jacksen9, if I may… There have been loads of gun debates here and the general consensus agreed upon by veterans of both sides was not to use “biased” sources such as the NRA, the VPC, ad nauseam, when debating this topic. Sources such as Kleck, Kellerman, Lott, et al., are considered more credible (at least for points of debate) and government sources such as the DoJ.
Your point on making it more difficult for those wanting to commit a crime is quite valid and most on both sides want the same thing. However, the method to achieve this laudable goal is the problem, as (from the pro side) new restrictions do nothing but impede a law abiding citizen from obtaining a firearm, and (from the anti side) there aren’t enough restrictions.
This has been a public service message from “geez, not again”, we now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.
I wouldn’t concede this so quickly. As I have been reading through this and I’m noticing some pretty tired arguments that are nothing more than rhetoric regurgitated directly from that NRA. At least you are attempting some original thought and trying to understand this issue.
I think that the simple answer is this: Gun ownership is a reality in this country with nearly 1/2 of the households containing at least one firearm. Gun rights are also a reality and like all of our rights must be protected. But…the right to own a gun is a right that comes with restrictions we have put in place to keep criminals and others prohibited from getting firearms. If you agree with any one of these restrictions, then you agree with some level of gun control and the concession that felons should not get guns is essentially a vote for restrictions on gun ownership. If you’re going to agree with the principle of restricted access to guns, then you must go all the way. You can’t have a system that allows some prohibited buyers to get a gun and stops others; you must have a system that attempts, as best it can, to keep guns away from all criminals and other prohibited buyers.
Currently our system does not do this, and measures such as waiting periods or background checks at gun shows are all intended to make the system do what it was originally intended to do…Keep Guns Away From People Who We All Agree Should Not Have Them.
Now I’ll gladly go point to point on every issue in this debate, and I’ll certainly avoid much of Kleck, Kellerman, Lott etc. because they muddle the debate worse than the NRA & VPC, but I hate the long responses so I’ll wait to do this.
I think its wise to get back to the issue of waiting periods and away from Kleck, Lott etc. because there is much that has not been covered here.
First off, there is no such thing as a federal waiting period (though waiting periods do exist in some states). According to fed. law, you only have to wait for as long as it takes for a background check to be completed, and 95% of cases that is less than 2 hrs. (sorry maxie, the gun show argument doesn’t work). One of the major reasons that we still need a waiting period is that the records in the background check system are in bad shape and often not automated, so it can take a long time to find out if a person who is purchasing a gun may in fact be a criminal. In these cases there needs to be a waiting period so that a check can be completed and in these cases that waiting period should be as long as the check takes, 3 days, 1 month, whatever. The simple fact is, if you don’t know whether the person buying a gun is a crimninal or not, then you should wait for as long as it takes for a check to be completed.
The good news is that most people clear a check in a matter of minutes but those that don’t are 20 times more likely to be prohibited buyers. The fact is that waiting periods were established for the purpose of completeing background checks, the cooling-off period is really not the fundamental issue here.
So. You’re in favor of the status quo? After all we have background checks that routinely turn up evidence of criminals attempting to purchase guns. We’ve those attempts, along with actual possession of firearms by felons, a crime. And yet little is done with that information. Seem to me, more strictly enforcing what’s already been enacted, should be the first and proper course.
And anyway, you over-simplify. There’s not a soul here who believes in completely unrestricted gun ownership, by criminals or law-abiding citizens. It’s the methods over which we argue.
And from that quotation, I’d like to single out this statement, “If you’re going to agree with the principle of restricted access to guns, then you must go all the way.” Just what does “all the way” mean? Sounds pretty scary to this gun owner.
