Goodie, Another gun debate...

Great Debates
141

Just to clean up a few loose ends before I leave this debate, the gun owners here having made me their enemy.

This is not a simple question. I have repeatedly said that I want to find a compromise. I wanted to negotiate ideas for good regulation with the views of gun owners having an equal weight to my own. But you don’t want that. You just want to drive out the outsiders; it’s your way or the highway. Fine.

There are about as many guns in this country as there are people. Guns kill almost as many (within the same order of magnitude) as automobiles. Answering to your fellow citizens about provably dangerous behavior is a fundamental quality of democracy. But of course we’re outsiders, not your fellow citizens.

Hardly. Max Torque was claiming that Blackmun’s comment supported his idea that the Bill of Rights was immune to amendment. I fail to see how an attempt to rationally interpret his remarks constitues “spin”. Oh, I forgot. Your own arguments are always rational, your opponents’ are merely “spin”.

ExTank, you seem to have almost as much humor as you do willingness to compromise.

I am not happy with existing regulations. Are you? I was absolutely open (and said so specifically) to be convinced that existing regulations are sufficient. I’ve done everything I can to allow myself to be respectfully educated. I will not, however, accept much education from people who merely insult me. But of course, I’m just an outsider horning in where he’s not wanted. No reason to treat me with respect.

Stupid me. I’ve only asked like five times in this one thread, what are they?

You pull the trigger, a bullet leaves the barrel at high speed, it strikes the guy and kills him. This is not rocket science here.

There are pistols, automatic and revolvers; Rifles, which shoot bullets; shotguns, which usually fire a collection pellets, semi-automatic pistols and rifles; and fully automatic weapons. both fully- and semi-automatic weapons use the recoil from the previous round to load and cock the following one, however a semi-automatic weapon requires a seperate pull of the trigger to fire each round.

Since I have never legally aquired a firearm, my ignorance in this area is unsurprising. However, any errors in my understanding are not corrected, they are merely displayed to prove I should have nothing to say in this regard.

Given that I am not a criminal, the previous point applies even more strongly.

Statistical interpretation is a complicated task. That people differ in their interpretation is not a sign of irredeemable ignorance or bad faith.

In what way have I shown incompetence in this area? I think my abilities in the realm of ethical and moral analytic philosophy are probably superior to your own.

If and when you want to stop hiding behind your self-righteousness, maybe you’ll be in a better position to actually debate this issue.

First of all, break my heart. :rolleyes:

My posts in this thread:

  1. An analysis of various arguments both for and against gun abolition and ownership. I concluded most of them were weak on logical grounds.

  2. A response to comments on my first post, acknowledging some errors on my part and amplifying my arguments.

2a. A small typographical correction.

  1. A response to Mr. Zambezi’s attack and an explicit statement that I am not arguing gun abolition.

  2. Yet again I say I’m not arguing for gun abolition, just wanting to start a dialog on what I perceive is a problem. Some more logical analyses of different arguments.

  3. A claim (admittedly weak) about ease of access, and again the explication of some basic logical premises, and a specific statement that gun owners are reasonable, intelligent people.

Precisely at what point did your respect for me “evaporate”? I suspect it was at the point that you realized that my beliefs actually dared to differ in the slightest degree from your own.

There’s no debate here. The gun owners are taking the position that anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot beneath contempt and that a government or democracy that does not agree with their own particular views has no legitimacy. This is unsurprising, time and again I’ve heard this attitude, both from individuals and organizations. This thread just adds further evidence.

I’m tired of banging my head against a brick wall. I am an outsider. Debate is impossible. Bye.

142

Spare us your whining, Joe.

Substantive reply? You asked what laws there were. If you’re a citizen of the United States, it’s your duty to figure out what the laws are, pal, not ours. As has been mentioned before, all laws are open to the public.

In addition, you have been asked numerous times to tell us what laws you find objection to, and to explain why you object. You have NOT done this. A case of the pot callin’ the kettle black, buddy-boy.

143

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Those last two posts by Joe Malik have sent my head spinning.

Ex-Tank, As much as I have no problem being put in the same category as you, I really did try to be nice to Joe. Maybe I wasn’t LIBERAL nice, but I did try to keep things civil. I think Joe decided to avoid some very specific points of mine by lumping me in with you.

So Joe, when you come back and read these replies (and I know you will), here is how I (and I think some others) see you:
You have admitted that you have received all your information about firearms from anti-gun propaganda sources.

You have admitted that you have no direct knowledge of the subject.

