups unless you want to call an informed electorate an interest group.

 

I agree that given the lack of movement after Sandy Hook and VT, it's going to take a freaking horrific disaster to make any kind of movement. Where I disagree with you is in our trust in the process of democracy. America as a democracy has made very unpopular and divisive decisions in the past with success, e.g. the Civil Rights Movement, female suffrage, abolishing slavery, universal healthcare, etc. Shoot, even the ability of the US to pass very strict anti-smoking legislation even in the face of billions of dollars of tobacco lobbyist money is a testament to how we can overcome the status quo.

We can do it if enough people start voting for politicians who aren't anti-gun control just because they're receiving campaign money. We can do it if enough people understand that guns are a health policy issue. That's the beauty of living here, we can do anything.

 

That's simply not true, the idea of what society ought to be progressing towards, or what would be social progress is determined by your interest group. In your mind, prohibition of firearms equals social progress, IMO that's social regression. In the minds of those behind the alcohol prohibition, they thought that was social progress just the same as you think firearm prohibition is progress. Essentially the only thing different between you and the alcohol prohibition supporters is that you are in different interest groups with different ideas of the way things "ought to be".

You seek to effect social progress with the same regressive method, prohibition.

 

So essentially what you are saying is prohibition of anything is regressive in nature? Even if you believe that, most who are pro gun control are not advocating prohibition of fire arms but a tighter control on it's circulation.

 

Spoiler

federal and state legislation in the last 20 years.

 

My method of progress isn't prohibition. It is the voting public adapting to the changing needs of the people based on new information and technology.

 

In my opinion, yes. I don't think having a nanny state is progressive, also I think it's hypocritical to support prohibition of things they like while being against prohibition of things they don't like. I believe that the way to real social progress is through liberty, things that move away from liberty are regressive.


Then again, that's just my opinion and it's based on what I believe to be "the good". It's not more or less valid than those who prefer a nanny state saving people from themselves or whatever else.

 

Yeah, we are progressing, but not in the way that you think.

Gallup: Less Than Half of Americans Support Stricter Gun Laws

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Less than half of Americans, 47%, say they favor stricter laws covering the sale of firearms, similar to views found last year. But this percentage is significantly below the 58% recorded in 2012 after the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, spurred a nationwide debate about the possibility of more stringent gun control laws. Thirty-eight percent of Americans say these laws should be kept as they are now, and 14% say they should be made less strict...

As support for stricter laws regulating the sale of guns has dwindled, the percentage of Americans who say handguns should be banned has remained low. About one in four Americans say handgun possession should be banned for everyone except the police and "other authorized persons" such as security or the military. A near-record high of 73% of Americans now say that handguns should not be banned...

Americans vary by demographic group as to whether they favor more stringent laws covering the sale of firearms. Among these groups, support is generally down across the board compared with the poll taken after the Newtown tragedy.

Democrats still express the most support for stricter gun sale laws, at 71%, down from 79% two years ago. Republicans, liberals, nonwhites, women and whites all show substantially less support on this measure compared with 2012.

Full Story:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179045/less-half-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx

See the historical trends here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

Your desire to ban guns is the extreme position here, and support for more strict gun laws has been in steady decline for decades. So yeah, we are definitely progressing, but not in the way that you think we are.

More:

More Than Six in 10 Americans Say Guns Make Homes Safer

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The percentage of Americans who believe having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be (63%) has nearly doubled since 2000, when about one in three agreed with this. Three in 10 Americans say having a gun in the house makes it a more dangerous place.

Gallup originally asked Americans about their views on the implications of having a gun in the home in 1993, and then updated the measure in 2000. Between 2000 and 2006, less than half of Americans believed having a gun at home makes it safer -- but since then, this percentage has significantly increased to a majority.

Full Story:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179213/six-americans-say-guns-homes-safer.aspx

Yep. You are a dying breed, thank God.

 

LOL did I really just read this? Social progressivism is ALL about interest groups. Grievance groups, more accurately. It is divisive at its core.

 

It's Friday night and I have a life, so I'll check back into this thread tomorrow. Hope none of you all get shot between now and then!

 

Nope, odds are good that I will be the one doing the shooting.

 

LOL. Just LOL

 

Why can't we start with handguns, and especially certain types of handguns, and then progress from there?

 

Solid plan, first ban handguns, then rifles, then shotguns, then swords, then knives, then sharp sticks, then baseball bats, then bows, then heavy rocks.....progress.

 

Not all slopes are slippery.

I own many useful firearms, btw. If you need a pistol to feel safe you should just probably re-evaluate your station in life.

 

Pistols are very useful in hunting, a rifle is nice, but when you approach the deer or hog or whatever, it's a lot better to have a pistol sidearm in case you didn't kill what you shot. Either way banning the tool is a bit foolish because that's not the problem. The violent culture that has people using firearms against one another inappropriately is the problem.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter because despite the willingness of a loud minority, handguns won't be banned any time soon.