The thread you link to is most excellent, and I’m going to sit down and read through the whole thing as soon as I get a spare minute.
Your last two responses certainly aren’t weaseling, so it pleases me to further recant my earlier rant. Keep it up, I’m listening. SPOOFE:
This is fair enough as far as it goes, but you seem to be assuming that your statements aren’t contentions and mine are. I argue that when you make claims such as:
*or:
…then you are stating contentions, and it is therefore incumbent upon you, and others of your ilk, to back up these claims with some evidence. For the purposes of debate, like. Exactly in the same way that you would expect me to back up contentions stating the opposite. (By the way, I think that last claim would be very difficult to justify, inasmuch as it also includes a value judgement.)
Weird Al:
Your post is long, too long, and I can’t respond to it in its entirety. I also just don’t think it’s worth it. But I will reply to a couple of points:
Regarding my intellectual honesty, I think that it would be dishonest of me to claim that I’m always intellectually honest, but I do try. When I quoted the passages above I was trying to exemplify the gist of my gripes with you, not provide a blow-by-blow summary. After all, the facts are a matter of public record, and anyone who is so inclined can go back, reread the exchange, and form their own opinion about it.
Regarding this:
[/QUOTE]
Here I am really raising my eyebrows. Once again, you selectively quote, showing us what Freedom would be willing to “go along with”, but not what he demands in exchange, and present this as evidence that he is a “traitor”. In fact, if he is a “traitor” then so am I, as I would likely go along with the same deal…*
[/QUOTE]
…that was directed towards Freedom (and some of the other pro-gunners) as a gentle tease, and I certainly hope they understood it as such. (Keep reading: interesting confession in the works.) Freedom and I have locked horns on this issue before, and while we don’t see eye-to-eye on all the ins and outs of it, I don’t really think he’s a “traitor.” Admittedly, it’s not always easy to discern when someone is joking and when they’re serious on a message board.
Regarding this:
[/QUOTE]
Let me get this straight: To prove that I am “flexible”, I must agree with you on something? *
[/QUOTE]
Well…no, not exactly, but…kinda. Or, let us say, agree with somebody, at some point; agree that they might possibly have a valid argument or something like that. It doesn’t have to be me. It could be Kimstu, Cranky, or anyone else towards whom you were at first opposed.
However, if one never relents, no matter what sorts of evidence or arguments are presented to them, then I take that as good evidence of their inflexibility. Not claiming that you always do that, just stating that I see such propensities in your posting style thus far.
The last two points weren’t directed at you personally, and no, I certainly don’t think that you skip over arguements selectively. Quite the opposite.
Now, for the interesting confession: it appears that I have mislabeled myself. If the pro-gun stance includes the following:
*…then I am, apparently, pro-gun. I might quibble over a few of the details (ExTank presented a more thorough run-through of his position in the thread linked above, which is even closer to my personal take on the issue than Freedom’s) – I don’t see it exactly the same way as Freedom…
…but I’m pretty damn close.
So, can someone please explain to me what we are arguing about again?
I don’t get it. In the thread you linked above, you post a list of regulations governing ownership of firearms that you think ought to be in place, including:[ul]
[li] “investigation flags” for the private sale of firearms;[/li][li] Mandatory training in basic firearm safety;[/li][li] “Mandatory criminal (and possibly civil) liability for inadequate storage;”[/li][li] “Self and Dealer Registration…”[/li][/ul]…among others. Unless I’ve misunderstood something, it would appear from this post that you and I are pretty much in very close, if not complete, agreement (I think I would prefer to ban private sales altogether, but that is a bit of side issue); and judging from what you’ve written, I would expect that you would welcome any statistical evidence that shows that firearm registration has a positive social effect.
Yet, in your discussions with amrussel you seem to take the exact opposite tack, dismissing all evidence of such effects. And in explaining your position to me, you state in bolding:
***…which I’m emphatically not in agreement with, but which also seems to contradict your earlier post, that clearly contains a list of new laws that are not currently on the books, but that you think would be a good idea.
So which is it? Am I pro-gun, or anti-gun?