You refuse to take any action that would educate yourself. (besides demanding that WE educate you)

You have demonstrated that you have a MISunderstanding of firearms and the MANY THOUSANDS of laws that regulate them.

EVERY concern I have seen you voice about firearms is FALSE.

You refuse to acknowledge that firearms owners HAVE compromised.

You refuse to address facts, and choose to argue some emotional theory instead of reality.

Reality is unkind to your worldview, so you have decided to pick up your toys and go home.

Now, to answer the one question I keep seeing you repeat., here is a good source of gun laws:

:slight_smile:

I know, it’s a biased source and all, but some gun owners rely on it for objective information about existing laws.

Go there, click on legislative action and then you will see a menu on the left side. Firearms Laws is one of the selections. I am sure you can handle it from there.

I have been more than civil to you, if you have any specific questions, I will be happy to answer them for you.

144

actually gunshots don’t really kill that often, its much more likely that they would wound.

145

Freedom, I started a post, almost word-for-word like your last one, late last night when AOHeLl booted me 5 minutes after logging on.

I didn’t have the energy to start over, and figured I’d just do it in the morning.

I’m sorry Joe feels that he’s surrounded by enemies; he has an elevated perception of how I perceive whatever threat he and his worldview pose to the 2nd Amendment.

I wish, I really, really do, that he joins the anti-gun camp and shouts his views from the highest rooftop.

We need more people to hear him and other anti-gunners like him.

I can hear it now:

"I don’t really know what I’m talking about, I’ve never owned a gun, never tried to buy a gun, have only a passing familiarity with the types of guns, haven’t bothered looking up the various gun laws, don’t know what the violent crime rates are, or where they’ve been heading for the last 6 years, but…

But I think gun owners should “compromise” and open a dialogue [something the Clinton administration has singularly rejected.-ExT] to examine the possibilities of more restrictive gun laws to cut down on the perceived violent crime problem that I previously admitted knowing nothing about."

Rosie O’Donnel herself couldn’t do a better job in sending more people over to our side of this issue.

Joe, like Freedom said earlier, with help like you, we don’t want you and your kind on our side; your complete ignorance would only harm us.

If you really want to help us, go argue the anti-gun side of the argument.

Joe, in all seriousness, I don’t think that you’re stupid, or willfully blind to the arguments put forth to you.

At worst, you just come from a background that simply blinkers you to what we’re saying, and how we feel and think.

The difference being is that we gun owners, typically conservative to centrist in our world-view, don’t hate others for their choice not to own a gun, or not to hunt, or not eat meat, or whatever; we just want to be left alone in our choices.

We are mostly tired of being asked, again-and-again, to compromise yet again, to move the barrier a little closer to that precipice of a total firearms bans, which is the avowed, publicly stated goal of Sarah Brady and HCI, the most vocal, visible and powerful organization in the anti-gun movement.

And since they can’t do it in one fell swoop, they’ll do it one law at a time. each one more restrictive than the previous, all in the name of Reasonable Compromise.

This is why myself and others here have roundly and soundly rejected you and your arguments; not out of personal enmity, but out of a revulsion of what you and your arguments represent.

Take PLD: I don’t always agree with him. In fact, I have rarely agreed with him. I have never successfully argued against his positions.

The guy’s good.

But I don’t hate him. I admire and respect his articulate nature, and readily admit that, even if I don’t agree with him, his arguments are always sound and well reasoned.

And he’s honest; when he knows, he knows. When he doesn’t know, he says so.

If you had even a quarter of his capability, you may have been taken a lot more seriously.

Okay, I plead guilty to the following: as this board is dediecated to stamping out ignorance, and you readily admitted your ignorance, then I’m at fault for not enlightening you.

Give me a day or so, and I’ll try and compile a concise post listing the various gun control laws, violent crime rates and their trends, gun death rates by age groupings, atc.

Fair 'nuf?

ExTank

146

ExTank, don’t bother. I’ve taken too many personal attacks from you, you’ve too often ignored my requests for additional information. You’ve made me an enemy of gun owners. I’m an outsider, “not your kind”, and nothing I say has any relevance to you. You don’t want to debate someone of opposing views, you want to create reasons to feel self-righteous superiority.

If you had said in your previous post, only “Joe, I’ve been remiss in not providing the information you seek, I shall do so posthaste,” I would have considered it an attempt at reconcilitation. But by prefacing that sentiment with a page of personal attacks you have shown yourself completely insincere and removed any vestige of honest good faith.

All of us sometimes say things in the heat of the moment that we regret. But we’re not talking about one or two statements here, we’re talking about a whole thread where every argument by xenophon41, kimstu and myself has been countered merely with, “You’re ignorant, stupid, ugly and your mother dresses you funny. Your stated goals are insincere; we’re going to judge you by the standards of the extremists, not by your own statements.”