I don’t think anyone, myself included, is arguing that a background check should not be performed. At present, as you correctly state, a check takes practically no time at all (my last hangun purchase, the check took, I’d say, less than half an hour, including the time filling out the paperwork). And that is fine with me. What I am against, however, is a waiting period that imposes extra time between the expression of intent to purchase and the completion of the purchase for no more reason than “waiting for waiting’s sake”. I don’t believe that waiting periods produce a benefit, and in some cases they are actually harmful. If an adequate check can be performed instantly, great; if there’s some problem with the system and it takes longer, then it takes longer. But I don’t believe gun purchasers should be made to wait if there is no necessary or productive purpose for the delay. And imposing waiting periods of a multi-day minimum length would, as I said before, harm or halt altogether the practice of purchasing guns at gun shows.
I hope this clears up any misunderstandings you may have had with my previous post.
So, ags, how 'bout this:
… rhetoric regurgitated directly from that VPC, Brady Bunch, AGS. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, coffee cup, mouse pad…
Oh, as for the waiting period, please remember that it wasn’t too long ago I could order a shotgun out of a Sears catalog and have it delivered to my house in two days. The NICS is a compromise with the benefit going to the consumer, however, it is a new restriction.
I decided that the terms “pro-gun” and “anti-gun” weren’t really accurate - I mean, you can’t really be pro or anti an inanimate object, right? And so the positions become pro-gun-rights and anti-gun-rights, and that’s a bit clunky to type out, so I shortened it to anti-rights.
Would you be so offended if I used anti-rights (anti-speech-rights) to describe someone who advocated stricter “speech control laws”?
**
You haven’t really explained why - or even provided an example of one death that occured as a result of a lack of waiting period.
**
Do I get a free 1911 if the guy isn’t here in a half hour? I kinda like the sound of that.
**
Sorry, what common sense have you provided that has been rejected?
** Well, stats from VPC and such are to be taken with a grain of salt…
**
To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." --Ted Nugent
Yeah, I know Ted Nugent is no great statesmen, or anything, but I like that quote.
**
Those that are threatened have a natural right to defend themselves. How they choose to do so, so long as it remains self defense, is their business.
What you basically said is “No matter how good your reasoning is, no matter how much you tear apart my beliefs, no matter how well you present your case, you’ll never change my mind, because I KNOW, for some reason, I’m right.”
That’s a pretty good definition of head in the sand.
**
Does anyone happen to have that Congressional report made about a decade ago that states the ATF tries to bust law abiding citizens with no criminal intent on ‘technicalities’ more often than try to bust genuine criminals? I can’t remember what it was called.
**
With no consideration given that it may be possible that we’re simply right. Nope, must be all one big conspiracy… after all, you’ve got a firmly placed preconception in your mind - we wouldn’t dare try to shake it with logic or anything like that.
**
Have you ever considered that a position which you believe is right, but can’t credibly support, just may not quite be so right? No… of course not. You KNOW you’re right. We’re just better debaters… that’s it. Yeah. No need to do anything like analyze your own beliefs when you can just say “They just debate better, but I’m right… yeah, that’s it.” It may be the same weak mindedness that makes you say “Yeah, I rely on others to protect me.”
**
You’re right - much better just to die.
Can you give us a reason to think that the War On Guns will make guns any less available than the War On Drugs has to drugs?
Er… he was responding to your “several days mandatory waiting period” idea, not the background check issue.
Btw, I’d like a cite for that 95%. I doubt it’s nearly that high.
**
What you’re saying is that we should give the government de facto power to keep guns out of everyone’s hands by making sure their system doesn’t work for excessive periods of time. And that’s not far off from reality - many times NICS as a whole has gone down for a few days or weeks, inconveniencing (possibly mortally) gun owners as a whole.
**
Cite? I’ve seen people who I know were totally clean take a long time to get a background check done. I think there might be some institutionalized fucking with gun owners going on with the system. If we put the burden on the state to make the system instant, instead of telling gun owners to wait indefinitely, we might actually HAVE an instant system.
Er… waiting periods where they exist are still in effect even after a person has passed a background check, right?
Does that apply to private sales and other transfers, as it already applies to sales from licensed firearms dealers? Because if it doesn’t, you really are arguing that a background check shouldn’t be performed for something like 30-40% of all gun sales.
