A Conversation on Guns Means Both Sides Are Heard

So far, I am only hearing one side, motivated by fear and antipathy, calling anything the other side has to say "madness." No attempt at understanding or communication is being made. Just shout loud enough and long enough, and you won't hear the other guy.

Maybe, but that isn't a conversation. It's a monologue.

Here is a pro-gun ownership piece that is sane and incisive, and deserves to be read by everyone, regardless of your position on the issue.

A willingness to engage in a meaningful dialog, rather than harranguing, posturing and trying to shout down those whose ideas are different, would be a refreshing thing to see. As would people admitting that someone else has more knowledge on a given subject, and then actually taking the time to be educated on it (and I do not mean by sloppy sensationalist journalism, but by actual research, including research into how the Second Amendment has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of constitutional questions), before spouting an opinion. Otherwise, it is just hot air and ignorance. (And to the pro-gun people who are making SSRIs out to be poison from the devil, I say the same. Any meaningful change will not result from demonizing a tool, whether it be a firearm or a medication.)

You can still dislike guns after you do the research. That I will respect. But fearful knee-jerking that infringes on the Constitutional rights of others? Not so much.

Larry Correia on Gun Control.