Between this, and Freedom’s aside to Cranky, I’m beginning to suspect there’s some sort of conspiracy at work here…
*…
So, can someone please explain to me what we are arguing about again?
**
[/QUOTE]
Well, isn’t this interesting. I too will go along with much of this: I have some minor questions/suggestions
[list=1]
[li]Mandatory Sentencing: Yes, but I would like to see it backed up by stringent efforts by police to reduce the black market in guns (attack supply as well as demand, basically)[/li][li]Home Storage: I think the way to prevent people claiming any weapon as being for self-defense, and thus circumventing the legislation, would be to classify weapons according to their suitability to various purposes (hunting, HD, target shooting). Is this viable/practical?[/li][li]Concealed carry: I can see the clear advantages of this in terms of personal protection; weighed against that, there are the number of times that what would otherwise be, say, a bar fight, turns into a shooting incident. (i.e there’s a difference between aggressor/victim incidents and aggressor/aggressor where one guy turns out to be packing. Difficult to know/predict which incident is more common, and to say what you find acceptable as a trade off.[/li][li]Legislation: I agree that these are frivolous law suits, akin to the cancer/cigarette ones, but I’m not sure that a law banning a kind of law-suit outright wouldn’t set a bad precedent. If that can be avoided, fine.[/li][li]Penalties to the gov’t: No. Creating an incentive for speed over thoroughness seems to me to undermine the whole system. Unless, by way of balance, dealers were to pay the government for every sale to a proscribed individual.[/li]
But these are minor quibbles, in the light of what seems like pretty good accommodation. Man, if only it meant something in the real world.
P.S. Should have mentioned this before, but Svin you’re too kind. Really.
I don’t know about the other states, but in VA, a CCW holder cannot carry in bars and most restaurants. Oh, BTW, amrussell, are you going to reply to the registration cost that was posited earlier?
SPOOFE:The point is that a lot of Gun Control proponents stick with vague comments and vague allusions when they refer to their goals. Hell, they don’t even know HOW the stuff they’re backing is supposed to work, yet they advocate it fervently anyway.
Nobody’s arguing with that: there are too many vague comments and vague illusions on both sides of the debate, and nobody really knows how the whole complicated situation involving crime and gun violence works. Nonetheless, it is certain that levels of crime and gun violence are higher than we’d like, and much higher than in most other First World countries: I really don’t buy the argument that since current crime levels are “nothing spectacular”, that constitutes some kind of evidence that there’s no need for any new legislation.
Granted, what makes this whole topic such a bitter debate is that there is damn little conclusive evidence for a clear cause-and-effect relationship in any aspect of the problem, so people on both sides fall back on arguing about what seems intrinsically sensible to them. Nonetheless, that’s not a valid reason to reject all calls for new legislation out of hand. After all, data that we do have shows that “transaction loopholes” and careless firearm storage make it easier for guns to get into the hands of criminals or irresponsible people. It’s perfectly reasonable to tighten regulation on those areas (as even some of the gun advocates on this thread have acknowledged) in the attempt to reduce that effect. Demanding conclusive proof of exactly what the results will be before enacting any such legislation is not realistic or helpful.
BF:Oh, BTW, amrussell, are you going to reply to the registration cost that was posited earlier?
This comment wasn’t addressed to me, but I would be happy to try to figure out a funding scheme for a national firearm registry, if desired. On one condition: one of the pro-gun advocates must in return undertake to figure out how much the “stricter enforcement” you keep calling for will actually cost (given that a big part of the enforcement problem is the shortage of enforcement officers, esp. in the BATF which has been steadily reduced over the last few decades), and how you suggest paying for it.
Whoops, right, sorry. You’re right, of course, that there are costs associated with any new scheme that have to be met. Basically, there are two options: Divert the money away from other portions of the law-enforcement budget (the War on Drugs would be a favorite candidate for this) or find a new source of income. I prefer to divert money rather than increase the budget, because it demonstrates that this is a priority for law-enforcement (not the highest priority, just higher than whatever the money came from).
External imcome sources could be a tax on guns, equivalent in type to Road Tax. Bear with me on this. Thinking about the cost, if we’re saying 70M gun-owners then a $10 dollar flat tax would generate $0.7 Billion dollars. ExTank suggested a figure of $300 dollars for a revolver as a cheap means of home-defence. So for the cheapest guns, the tax would be 3.3%, which I shouldn’t expect to prevent a purchase, particularly when the issue is home-defence.
