LUNATICS WITH GUNS, DOMESTIC TERRORISTS AND HOMOPHOBIA...

No offense, but comparing gay marriages to guns is like comparing apples to oranges.

This is a pretty sensitive subject, so unless you truly understand the subject and situation at hand, I highly suggest you stay out of this.

I respectfully disagree with you on both stances. Sorry!

I disagree that our different perceptions on a certain topic implies that I should abstain from comment on it. I don't mind if you express your opinion, give me that same courtesy why dontcha ? :).

I also disagree that there's no connection.

It's interesting you would bring this up because this is also discussed in the Washington Post:

But it wasn’t all that long ago that same-sex marriage seemed just as hopeless a cause as meaningful gun laws seem now. And the reason many Americans — including Obama — changed their minds about gay marriage may be the same reason people eventually change their minds about guns.

I guess if it were published by a newspaper maybe the idea isn't that far fetched, an opinion worth pondering about? Or maybe it is but other people share my point of view?

It doesn't matter, as long as we express our opinions in a respectful way, no harm done. If I'm being an "an idiot lacking comprehension", enlighten me! Maybe I don't understand the issue at all. Like I said, I haven't read anything which convinced me that might be the case just yet.

As for Jude, I wouldn't ban him. It's no big deal really.

When I said gay marriage and guns are not connected, I meant that just because it worked for gay marriage doesn't mean it'll work for gun control. Because really, gay marriage has nothing to do with violence unlike guns. The implications of both are completely different from each other. That's what I'm saying.

That's your opinion and your perception of reality. It's not wrong, it's just different than mine. You focus on the fact that guns and mariage are different things and they are. They are also very conservative ideas that remained the same for a very long time. One of them changed overtime, why not the other one? My point was/is that the culture of a country changes through time, surely you can agree on at least this little bit? That was the point of the comparison. You may find to unconvincing but to go the extent to say it's irrecevable is a pretty big step.

So simply saying that guns might work out in culture just because gay marriage worked out without stating any substantial evidence and reason and how they'll actually work out is just naive and superficial.

Naive and superficial are adjective which don't really push the discussion forward in the sense that they're very fickle in nature. I mean, what's the point, it doesn't have any reasoning or convincing value, does it? As I said, the reason is the following: if certain conservatives aspects of a culture can change over time, is it reasonable to come to the conclusion that other aspects of the same culture might also change over time? That's it really, nothing groundbreaking here I don't think. Other countries have changed drastically changed their policies regarding firearms over a fairly short amount of time after all.

Convince me again when you have actually written a report with references. And I mean actual credible references such as journal papers, not newspaper articles.

We'd have to first agree on what's a credible reference. Dismissing any newspaper article as not being credible evidence is fundamental difference that we once again share. Why are newspaper articles not credible references? Newspaper articles are often actually written by collaborators who are credible sources on a certain topic (which is why they are asked to write an article on said topic). In fact, I think your argument would have carried more weight if you had mentioned the article is an opinion piece.

Just my point of view.