I assume that most gun owners are reasonable; ditto NGO's. I assume neither side wants massacres, armed criminals, and the like. The answer on my side is to restrict the ownership and physical control of guns. I gather that many, perhaps most, GO's don't like the sound of that. I'm wondering if there is a point between the two positions that would give each side something -- like, gun ownership requires a license, but not physical control. Tho, from a GO perspective, I'd guess even that sounds like a lot. I'm trying to be reasonable, but my problem is I think my whole side is reasonable, which I beleive GO's don't. Since they're reasonable, my side might be asking for too much. I'm wondering if there is a midpoint, or if its pretty diametrically opposite, in or out, black or white.
2 comments:
With our recent discussions on guns, I thought I'd quizz my hubby and forward this question of yours, onto him so he could give his perspective.
He's not quite sure what you're asking here tho.
I assume that most gun owners are reasonable; ditto NGO's. I assume neither side wants massacres, armed criminals, and the like. The answer on my side is to restrict the ownership and physical control of guns. I gather that many, perhaps most, GO's don't like the sound of that. I'm wondering if there is a point between the two positions that would give each side something -- like, gun ownership requires a license, but not physical control. Tho, from a GO perspective, I'd guess even that sounds like a lot. I'm trying to be reasonable, but my problem is I think my whole side is reasonable, which I beleive GO's don't. Since they're reasonable, my side might be asking for too much. I'm wondering if there is a midpoint, or if its pretty diametrically opposite, in or out, black or white.
Post a Comment