I have a few thoughts about conspiracy, I admit. I am not the only one:
Would you agree that society would pose fewer threats if there were fewer guns in the hands of criminals? I think it is flawed to make the ability to defend yourself a cornerstone of our strategy to deal with threats and crime. This is the premise that has led to this entrenched gun culture we experience now.
Exactly, you will never change my mind and no, it would be impossible for you to tear apart my beliefs. I may choose to change my mind. I frequently change my mind. I am willing to try things without absolute certainty. This is important for growth to occur. You could possibly present information that I would consider and then subsequently, I would change my thinking.
As for “head in the sand”, I am a full participant. I am engaged. I am aware and more importantly, I can admit that I am wrong. I do not fear being wrong. Or unpopular. Head in the sand…no.
This is an interesting and fun discussion. But I think it works better if I get to answer the questions you ask me. I believe all kinds of things that I can’t prove. It would be exhausting to have to prove and support everything I believe.
You don’t? I mean, honestly, are you in the slightest way open to the possibility that we, as a society, need to look at our attitudes about guns and laws, and figure out a better way? If not, I hope you will thoughtfully reconsider.
Hi everyone… remember me? I started this topic three pages and two days ago. That’ll teach me to take a couple days off to paint some rooms in my house and go to work.
I had some responses in mind to some of the early posts in the topic, and I wanted to talk a bit about responsible vs. irresponsible gun ownership… but the topic has moved on so much that it would almost be out of place, and I’m enjoying the discussion going on.
I do feel the need to stick up for myself a little bit, though, as I think a few people implied some assumptions about me early on that were unfounded, to say the least. Since they attacked me personally, I’ll respond to those… just so there’s no misunderstandings about where I’m coming from.
Gun ownership is a fact of American life. I recognize that, and I’m not trying to change it. I support it as a right outlined in the Constitution, and I exercise my freedom of choice to not own a gun.
Being honest is, I think you’ll find, what I always try to do. I made my position clear in my original post: I want to encourage responsible gun ownership. You could say that this also means I want to discourage irresponsible gun ownership, and I would be fine with that interpretation. I hope you’re all right with that.
And I’ll add that I actually think most gun owners are responsible. It is the irresponsible few (such as my father, more on that shortly) that I wish to discourage and/or prevent from owning and using guns.
Based on your venomous response, apparently not. “Wrest my beloved gun” was taken from another post here, a post by a gun owner who assumed that gun control equals gun ban. I was trying to disagree with that, and perhaps I did a poor job of it. If my “tone” was unclear in my first post, please read my response to Max Torque above… maybe that will clarify my feeling on the subject.
To make it easy: I do not like guns myself, and I choose not to own them or fire them any more. I have my reasons. However, I support others’ right to do so, as long as they do so responsibly and minimize dangers to me and others around them. I support laws (as I outlined) that would further encourage responsibility and accountability regarding guns. I do not support a gun ban.
I hope that my attitude about guns is now clear.
And here you owe me an apology, Anthracite, because you are completely wrong. You misinterpreted my words completely and extrapolated an incorrect meaning. You don’t know what I grew up with, but you presumed to know.
To clarify, hopefully without being melodramatic (I didn’t intend to do this): My father was an extreme alocoholic, drinking heavily every night. Vodka was his favorite. He was also frequently abusive, particularly so when drunk. Not only did he often leave guns out on beds, couches, tables, and the floor, he also left his reloading supplies (gunpowder, primers, shells, bullets) out in easy reach, regularly. I hope you agree that this is bad mojo, even among most gun owners. Also, he did handle his guns while drunk, both at home and out of it, including many trips out to the woods or the desert with his buddies, during which they all drank heavily and hunted squirrel or deer or whatever. I was present at many of these joyous occasions.
And, to make a final quibble, he didn’t teach me how to handle guns safely. He did have the wherewithal to enroll me in the Firearms Safety Course I mentioned in my original post, and there his responsible actions ended, and years of irresponsible storage and handling of firearms began. I suppose I owe him thanks, at least, for enrolling me in the course, because if he hadn’t, considering his later conduct and habits, I probably would have killed myself or him. The course taught me the respect I spoke of in my first post, not him.