Alternatively, or in addition, punitive fines on breach of registration would act as a deterrent, generate income, and provide an alternative to jail-time, which I don’t think we necessarily be appropriate in any case.
Also, your analysis assumes the creation of a new department that would be responsible for conducting each and every check: a more streamlined model would be to farm the work out to local police forces - more community based, less set-up costs - with the existing BATF producing guidelines and doing random spot checks.
I would like to say though, that while cost is always an issue the defining question should be,“What do we want to do?” followed by “Right, how are we going to find the money?” rather than “What can we do that will cost <$x?”. That doesn’t represent the “can-do” attitude.
Look, you – what I wear in the privacy of my own home ain’t none a ya business, cowboy.
amrussell:
*Not at all, sir.
It is an interesting turn – you should check out Tank’s list on regulations here, as well, which are even more in line with my (and, I suspect, your) position than those proposed by Free. (It’s a long post – you’ll have to scroll down a bit.)
It seems like a jarring non-sequitor in the middle of our complicated arguments, but actually, this guy is directly addressing the OP. I find this refreshing.
Ah yes…I should have remembered this. The thead where I made my idiot “joke”.
Too true, too true… however, in this case, I’m referring to Svin’s posts specifically. Hell, I’ve asked three times now that he (or she… or it… whatever) provide some sort of evidence for his/her/it’s/whatever’s contentions, and all I’ve gotten in response is “You first, neener-neener-neener!”
Given that Svin has proved that he/she/it/whatever has no intention of actually debating, I’ll just ignore him/her/it/whatever.
I didn’t intend to give that impression, and I apologize for doing so. Certainly, one should NEVER dismiss proposals out-of-hand, unless one has ample evidence to do so. Conversely (and this is my point), one shouldn’t propose new legislation in the first place unless one has ample evidence that such legislation is needed.
What Svin doesn’t realize is that it’s not incumbent upon us to DISPROVE his words, it’s his/her/it’s/whatever’s responsiblity to provide proof to back up his/her/it’s/whatever’s comments. Until that proof is provided, I see no point in providing counter-evidence.
First off, I’m male, thanks for asking. Secondly, regarding your stance:
I don’t know if I understand you rightly, or maybe, if you understand me rightly.
You are of course correct when you state that I have to back up my arguments with some sort of evidence. On the other hand, there is ample evidence to be found, and you must be even more familiar with it than I am by this point. If you mean that I must “Show evidence how the solution [ I ] advocate would solve that problem,” then amrussell links several studies in Australia, for example, which reveal a reduction in gun crime after the passage of stricter legislation. In an associated thread I provided plenty of stats for crime in Sweden, at the request of Freedom, for the purposes of cross comparison, and I’ll be glad to trace them down again for you if you like.
If you mean that I need to “Show evidence that there’s a crime problem that needs to be dealt with (given that crime’s at a low point, good luck),” on the other hand, then I might run into difficulties; you need to explain first what you consider to acceptable levels of crime (and then we probably need to bicker about your definition for a while). Besides, as has been pointed out earlier, crime isn’t caused by liberal gun legislation, only facilitated by it; and being the pro-gunner I apparently am, I’m certainly not arguing about that. In other words, if you want me to go out and find some statistics for you, I’ll be glad to oblige, but I can’t imagine why you feel this debate needs more statistics.
The only point I was trying to make is this: you seem to be assuming that you are right, by mere virtue of the fact that you believe your position to be that of the status quo. But there is nothing inherently or definitionally right about the status quo. Thus, you are bound by the same requirements as everyone else in the debate, to wit: you must prove your point. If you claim that the status quo is the best solution, then I say that that is a contention on your part that you must defend it in exactly the same way that you expect me to defend my contentions, such as they are.
To take a rather crude example, a slave-holder 200 years ago could have made the same argument, claiming that it was morally right to own slaves (since everyone owned them), and insisting that it was up to you, or me, to prove him wrong.
