You have done zero to alter your opinion or to address my concerns about these vulnerable people . You have pretty much just spoke past me. A lot of Democrats at this point would have at least told me that they are not for a gun ban but want to have some more hoops to jump through to make it harder for criminals to get guns.
I've never advocated for a total gun ban nor would I be in favor of such a proposal. When I argue the points I do, I am responding to the illogic of the positions being presented. It's one thing to be against a gun ban, it's another to claim a gun ban wouldn't significantly decrease the amount of people killed by guns every year. The latter is at least defendable, the former is not.
If we are going to find areas of common ground we need to start with the simplest of ideas and work our way from there. Anyone claiming more guns = less gun violence is in my view not worth discussing anything further.
So let me address a few points first.
I find your comment about my attitude towards banning guns being child like incredibly ironic, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You immediately go into criminals vs law abiding citizens as if the world is really that simple. This isn't a comic book where the world can easily be broken down into good guys vs the bad guys. Every story has at least two sides, and everyone is the good guy in their own story. Real life involves nuance, breaking people up into two categories and appointing yourself as the arbiter of which group everyone belongs in is every bit as childish and simplistic as you allege my position to be.
Second, the democrat areas vs republican areas thing is ridiculous. Crime is higher in areas that are densely populated. That's basic human nature. And democratic policies are more focused on the issues facing people living within densely populated areas, so they tend to elect democrats. You're causality is backwards. In fact, if you really want to get into it, per Capita the highest crime ridden states are red states. I could easily argue your point against republicans but I'm not dishonest enough to do so because I recognize there are many factors that play into it, the least of which being whether the governor has a D or an R next to their name.
Third, I am not claiming criminals should have access to anything the rest of us shouldn't. How are you even being serious? As far as I can tell, this is an extension of the tired old "criminals will always get guns because they don't follow our laws" argument, which is childishly absurd. If that was the logic you really lived your life in accordance with then you wouldn't lock your doors at night, because criminals would just find a way in anyway.
We have laws for a reason, if people aren't following them we don't just throw our hands up and get rid of the law. If 3D printed guns are a problem, pass new regulations to limit its effect. If guns being smuggled in is a problem, add more resources to stop it from happening. The question isn't whether there is a solution, the question is whether we care about the problem enough to solve it.
So moving on to your ultimate point here, what would change each other's minds? I don't know what would change your mind but I'll start with what seems to be some of our fundamental differences;
You seem to take it as a given that criminals, gangs, mass shooters, and any other meme of "bad guy with a gun" you can think of will remain unchanged regardless of what we do. I reject that. I believe laws work when properly executed. I believe that banning something makes it harder to get, when something is harder to get that makes it less likely that the next bad guy will be able to get it, and when something is less likely it will happen less often.
I also reject your "equalizer" mentality. Yes it makes the old lady equal to the big scary criminal, it also turns the disturbed puny kid into a monster capable of ending 20 plus lives in a matter in minutes. We will never all be equal, you pull up with a hand gun and I'll pull up with a bullet proof vest and an AK47. So where does this stop? Is your vision of the just society you want to live in really one where every single individual walking down the street or into a bar is carrying a loaded weapon? One where any confrontation anywhere has the potential to turn shoot out? And what then is the point point of having police? You talk about guns being an equalizer, I can't imagine anyone in our society being more negatively impacted by that idea than them.
Regarding your point about people in North Dakota somewhere, this is why I do not believe in a total gun ban. I do believe people should have access to the means they need to protect themselves in their private residence. But no one needs an AK47 to do that. No one needs to own 40 different firearms or extended magazines to do that.
So as far as I can tell, what it really comes down to between us is our basic value - you appear singularly focused on what you consider to be the vulnerable population and ensuring they can stand up to the bad guys. My focus is on everyone. I want to live in a world where there are less needless deaths. That includes the vulnerable, so I'm not sure how you could possibly convince me to disregard my concerns for the rest of society to focus on just one segment of it, but you're welcome to keep trying.