Or maybe you think that’s “creating a bad situation that didn’t exist”… I would simply disagree. I was a pretty smart kid, but before I took that course, I was gun-stupid. I could have easily hurt myself.
I like what jacksen9 said here:
Had my father had this attitude toward his collection, I would respect it. Needless to say, he missed it completely. As a parent myself, I find his actions and attitudes reprehensible. He was irresponsible in the extreme, to my mind, and if I were ever to own guns, I would at the very least keep them out of reach. He didn’t even do that little.
Oh, and I do also ask other parents about various safety precautions they take regaridng non-firearm issues, though certainly not to the silly extremes you suggest. Nor am I extreme in my requests regarding guns… I am quite reasonable, actually. “Are they stored safely?” seems pretty reasonable to me, and nobody’s taken offense to it yet.
You made assumptions about my life and conclusions, Anthracite, and I hope you can see now that they were quite wrong. I assume even you would agree now that my father’s actions were irresponsible, and I hope you would not support his “right” to leave firearms on the floor of our house, or his “right” to handle his guns while drunk. Either way, if you’re still reading this thread, I expect an apology from you regarding this statement of yours. You were wrong to make it.
Several people took issue with my criticism of the “slippery slope” argument, but your comment was the most reasonable. I can understand what you’re saying, Riboflavin, and I agree in some cases. Some people do obviously want bans, and can be quite sneaky in trying to get it. I buy that.
I suppose all I was saying (trying to say, anyway), was that I don’t support gun bans. I can only speak for myself, however, and I cannot claim to sepak for anyone else.
Still, the reason I call the “slippery slope” argument invalid (I’ll be nice) is that it is, in itself, a slippery slope. Many gun rights advocates say that because some gun control people want gun bans as the end result, then all gun control arguments are invalid. They seem to think that all gun control advocates want gun bans, and I was trying to point out that I, for one, am not looking for a ban on guns. I can’t imagine that I’m the only one who is willing to limit the controls to some fairly reasonable, specific items. The reason I called the “slippery slope” argument “pungent dung” earlier is that many people who make it do so invalidly, using it as a criticism of even the most benign efforts at control.
Frankly, I find use of the slippery slope argument in response to my sorts of suggestions about as compelling as calling me “unpatriotic” because I support some measure of gun control. It’s a complete mischaracterization of what I’m trying to say. If people are going to address my comments on the subject, I’d just like them to address them on their merits, not on some inaccurate extrapolation. Saying that I want a gun ban because of the controls I suggest is pretty much meaningless. That’s all.
Still, I think people who want guns banned should just come out and say so… at least it’s honest. I never support sneaky political tactics, whatever the agenda.
Next… To those who equate guns as a killing tool with knives, swords, hammers, rolling pins, frying pans, glass shards, pencils, or any other potentially deadly object, I can only say that I’ve always disagreed with that reasoning, and frankly, I find it to be slippery reasoning. It smacks of justification without valid reasoning. I respect that such things can be dangerous and even deadly, if handled without an appropriate level of respect. Some of them (swords, for example, of which I personally own two) are even designed to be harmful, just as guns are. None of them compare, however, to the ease with which one can kill with a gun. Killing with a gun is easy, even thoughtless. It can even be done by accident, and often is. I have yet to hear a compelling argument, here or elsewhere, that disproves this. I’ll entertain one, but I have doubts that anyone has one that is convincing. I’ve heard many, and none have cut the mustard for me yet.
So, if we’re going to talk about guns, please, let’s talk about guns… don’t try to misdirect the issue to knives or writing implements around me; I will most likely reject it. Or at least, if you’re going to say that razor blades kill as many people as guns, provide a cite for it. I’ve certainly never seen one.
I’ll add here that the vast majority of people who have entered this discussion have remained quite reasonable about it, and thank you for contributing. I am reading it, I am enjoying your thoughts, and I will try to contribute more to the current discussion when I have more time. Sorry this was so long; I felt the need to clarify some of the things I said originally. I have more to say, more to the topics that have come up since, but… later.