147

Goddammit, Joe, you haven’t suffered a single “personal attack” in this whole friggin’ thread. Grow some skin, will ya?!?

148

ExTank: *The difference being is that we gun owners, typically conservative to centrist in our world-view, don’t hate others for their choice not to own a gun, or not to hunt, or not eat meat, or whatever; we just want to be left alone in our choices. *

ET, I don’t think that even most anti-gun types are intrinsically opposed to leaving you alone (the majority of liberals, after all, are some of the most committed civil libertarians in existence, and are very much in favor of individual rights), or automatically assume that you are irresponsible or untrustworthy. But the thing is that your choices don’t exist in isolation from the rest of society. Most gun control supporters have a strong conviction—whether justified or not I don’t presume to say—that a society where it is easy for you to get and keep a wide variety of firearms is a society that is more dangerous for most other people. They think that it’s reasonable and prudent to restrict your choices with respect to gun ownership in order to make our society safer for everyone.

I know you disagree with that viewpoint. But there are a lot of people who hold it, and you will not convince them they’re wrong by saying “we just want to be left alone” or that you find their views revolting or that they are enemies of freedom. Being aggressive and antagonistic just confirms them in their conviction that you don’t care about the rest of society and that your position is shortsighted and selfish.

Believe me, when it comes to trying to win support for an unpopular position from prejudiced and ill-informed people who distrust you, we liberals have had plenty of experience and we know whereof we speak. :slight_smile: It’s no good being grumpy and alienated, even if you think your opponents don’t know enough to argue intelligently. They don’t realize that, and nothing but earnest patient explanation will convince them (and sometimes not even that). If you honestly want a more enlightened populace and policies on these issues, this polarizing rhetoric of “sending people over to our side” and so forth won’t help in the long run.

Like it or not, you do have to open up a dialogue in which you show more respect for your opponents’ concerns than simply growling that those stupid liberals just don’t want to leave anybody alone. Or rather, the more unwilling you are to do that, the more you will convince your opponents that you are stubborn and unreasonable. I don’t claim that you haven’t been unfairly misunderstood on these issues. I do claim that simply griping about how misunderstood you are won’t do anything to clear up the misunderstanding.

*Give me a day or so, and I’ll try and compile a concise post listing the various gun control laws, violent crime rates and their trends, gun death rates by age groupings, atc. *

That sounds like an excellent way to start such a dialogue, and personally I would very much like to see it even if Joe has bowed out. Thank you.

149

Ferchrisakes, Joe, you used your early posts in this thread to try and establish a reasonable dialogue with gun owners. You got a bit pissy when some of 'em misapprehended your intentions, but hey, that’s no big deal; you could recover from that. Now, after the guy who’s been headbanging with you the hardest finally decides to give you the benefit of the doubt and help educate you (which you’d repeatedly asked for) you stamp your figurative feet and declare you no longer want dialogue 'cause he’s just too damn mean for you.

Y’know, I’ve been arguing with people for over 40 years now (my first phrase was “no it isn’t”), and the number one truism I’ve found is that you learn more from people who disagree with you than from those who share your viewpoint.

I hope you rejoin this debate (after apologizing to ET); now that everybody’s called everybody else stupid, we can start disproving that to each other.

150

Sigh. SPOOFE, y’all haven’t offended me. But I’m not willing to waste my time trying to debate people who constantly insult me.

151

xenophon41: I’ll come back (as I see you have :D) when the gun owners agree to forego personal attacks. I will make the same agreement.

All I’ve asked in this thread is to answer the question: Are reasonable restrictions (i.e. restrictions based on a reasoned process) on firearms acceptable to gun owners?

I am willing to be persuaded that the existing regulations are acceptable; however, I have seen many complaints from the gun owners themselves that the existing regulations are flawed, and place more burden on the lawful gun owner than on criminals.

I am absolutely willing to concede (and I will say it once again) that the fundamental interest of permitting firearms for self-defense and defense of the nation should persist, and I would commit to arguing against infringing on these interests in this and other venues.

I absolutely demand the gun owners concede that I am not an idiot and that we are fellow Americans debating a matter of national policy: neither of us are “outsiders.”

152

Joe Malik, it’s understandable that you want to be acknowledged as an intelligent and reasonable person. However, I’m sure you understand that with over 9800 registered members on the SDMB (BTW, when we get to 10,000 I plan to march us all up along the Tigris and across Armenia to the Black Sea; be ready), you’re going to get some really vehement posts disagreeing with any position you take, and some of the posts aren’t going to be very nice.