His insistence, however, would not constitute a valid argument, at least in my opinion. Hopefully, not in yours, either.
You never did, specifically, but you did link to a study that says, on its first page:
Your link, not mine. This would at least seem to imply that you approve of a “needs based” justification prior to legal purchase of a firearm.
Sure. What’s wrong with tweaking an existing law instead of layering a whole new set of restrictions on top of it? Especially your recommendation of Aussie-style gun registration, which I still maintain has no proven correlation to the reduction of gun violence. And I think I’ve made a pretty good case so far.
Is there some particular societal benefit to being killed with an illegally obtained firearm (as opposed to a legally obtained firearm) that I’m too dense to grasp?
:cocks eyebrow:
Anyone? Hhhmmm? Can somebody help me out here? Can somebody give me a clue? Anyone? Mini Me? Mr. Bigglesworth? Scott?
:sticks pinkie in mouth, furrows brow:
And all things being equal (your “volume” analogy is most apt), even if the rates are shifting from legally obtained to illegally obtained (more gin, less water), the overall rates (the total volume) have been relatively unchanged. You’re not stopping the violence inherent in the general populace, you’re just driving the portion of your population seriously intent upon committing gun violence towards other sources of obtaining firearms, or other forms of violence.
So the statement that registration will lower gun violence is still unfounded, with no correlation in evidence or fact at this time.
I find the violence (whatever the form) in general unacceptable, and don’t like simplistic analyses which focus upon a particular instrumentality, and which has a tendency here in the States (and, judging by your tone, though I may be mistaken) and Down Under as well, to demonize adherents of that instrumentality.
Your incredulity at my insistence upon a demonstrable causality shows that attitude in a small way.
And please don’t confuse my debunking this one aspect of gun registration as my not seeing some potential benefits (and abuses!) of firearms registration. Like I said earlier, it may help police trace weapons, from point-of-sale to criminal’s hands. This in turn may allow the police (at various levels) to craft more effective enforcement strategies to curb the flow of firearms to criminals, through either legal or illegal means.
Cause…effect. But the emphasis should always be upon identifying, stopping and correcting criminal behavior; not placing increasingly ardent restrictions upon the general populace (90%+ in Australia) to curb criminal behavior, on the theory that any law abiding citizen is simply someone who has yet to commit a crime, as you seriously implied above in an earlier post.
In the thread that I linked to outlining some steps I think may help reduce total availability of firearms to criminals, I received a Cliff Notes version of “Statistics for Dummies” courtesy of Kimstu, and I’ve done a bit of reading on basic methodology (not the math; way beyond my current inclination to get involved with). I’m recalling a snippet from a college textbook I read while on vacation last Memorial Day; I’m paraphrasing here, as the book is at home (which I’m away from on business. Again! )
"In measuring relatively infrequent events, one must realize that even small changes in the raw numbers can produce numerically significant changes without providing any real statistical relevance. In these instances, as larger sampling rates cannot be obtained (due to infrequency), a longer sampling period will yield more statistically relevant numbers.
Since I know I screwed it up somehow, Kimstu may come along and correct me, with the correct interpretation of what I think I read.
As I interpret this (and it’s relevance to Australian Crime Stats.), and your assertion (by linking to publication #151) that registration will yield less gun crime, because Australia already had relatively little gun crime (particularly homicides) before Port Arthur, the 35 additional deaths resulting from that tragedy seriously skewed the numbers for that one year.
Again, and I’m assuming that registration took effect in the legislation following P.A. (I don’t actually know what the regulatory environment in Australia was prior to P.A.) this is quite possibly indicative that, overall, there really wasn’t a problem with law-abiding gun owners before P.A. The report’s author, Ms. Jenny Mouzos, states on pg. 2:
Well, judging by the stats, there weren’t any in the 7 years before it, either, which kind of supports my assertion, above. Port Arthur was an anomalous event, unprecedented in the sampling period presented in the link in “Piece 1” above (pg. 4 of this thread); the report even corrected for the anomaly, dropping the 35 killed at Port Arthur from the stats. Once that was done, the rates for that year were equivalent to what one might expect, using previous year’s trendiness as indicators. Hence the disproportionate impact an anomalous event can have on infrequent events. And the disproportionate impact [undue significance] an anomalous event like a mass shooting can have on social consciousness.