In the meantime, pray continue with what you were discussing.
Right now, I have to go polish my sword before we hang it up in the newly-painted foyer. grins
Hi everyone… remember me? I started this topic three pages and two days ago. That’ll teach me to take a couple days off to paint some rooms in my house and go to work.
I had some responses in mind to some of the early posts in the topic, and I wanted to talk a bit about responsible vs. irresponsible gun ownership… but the topic has moved on so much that it would almost be out of place, and I’m enjoying the discussion going on.
I do feel the need to stick up for myself a little bit, though, as I think a few people implied some assumptions about me early on that were unfounded, to say the least. Since they attacked me personally, I’ll respond to those… just so there’s no misunderstandings about where I’m coming from.
Gun ownership is a fact of American life. I recognize that, and I’m not trying to change it. I support it as a right outlined in the Constitution, and I exercise my freedom of choice to not own a gun.
Being honest is, I think you’ll find, what I always try to do. I made my position clear in my original post: I want to encourage responsible gun ownership. You could say that this also means I want to discourage irresponsible gun ownership, and I would be fine with that interpretation. I hope you’re all right with that.
And I’ll add that I actually think most gun owners are responsible. It is the irresponsible few (such as my father, more on that shortly) that I wish to discourage and/or prevent from owning and using guns.
Based on your venomous response, apparently not. “Wrest my beloved gun” was taken from another post here, a post by a gun owner who assumed that gun control equals gun ban. I was trying to disagree with that, and perhaps I did a poor job of it. If my “tone” was unclear in my first post, please read my response to Max Torque above… maybe that will clarify my feeling on the subject.
To make it easy: I do not like guns myself, and I choose not to own them or fire them any more. I have my reasons. However, I support others’ right to do so, as long as they do so responsibly and minimize dangers to me and others around them. I support laws (as I outlined) that would further encourage responsibility and accountability regarding guns. I do not support a gun ban.
I hope that my attitude about guns is now clear.
And here you owe me an apology, Anthracite, because you are completely wrong. You misinterpreted my words completely and extrapolated an incorrect meaning. You don’t know what I grew up with, but you presumed to know.
To clarify, hopefully without being melodramatic (I didn’t intend to do this): My father was an extreme alocoholic, drinking heavily every night. Vodka was his favorite. He was also frequently abusive, particularly so when drunk. Not only did he often leave guns out on beds, couches, tables, and the floor, he also left his reloading supplies (gunpowder, primers, shells, bullets) out in easy reach, regularly. I hope you agree that this is bad mojo, even among most gun owners. Also, he did handle his guns while drunk, both at home and out of it, including many trips out to the woods or the desert with his buddies, during which they all drank heavily and hunted squirrel or deer or whatever. I was present at many of these joyous occasions.
And, to make a final quibble, he didn’t teach me how to handle guns safely. He did have the wherewithal to enroll me in the Firearms Safety Course I mentioned in my original post, and there his responsible actions ended, and years of irresponsible storage and handling of firearms began. I suppose I owe him thanks, at least, for enrolling me in the course, because if he hadn’t, considering his later conduct and habits, I probably would have killed myself or him. The course taught me the respect I spoke of in my first post, not him.
Or maybe you think that’s “creating a bad situation that didn’t exist”… I would simply disagree. I was a pretty smart kid, but before I took that course, I was gun-stupid. I could have easily hurt myself.
I like what jacksen9 said here:
Had my father had this attitude toward his collection, I would respect it. Needless to say, he missed it completely. As a parent myself, I find his actions and attitudes reprehensible. He was irresponsible in the extreme, to my mind, and if I were ever to own guns, I would at the very least keep them out of reach. He didn’t even do that little.
Oh, and I do also ask other parents about various safety precautions they take regaridng non-firearm issues, though certainly not to the silly extremes you suggest. Nor am I extreme in my requests regarding guns… I am quite reasonable, actually. “Are they stored safely?” seems pretty reasonable to me, and nobody’s taken offense to it yet.
