ScholasticSpastic wrote:

mcgruff wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:There is nothing wrong with being the one seen to be willing to concede.

Except when you are conceding lives. This isn't an issue for the debating club. There are consequences.

How far do you suppose we can get if neither side gives ground? How many lives shall we lose because we're right and we're not willing to budge? If this is about the lives involved rather than the argument itself, I think you've made the case for concessions.

Besides, the care analogy is useful. Cars are well-regulated compared to guns. Bringing guns to parity with cars would be a vast improvement. I'm willing to let them have the car analogy because it serves me better than it serves them.

Why need to make concessions when other countries don't? If concessions are made for killing tools such as guns, why not make the same concessions for bombs?

quas wrote:
Why need to make concessions when other countries don't? If concessions are made for killing tools such as guns, why not make the same concessions for bombs?

Because there are still a few very valid situations in which a killing tool comes in quite handy in this country- and I don't mean for use against humans. My stepdad takes a gun with him into the wilderness in case he encounters a bear that won't otherwise be dissuaded. He's no hunter and I expect it would break his heart to kill a bear, but I wouldn't begrudge him the ability to protect himself in that manner. When he's not in the wilderness, the gun is locked up and hidden away.

I can feel okay making concessions because I don't feel that banning firearms is necessarily the best solution to the problem of gun violence. I make compromises and listen to as much information as I can because there's so much misinformation out there that pretty much everything I've gathered is suspect. I think this is too important an issue for me to allow my biases to get in the way of understanding, or to jump to a conclusion just because it makes me feel good.

Better regulation is more likely to happen than an outright ban, and then we can see what happens. If more information comes along which supports a ban, having those regulations in place won't prevent a ban, and having taken the time to gather more information will only strengthen the case for a ban.

I really don't understand this push to act precipitously or unilaterally. Nor do I understand why you feel your argumentum ad populum and your non sequitur about bombs contributes to our understanding of the problem.