Now here’s the grabber: P. A. was used by Australian politicians in a highly opportunistic way to enact tighter gun control laws, when in fact, for the period covered, violent crime overall, and firearm homicides in particular, had already been trending downwards. It has, in fact, trended downwards at approximately the same rate after P.A. as it was before, a fact acknowledged by Ms. Mouzos on pg. 2:
Again, this makes your statement that registration, Aussie-style, will lower firearms violence in America a bit fatuous. You’re attributing a recent “cause” to a two-decades-old effect.
Coincidentally, Australia’s rates are trending downwards, overall, at approximately the same rate as America’s, overall. Having had much less firearms violence to start with, Australia has a gross headstart, but claiming that firearms registration has led to that trend of reduction, when it was already taking place for two decades is like trying to justify the cause from the effect, a trait of politicians, when in fact it could quite easily be ascribable to other, unaccounted for factors, as any good researcher will tell you.
Again, this isn’t to say that there aren’t potential benefits (and abuses) to registration; I just won’t subscribe to unfounded cause-and-effect theories in the absence of quality (not unequivocal) evidence.
I never said that it proved anything; I suggested that it may be the case, as other criminologists have pointed out. But the “other methods” are rising against gun violence. Adjusted for the overall downward trend, already in effect pre-P.A., they are increasing. And unregistered firearms are supplanting registered firearms in crime, as Ms. Mousoz says on pg. 5:
While certainly containing an element of truth, and underscoring my point that larger samples make for better statistics (assuming sound methodology), could you be any more pejorative?
Again, the murder rate, even with firearms, was already relatively insignificant, especially as compared to America, but more equally as compared to Canada or England/Wales, and trending downward prior to P.A. and its subsequent legislation. Again, you’re implying that a cause had an effect on a phenomena already in place, and the very report that you linked to to justify your position clearly shows a relevant (I never claimed 100%, and don’t know from where you pulled that number) substitution effect as a consequence of the enhanced legislation you tout, *even adjusted for the existing downward trend *. There are even increased levels of gun violence in certain territories, which in and of themselves aren’t (yet) indicative of anything, but still bear close scrutiny and analysis, which I am certain Aussie authorities are doing.
How hard is it to stamp a serial number on a knife? To regulate their distribution? Their sale? Their possession? A mere stroke of the legislator’s pen will make it so. Considering that knives/edged weapons account for a significant (often major) portion of homicides Down Under, and your insistence that registration curbs violence, I’d have thought that you’d be all for it.
So, in the “other” category, assuming that the adjusted rate for those four incidents of “mass murder” (even the one that is only “suspected”) in 99/00 more closely resemble the rates of 96/97 and 98/99 (in the absence of raw numbers, assuming is all that I can do), we still have another indication of a trend of “substitution effect” taking place.
And, adjusted for the overall downward trend, the category is still up significantly since firearm registration took effect, and the folks who were poisoned, burned, drowned, ran over, etc., (some “other” forms of death) are just as dead as if they had been shot with a firearm.
But, and this is just my opinion, if a handful of fewer firearms deaths can cause a 20% shift, I’d say that, overall, the folks down there really have no problem. And making millions (it may actually be hundreds of thousands Down Under) of law-abiding citizens surrender property (firearms) because criminals cannot control violent impulses is not the definition of a “free society” I was taught in school.
If that is all that registration is about, then why the severe restrictions, post-P.A., upon classes of weapons that citizens can own, and forcing certain classes of citizens to surrender them, and others to register them? It was all part-and-parcel in the same bill package, yes?
Anybody got a Band-Aid?
Seriously: another “out of context” set of quotes that, when placed together, seem to imply at least confusion, if not outright hypocrisy, on my part. The first quote is certainly understandable in that regard, but I was speaking a lot more tongue-in-cheek when I wrote that than is apparent from the words alone. And I coitainly know that written words don’t emote very well, and should’ve stuck a smiley after it to lessen it’s impact.