I think your main question has actually been answered by some of the gun owners who have posted to the thread. Even ExTank indicated that he felt the existing laws are adequate, if enforced. Now, you may disagree with that statement, but you have to admit that it shows at least ET’s implicit acceptance of some restrictions.

It’s obvious that you’re not an idiot, Joe, but demanding to not be called an idiot isn’t going to get you a great reception, IMHO. Just start posting again in the tone with which you started in this thread and show everyone you’re not an idiot. Some people might still be jerks. Oh well, it happens. Kill 'em with kindness, sez I. :slight_smile:

153

Joe M.:

Let me see if I can summarize:

You say that many people have concerns over guns, and the perceived ease with which “the wrong type” obtain them.

You contention is, regardless of the accuracy of their perceptions, the validity of their feelings, their viewpoints, are no less valid.

Have I got the underlying gist of your earliest posts in this thread?

ExTank

154

Until I get an answer from Joe M.:

Kimstu:

::sigh:: it comes from a long history, on this board, its predeccessor, and in real life of trying to be helpful and informative, in nice, conversational tone, and in return being called a baby-killer, gun-whore, tool of the evil gun lobby, satan’s fuck-toy, etc., ad nauseum.

after so many instances of being kicked in the head (figuratively and literally; at the NRA’s Annual Conference in Charlotte, N.C. this year, several NRA members were physically attacked by anti-gun folks, and I was one of them), demonized and attacked in the media and had the hand of understanding and compromise cut off and handed back to me with a cheery “Go fuck yourself!”, I resort to my military training: the best defense is a good offense. I react proactively.

while the term “kill 'em all and let the deity of your choosing do whatever” doesn’t apply literally, it’s a good indication of my general attitude whenever the gun issue arises.

I’ll start broadly, and narrow the focus to specific questions as we move from what may be common knowledge into more esoteric sub-topics.

Fair 'nuf?

Xenophon41:

You’d be suprised to learn about the level of restriction I agree with, in theory in least.
It’s the implementation of such policies/legislation that I have reservations about.

The primary guiding law on Gun Control (I’m speaking only about Federal Law; you’ll have to do your own research concerning particular state laws) is the Gun Control Act of 1968, with it’s various amendments.

The GCA 68, with amendments from the Firearms Owner’s Protection Act (1986), Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993) and the 1994 Omnibus Crime Control Act, basically says this (C&P’d from the NRA’s "Citizen’s Guide to Federal Firearms Laws):

I have no real problem with the current federal gun control laws cited above; a few misgivings, perhaps, about the direction some of them seem to be heading in, but no true opposition.

And being a good trooper, toeing the NRA Party Line, neither does the NRA (if you doubt me, let me ask: how many of you folks have attended an NRA meeting or conference?).

Some may be hesitant to accept the NRA’s word on the various laws, but I’ve looked up quite a bit of the NRA’s alleged propaganda, and their typically spot-on factually, with their own editorial commentary piled on top.

Hey, I have no desire to get arrested for a firearms infraction, and try to explain to a judge and jury that I’m not guilty because the NRA said so. You can see it on their faces now: :rolleyes: GUILTY!

And the NRA’s membership would suffer horribly from dissemination of false or inaccurate information.

The telling note for the doubters: the NRA cites their sources, which makes independant research on the part of the reader possible. Anything on their website that says “Fact Sheet” has cited sources.

So you don’t have to take the NRA’s word for what they say; you’re perfectly free to look it up for yourself.

The last time I checked HCI’s website and looked at their facts and figures (and I’ll readily admit that it’s been over a year), they didn’t cite their sources.

Not once at all.

ExTank
“Mostly Harmless :wally”

155

Nice Loooooong post Ex-Tank.

[redacted comment about a certain poster:)]

It’s much more than I would have done. I’m going to make this post short.

I actually think the gun control side of this debate is the unpopular position. IMHO most Americans would prefer to see enforcement of existing laws over more laws.
Joe

I count 8 of my posts in your “insult list”

I only think I even came close to the line in these 3:

All in all I think that you need to thicken up your skin. When I first posted around here I got involoved in some debates where I knew NONE of the relevant facts. I FELT that I knew what was going on, but it hurt to find out I was wrong. OUCH!!! I give you a lot more credit than me because I avoided that thread like the plague after everybody jumped on me.

