If you are in support of the Second Amendment, we should have a real discussion.
1. What counter-evidence would it take for you not to be in support of private ownership of firearms?
2. What evidence (anecdotes and facts) in recent history can you provide that demonstrate a positive impact on society from the private ownership of firearms?
I squarely fit into the camp to eliminate private ownership of all firearms. However, we can and should have a discussion about your opinion. To have an open discussion, you and I must be willing to change our minds. To facilitate I'm ripping a page from #onrac #OhNoRossAndCarrie: (http://ohnopodcast.com/investigations/2011/8/1/ross-and-carrie-go-mormon-part-2-what-no-underwear.html
44m) "If this is going to be a conversation, we both have to be willing to be wrong. And that means if I have really strong counter-evidence for your claims, you have to be willing to say, 'Okay. I've been wrong. I'm walking away from my faith.' And if you convince me that there's enough evidence for what you're saying, then I have to be willing to give up my doubts and go with it. Otherwise this is a monologue.
" To have a real discussion and to avoid the endless monologues on social media, I ask you the two questions above.
If you are in support of elimination of private ownership of firearms, you should think about the inverse. What counter-evidence would it take for you to be in support of private ownership of firearms? (Or you can take mine.)
We need to have real discussions about this and many other issues. And if you or I are not open and willing to change, then we have a problem.