But where did I ever indicate that I, or even a simple majority of gun owners, was unyielding? Entrenched? If anything, I might attribute that trait to you, with your “Are you kidding” incredulity that I, or anyone else, don’t see things as you do, especially as regards American culture and gun control.
Because, when I started with the Straight Dope (on AOL, back in the summer of '98), I was a lot more “hard core”, entrenched, unyielding in my position. My link back to my post in a previous thread is not my start point, nor my end point. I merely ask for evidence (the term “convincing” is a bit vague, and an uncertain “bar” to hurtle), and considering the polarized and partisan nature of the larger debate, I apply a healthy dose of skepticism to any study, pro or con. But associative bias (as a pro-gun adherent) will naturally blind me to some aspects, though I know that I am nowhere as near as bad as I used to be, before being pumped with 1,000,000,000 cc’s of “enlightenment” here in GD and The Straight Dopesub[/sub]
If you read my dialogue with Kimstu in that thread, I actually am moved from strong support of the Kleck-Gertz survey of DGUs to a much reduced adherent of the “DGU’s outweigh criminal uses” position, largely on the strength of Kim’s illustrative discourse on statistical methodology, verified through a bit of independent study.
While I make no claims of “expert” status, I’ve read enough to know when I’m being sold a thinly disguised pig-in-a-poke, as I characterize your largely unsubstantiated claim that registration will cause a reduction of firearms violence, and that it has in Australia.
Svin: you’re a guy?! That makes my “babe” comment, really, really creepy…
To quote Col. Nathan R. Jessup:
I think that the “-lesha” part of your handle…well, I assumed, from that…you know, as in “Alicia”…phonetics…
Anywho:
I never took the exact opposite tack; I just disputed his contention that registration will, or has, reduced gun violence, and asked him to cite and/or demonstrate causality. I have yet to be presented with evidence that it has in Australia to my satisfaction, and have analyzed the numbers a bit. I freely admit its possibility; and if the Aussies are happy with it, so be it. Yet I would resist it here in the USA on the basis of a violence reduction measure. As a firearms tracking measure, to aid in law enforcement developing tailored enforcement strategies to stem the flow of firearms making their way into criminals hands from most avenues, yes.
On that basis (cause-and-effect) I can conditionally support it, and realize that it may have the concomitant effect of reducing some firearms violence; I also examined Australia’s experiment with firearms registration, and believe that, if implemented here in the USA, most gains in the area of gun violence may be mitigated by substitution effect to other form of lethal weapons.
Because the overall violent tendencies of the criminal element in America will provide sufficient motivation to eother seek alternate methods of obtaining firearms, or other forms of lethal violence.
Again: considering the Constitutionality of the issue here in America, which I have been led to believe wasn’t an issue in Australia, it’s a sacred cow that should be poked lightly. Very lightly.
The key words in the quote of my quote is “demonstrable need”. And mere levels of gun violence are not, in-and-of themselves, demonstrable need for more gun control, at least IMHO.
That I and other may recognize some aspects of proposed gun control as possibly beneficial is exactly the accommodation that you are looking for; the polarized, partisan nature of the larger debate will ensure that we will jump the shit out of anyone proposing more gun control without clear, reasoned, dispassionate (re: absence of inflammatory or pejorative keywords) motives.
That both Freedom and myself have acknowledged some aspects of pro-gun-control positions as legitimate should encourage you, amrussel and others to seriously examine your beliefs on the cause-and-effect benefits of any proposed gun control legislation, and examine the history and motives of whomever proposes it.
Hey, don’t sweat it…babe. Don’t be afraid – you can come out of the closet here! (Sorry; I couldn’t resist. Anyway, I’ll see if I can’t do something about the ambiguity of my name. In the meantime, speaking of coming out of the closet…)
Let me tread carefully here, so that we understand each other correctly.
If this means what I think it does, then we seem to be in agreement, at least regarding practicalities. However, I still can’t reconcile this with your statement that you oppose “any more forms of gun control without demonstratable need…” Wouldn’t this policy require, in effect, the imposition of a new form of gun control (i.e., a new regulatory policy)?
Agreed.
See, here you lose me a bit. What do you consider as evidence of “demonstratable need?”