I’m sorry that the facts are colliding a little hard with your gracious offer to come save us from ourselves. If you think this thread was rough then I would like to suggest that you never disagree with David B.:slight_smile:

I concede that it is somewhat possible (maybe:) ), that you are not an idiot. You may very well be an American. (how would we know?) Being an American gives you the right to attempt to influence policy on anything you want. You are however, an outsider. You really know nothing about this issue. I would suggest that you wipe all your preconceived notions out of your head and start looking for the truth if you really want to make a difference.

Buy a gun. Go shooting with someone. (If you live in NJ, I would be happy to take you) Read the NRA stuff with an open mind. Read the HCI stuff with a critical mind:) Go to a gun show. Read through the old threads, they have some great stuff in them.

156

Good post, ExTank. Thanks for shedding some light; we’ve had enough heat for now. I want to post a good reply when it’s not so late, but for now I’ll pick a minor nit.

You asked how many of the other posters here (and I think you meant primarily the gun control proponents) have attended an NRA meeting or conference.

Isn’t that kinda like asking “How many of you non-Rotarians have been to a Rotary club dinner?”

157

NRA meetings and conferences are open to the general public.

The conference in Charlotte was labeled by CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN-HN, MSNBC and others as a gun show.

It wasn’t. It was an exposition, for manufacturers to display their wares, and distributors could place orders. Any gun sales going on (and I doubt there were very many) were between individuals, not dealers or distributors.

It was mainly an annual members meeting, with workshops, seminars, dinners, breakfasts, celebrity appearances, speeches, lectures and general fellowship.

A search of your local Yellow Pages will show you gun stores; as a first step, I would call or go to one and ask about any local gun clubs.

From there, you’ll prolly get a couple of numbers of people to contact.

Go to a club meeting. Make no assumptions, make no declarative statements. Just listen and nod meaningfully at the appropriate moments.

If they like you, they’ll show you the secret handshake, and you’ll be on the road to world domination.

I’ve converted several somewhat rabid anti-gunners IRL; I just don’t seem to do so well in the internet.

One gal, in Dallas (a friend of a friend) was about liberal and anti-gun as one could find. She could cite Sarah Brady and HCI from memory.

We talked for 4 hours before I convinced her to go shooting with me at the Dallas Gun Club.

When she walked in, she was honestly suprised that no one was wearing camoflauge, drinking corn liquor and talking about overthrowing the dastardly Fed’rul Gub’mint.

It was the usual collection of Lawyers, Doctors, Cops, MBAs and everyday people that you would expect to see in a city the size of Dallas.

She was really impressed by my safety lecture and instucion on safe gun handling and range regulations (“You mean you don’t just go out there and shoot?” “No, Michelle, you don’t just go out there and shoot. You wait for a range lane, obey all range rules, and the range controller.”)

It took one round from my .45, and she was hooked. She bought a pistol right there in the Gun Club, and was again impressed that the Club offers free trigger locks and a free Gun Safety Course with the purchase of every firearm.

It should be noted that the Dallas Gun Club is open to the public; membership benefits are typically Range Time and Club Store discounts, and class discounts for Personal Defense and Concealed Carry (usually given by cops and lawyers).

ExTank
“Mostly Harmless :wally”

158

**

Reasonable restrictions are fine. Now let’s decide what is reasonable. Is it reasonable to ban magazines that hold more then 10 rounds? Is it reasonable to ban semi-automatic rifles with a pistol grip, folding stock, or a flash suppressor? My answer is no.

Is it reasonable to require an instant background check before firearm purchase? Is it reasonable to require a permit before being allowed to carry in public places? Is it reasonable to ban criminals from having firearms? I’d answer yes because I find those to be reasonable restrictions.
Marc

159

One thing I’ve noticed (all statistics and 2nd amendment bickering aside) is that the anti-gun lobby is, for the most part, an emotional argument bred from fear. The anti-gun people appear to be afraid (of guns/criminals/accidents, etc.). If we are taken to believe that the freedom for an individual to own a gun is indeed a part of our rights, then the anti-gun folk are afraid of that freedom.

I am NOT afraid of freedom. Freedom to drive means there may be an accident tomorrow, where myself or my family may be killed. But that does not mean I fear that freedom, it means I respect it, and all the rights and responsibilities that go along with it.

If you wish to be free, then with that freedom comes responsibility. To quote Ben Franklin: “He who is willing to yield a little liberty to gain a little safety deserves neither [the liberty NOR the safety].”

Yet, we have yielded so many liberties in the name of safety. Perhaps as a society we do not deserve liberties. Perhaps we all need the return of a totalitarian government where we are all taken care of like little babies, free from any harm. And free from freedom.

160

I really am a pretty nice guy.