You made assumptions about my life and conclusions, Anthracite, and I hope you can see now that they were quite wrong. I assume even you would agree now that my father’s actions were irresponsible, and I hope you would not support his “right” to leave firearms on the floor of our house, or his “right” to handle his guns while drunk. Either way, if you’re still reading this thread, I expect an apology from you regarding this statement of yours. You were wrong to make it.
Several people took issue with my criticism of the “slippery slope” argument, but your comment was the most reasonable. I can understand what you’re saying, Riboflavin, and I agree in some cases. Some people do obviously want bans, and can be quite sneaky in trying to get it. I buy that.
I suppose all I was saying (trying to say, anyway), was that I don’t support gun bans. I can only speak for myself, however, and I cannot claim to sepak for anyone else.
Still, the reason I call the “slippery slope” argument invalid (I’ll be nice) is that it is, in itself, a slippery slope. Many gun rights advocates say that because some gun control people want gun bans as the end result, then all gun control arguments are invalid. They seem to think that all gun control advocates want gun bans, and I was trying to point out that I, for one, am not looking for a ban on guns. I can’t imagine that I’m the only one who is willing to limit the controls to some fairly reasonable, specific items. The reason I called the “slippery slope” argument “pungent dung” earlier is that many people who make it do so invalidly, using it as a criticism of even the most benign efforts at control.
Frankly, I find use of the slippery slope argument in response to my sorts of suggestions about as compelling as calling me “unpatriotic” because I support some measure of gun control. It’s a complete mischaracterization of what I’m trying to say. If people are going to address my comments on the subject, I’d just like them to address them on their merits, not on some inaccurate extrapolation. Saying that I want a gun ban because of the controls I suggest is pretty much meaningless. That’s all.
Still, I think people who want guns banned should just come out and say so… at least it’s honest. I never support sneaky political tactics, whatever the agenda.
Next… To those who equate guns as a killing tool with knives, swords, hammers, rolling pins, frying pans, glass shards, pencils, or any other potentially deadly object, I can only say that I’ve always disagreed with that reasoning, and frankly, I find it to be slippery reasoning. It smacks of justification without valid reasoning. I respect that such things can be dangerous and even deadly, if handled without an appropriate level of respect. Some of them (swords, for example, of which I personally own two) are even designed to be harmful, just as guns are. None of them compare, however, to the ease with which one can kill with a gun. Killing with a gun is easy, even thoughtless. It can even be done by accident, and often is. I have yet to hear a compelling argument, here or elsewhere, that disproves this. I’ll entertain one, but I have doubts that anyone has one that is convincing. I’ve heard many, and none have cut the mustard for me yet.
So, if we’re going to talk about guns, please, let’s talk about guns… don’t try to misdirect the issue to knives or writing implements around me; I will most likely reject it. Or at least, if you’re going to say that razor blades kill as many people as guns, provide a cite for it. I’ve certainly never seen one.
I’ll add here that the vast majority of people who have entered this discussion have remained quite reasonable about it, and thank you for contributing. I am reading it, I am enjoying your thoughts, and I will try to contribute more to the current discussion when I have more time. Sorry this was so long; I felt the need to clarify some of the things I said originally. I have more to say, more to the topics that have come up since, but… later.
In the meantime, pray continue with what you were discussing.
Right now, I have to go polish my sword before we hang it up in the newly-painted foyer. grins
Crap. Not only was it long, it was a double-post. Sorry… if any mods happen upon it above, please feel free to delete one or the other post above (but not both!).
Yes. However, you simply haven’t shown that gun control measures in place or the ones that you advocate will actually do that.
I think that any strategy for dealing with threats and crime that doesn’t acknowledge an individual’s right to defend himself is fundamentally flawed and immoral.