Well, even had you two not made such an acknowledgement, I am nevertheless bound to make such a serious examination, I believe. But it is encouraging to see that you and he have made such acknowledgements. I seem to have been arguing on the wrong foot, or against the wrong people. I was not being facetious when I claimed that I might actually be “pro-gun.” I’ve apparently misunderstood you and Freedom at a very fundamental level, and I’m beginning to suspect that we are actually arguing for the same thing, only approaching it from different angles. If you still support the policies you’ve outlined above (especially regarding mandatory safety courses and home storage regulation), then it appears that we are in very close agreement. I’ll gladly support some sort of private registration system such as the one you propose, at least for the purposes of experimenting to see if it has any positive effects. (I’m categorically against unnecessary regulatory legislation, especially since it would in this case be so intrusive, if there is any way to avoid it.)
Being American, I also agree with your point concerning justification of firearm ownership; as a legal, responsible citizen, willing to take a course in firearm safety and store your weapons in a secure manner, I see no reason why you should be required by the state to present any justification for your desire to own a weapon other than, “I want one.”
So now, to get back to my first paragraph, above, I’m sitting here wondering…am I a closet “gun-freak,” or are you a closet “gun-grabber?” And better yet – are we about to come out of our respective closets?
Despite my compromise positions above, IRL I wouldn’t want to budge even an inch.
Not at the present time anyway. I don’t trust HCI and Sarah Brady. I don’t trust the politicians in Washington.
I’m smart enough to sense that the sharks are circling and looking for a way, any way, to continue their one way whittling down of firearms ownership in America. Not everyone who wants to pass more legislation is a shark, but I don’t see the people behind the scenes stopping when their current day goals are acheived.
Once a restricing law gets passed, it just doesn’t get lifted. The government tends to grow and encroach more than it gets pruned back. The time to fight these restrictions is before they get passed.
I was serious about my trade-off above. I don’t think “the other side” could ever concede my conditions, because their goal is a total gun ban.
Intellectually, I can see that not all of our entrentched positions are in the best places, but if I’m going to compromise, I would rather do it with people that agree with most of my positions.
So I end up arguing against the “one gun a month” rule and I don’t support mandatory training and storage requirements.
Svin: let me see if I can phrase it another way, then.
Given the levels of violence, particularly gun violence, a need to do something is fairly apparent.
But exactly what that “something” may be is questionable, and certainly open to debate.
In the earlier days of “modern” Gun Control*****, when Exxon executive Peter Shields came aboard the Gun Control movement after the shooting death of his son, the earlier incarnations of HCI were quite explicit that their endgame was total bans and confiscations of all privately owned firearms. This went over like a lead balloon.
They were then quoted in several interviews as saying that their initial position was the wrong tack to take; that stating up front their endgame of total bans and confiscation was a tactical error, and advocated an “incremental approach” to achieving their goal of “sensible gun control”, whatever that means.
And several of us think we have pretty good ideas of exactly what that means.
Given that the folks at HCI, and their allies in various legislatures, have a propensity for inflammatory, accusatory rhetoric and agitprop, and whip people into action on strong emotional appeals ( “Will somebody PLEASE think of the children!” ), we feel very defensive, and are very skeptical, when new regulatory schemes are proposed.
Given the incrementally encroaching nature of subsequent legislation, the ranks of the NRA, at barely 500,000 in the 70s, is up to its current level of about 4,000,000, and growing. Is that any indication of HCI’s effectiveness in attacking and alienating American gun owners?
Americans, even people who don’t own guns but may want to have that choice (like women who may not believe in abortion, or even want one now are against abortion bans as they may want the choice to be theirs if at such time in the future they change their minds) are waking up to this no-longer-publicly-spoken endgame of HCI and Sarah Brady.
There are even alternative gun control groups popping up who claim to have no affiliation with HCI, and don’t share their goals, yet they use most of the same keywords and language as HCI.
I personally have been attacked, physically assaulted, by a anti-gun/pro-control activist at the NRA’s annual conference in Charlotte, N.C. last year; the hateful words he spewed at me while hitting me with an anti-gun/anti-gun owners placard nailed to a board were reminiscent of the words whites and the KKK spewed at blacks during the civil rights marches in Montgomery, AL.
