Quote:
Originally Posted by John21
It's not credible to the extreme positions because if it were then their positions wouldn't be credible since their extreme positions would render them all alone and opposed to a supermajority.
For example, take a fictional issue with 25% adamantly opposed, 25% adamantly for, and 50% willing to compromise. In politics the two poles become de facto allies working against the middle 50% because if the middle wins they both lose, even though their positions are diametrically opposed.
But its not an extreme position to say "you have no compelling argument to want to ban the gun I have for some gun that holds less ammo because of some vague social theory about bodycount in school shootings".
That argument would rely on the principle of trust that if they compromised here, you wouldn't take it further, with additional mental gymnastics and ban the gun you allowed them to keep.
The UK is literally a WORKING, REAL WORLD EXAMPLE OF PRECISELY THAT HAPPENING ON THIS EXACT ISSUE, so the argument basically ends there.
The regulation debate ultimately boils down to one group trusting that if they allow for certain regulations, or certain parameters, the other group won't use that as a stepping stone to just push for more. There is ZERO trust here, for very obvious reasons.
This is why the issue stalls.
"Yeah well see here's my plan... I'm gunna ban your guns that are semi auto, but I'll allow you to have some gun that holds less bullets" indicates you're a naive idealist who is apt to believe in naive-idealist things and doesn't ever account for your beliefs against a reality you're probably not very expeirenced with.