A "pragmatic" approach to gun violence?

Based on that definition (I also researched just to be sure), how can you reasonably, logically, and without all the emotion you bring to the discussion say that neither Wright nor I have a clue as to its meaning?

Did you not read my first post? Both Jim Wright's and your statements, that I quoted, show that if someone doesn't agree with what you post, they are wrong or at least don't comprehend, hence your attacks on them. Realize, all one has to do to prove my points is read what you post.

How so? Your interpretation of what we "think" is your interpretation, nothing more. You've proved nothing.

Why don't you and Jim Wright take your knee jerk, lunatic insanity and sell stupid somewhere else?

ZHawke wrote: Did any of you actually read what Jim Wright had to say, or are these your knee jerk reactions? Please don't take that the wrong way, either. It isn't meant to be derogatory. It's just that these are the same arguments against doing anything at all that we've seen over and over and over again. All I'm trying to do is explore the possibility this might be something to consider.

I did read it and I didn't see anything that, in my opinion, would lessen gun violence by people who likely to shoot another person. Could you highlight some of the ideas you think would be successful and we could talk about those? He does a lot of rambling and makes many broad brush statements based more on feeling than fact.

HEARTLESS wrote: Why don't you and Jim Wright take your knee jerk, lunatic insanity and sell stupid somewhere else?

Fascinating. You've got nothing, so your response is to "ask" me to leave?

This is what I'm talking about. You offer nothing but the same old, same old. You have nothing positive to offer, so you use the same old talking points over and over and over.

Bingo, anyone?

SOSDD. Can't read you own words without filling your Depends. Ask for a change and have a nice day.

Rick wrote: I did read it and I didn't see anything that, in my opinion, would lessen gun violence by people who likely to shoot another person. Could you highlight some of the ideas you think would be successful and we could talk about those? He does a lot of rambling and makes many broad brush statements based more on feeling than fact.

Rick, thanks for that. At least you're being reasonable on this.

I'll take a look at it again tomorrow and provide some highlights. Personally, I don't think he rambled at all, but that's just me. The reality, from my perspective, is that none of us have any real "facts" to go on here. We're all taking shots in the dark so to speak. What I saw was someone who has a background and who has extensive experience with guns and gun ownership offering something as a possible means to an end. I didn't see him "pushing" his agenda or saying it would be required. It was an offer of an alternative to what's been going on thus far. Neither side has been willing to sit down and discuss the issue of gun violence face to face. Both sides seem to me to be more interested in dictating to the other side with no willingness to even try to work things out. I saw Jim Wright trying to offer some logic, some reasoning to the discussion. He even went so far as to state some things that have been tried (gun free zones, background checks, etc., etc.,) simply have not, and will not work. So his point, at least to me, is that we've gotta try something else...something that even the most pro-gun advocates would support because it comes directly from them and their organizations...that might, just might, help in addressing this issue.

HEARTLESS wrote: SOSDD. Can't read you own words without filling your Depends. Ask for a change and have a nice day.

What a guy!

I will....have a nice day, thank you very much!