Where did this 19 y/o college kid learn such hate? I’m willing to bet that he would never speak in such a manner to people of differnet race, color or religion. Yet I and American gun owners are somehow legitimate targets of such bile.
So hence mine, and others serious distrust of any new gun control proposal, and our demand to know exactly what these new schemes are expected to accomplish, how they are going to accomlish it, on what basis is it necessary, who is it targeted at, what research has been done to show that it may be effetcive, what experts have to say about it, etc.
We want, I might say demand, clearly defined positions, precise terminology, and carefully worded legislation so as to not infringe upon those of us, constituting the vast majority, who are safe, responsible gun owners.
Two quotations familiar to me come to mind on this issue, and both apply equally to either side, and should serve as warning equally to either side:
An over-taxed patience gives way to fierce anger.—Publius Syrus: Maxim 289.
The wind of anger blows out the lamp of intelligence. - unknown
*****Beginning in the late 19th/early 20th century, certain gun control measure were encated in major population centers with large numbers of immigrants; New York city comes readily to mind, but there are plenty of other examples, such as Chicago and San Francisco. These measure were aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of immigrants who may have had foreigh radicals and revolutionaries within their ranks.
Even earlier gun control measure were aimed squarely at blacks, in the north and south. These emeasures, while technically applying to everybody, were enforced discriminately against blacks alone.
There are some objections I have to your list, but I’m willing to compromise. I don’t know anything about their goal, but I assure that my goal has absolutely nothing to do with a total gun ban. I’ve never, as far as I know, argued for such a ban, nor would I ever support one. You seem to have assumed that I’m “one of them” and then argued accordingly; had you just come out and told me what you really thought in the first place, you would have found an ally, rather than an opponent. *
Then I’m the guy you want to talk to.
Uhh…on the other hand, your definition of “compromise” seems to contradict itself, somewhat. Definitionally speaking, it is difficult to compromise with people who are in agreement with you.
ExTank: *
I am completely flabbergasted by this admission. Don’t get me wrong – I mean, flabbergasted in a good way.
I hereby officially recant my earlier, clearly ignorant accusations that pro-gun advocates “cannot give their opponents right in a single instance” and offer my sincere apologies to anyone I may have offended. *
Living over here in Sweden for as long as I have, I know literally nothing about any of these events. The first time I heard of the HCI was in the last thread we debated, when I quoted some statistics and you identified them as coming from that source. The first time I heard of Brady & Co. was in this thread. I have no hidden agenda whatsoever and my idea of “sensible gun control” coincides, I believe, almost exactly with yours (assuming you stand by the points enumerated in the posts above). *
Yes, I also read about that in the link you posted above. It is unacceptable. The irony of a “peace protester” attacking a bystander with a wooden sign verges on the cosmic. (That he didn’t just take out a gun and shoot you?) Having protested a bit myself (most recently involved in the riots over here in Gothenburg during the EU Summit and the George Bush visit) I am aware that fevers run high during mass actions, but there is no excuse for such behavior in my book. *
Does this include your own proposals as stated above?*
I agree without reservation.
Why didn’t you just say all of this in the first place, and spare us the wasted electrons?
(Not that I haven’t enjoyed our debates, mind you. :))
Are you referring to my “six points” as related in the previous thread? If so,then no. They are just IMHO, and more indicative of what I feel, by though-experimenting them about a bit, will help. They are also indicative of where I stand on gun control.
Note that most of them are owner initiatives; very few of them allow for gov’t or enforcemnt agencies to pry into a gun owner’s business, and where they do, only in a limited manner.
Because amrussel made an assertion that I took exception to, and challenged him to back it up.
Not that I disagreed entirely with him, and our side-debate is more illustrative of cultural diffences in terminology than any inherent differences of opinion.
Basically, I disagreed that firearms registration will automatically lead to reduction in firearms violence, or that is has in Australia, or would in America.
)
Don’t be afraid – you can come out of the closet here! (Sorry; I couldn’t resist. Anyway, I’ll see if I can’t do something about the ambiguity of my name. In the meantime, speaking of coming out of the closet…)
“Will somebody PLEASE think of the children!”