You’re not at a Brady Bunch meeting here. Simply using a phrase that’s supposed to be scary like ‘gun culture’ isn’t going to shock anyone. And I’d note that Britain and Australia, who don’t have the ‘entrenched gun culture’ actually have higher rates of violent crime than we do…
Well, too bad. In the face of all of the evidence that gun control ranges from ‘no effect on’ to ‘increases’ violent crime, I’m not simply going to take your belief as fact. Especially when the cites you provide are so obviously flawed.
I outright say that we, as a society, need to look at our attitudes about guns and laws and figure out a better way. I don’t, however, believe that the way is to place more and more restrictions on the law-abiding.
Might be paranoia on my part, but anti-gun-rights people, which I’d categorize quite a few people in the FBI as, have used tactics of inconveniencing gun owners/buyers and generally making it difficult to go through the procedures to obtain guns when they can’t get an all out ban of some sort.
**
Do you really think I disagree with this? Gun rights advocates don’t think arming criminals is a good idea, obviously. We just acknowledge that gun laws DON’T disarm criminals, but they DO disarm their prey. We all want to make life harder for criminals, right? Anti-gun-rights activists seem to think that giving criminals unarmed targets makes their lives harder instead of easier.
**
People like to suggest it’s circular reasoning to say “I need a gun because other people have guns”, because they assume that you can make everyone disarmed, and therefore no one needs to be armed.
There are 2 huge flaws with this premise:
A) Drug laws haven’t done anything to reduce the amount of drugs in the hands of users, and neither will gun laws reduce the hands of guns in criminals.
B) Even if we accept we can magically disarm everyone, it brings back the situation where the 250 pound criminal can easily overpower women, the elderly, the disabled, etc.
**
People tend to inherit a ‘default’ view on issues from society around them in general, and from their parents, and such. I’ve found that some people can question these ‘default’ views and come to realize that they didn’t really make all that much sense, and can easily change their views to something that made more sense.
And I’ve also realized that are some people who will take these default views, who never came to them under their own thinking, and defend them to the death from anyone trying to reason with them. I’ve never quite understood why, but some people just seem incapable of questioning their own beliefs.
And so when you say that I’ll never be able to change your mind no matter how much good reasoning I use, or how much the evidence supports my decision, I’ll never change your mind - which of these two categories of people do you think you belong to?
People can’t be reasoned out of things they were never reasoned into.
**
This contradicts what you just said.
**
And yet, you say, no matter what we do to convince you, you’ll never question your preconception. You’re being totally contradictive.
**
There’s a difference between supporting everything you believe and simply refusing to even consider changing your mind on a specific issue when presented with a rational reason to do so.
I think we, as a society, need to realize that the “gun violence epidemic” is highly exaggerated. The whole issue hinges on some idea that our streets are war zones.
We do have a high gun murder rate, and it’s due to gang related activity. 92%, even. That leaves us with 1000 non-gang related murders per year, in a country of 300 million - with 80+ million gun owners. In any case, do you really think gun control laws are going to disarm gangs? That’s the main problem here - and better enforcement in general against gangs would create a much larger dent in the gun homocide rate in the country.
If you think there’s a huge epidemic, with 1000 non-gang related murders per year in a country of 300 million, then you’re right to advocate an invasive ‘solution’ to this problem. But I’d say you were having an emotional reaction.
Might be paranoia on my part, but anti-gun-rights people, which I’d categorize quite a few people in the FBI as, have used tactics of inconveniencing gun owners/buyers and generally making it difficult to go through the procedures to obtain guns when they can’t get an all out ban of some sort.
**
Do you really think I disagree with this? Gun rights advocates don’t think arming criminals is a good idea, obviously. We just acknowledge that gun laws DON’T disarm criminals, but they DO disarm their prey. We all want to make life harder for criminals, right? Anti-gun-rights activists seem to think that giving criminals unarmed targets makes their lives harder instead of easier.
**
People like to suggest it’s circular reasoning to say “I need a gun because other people have guns”, because they assume that you can make everyone disarmed, and therefore no one needs to be armed.
There are 2 huge flaws with this premise:
A) Drug laws haven’t done anything to reduce the amount of drugs in the hands of users, and neither will gun laws reduce the hands of guns in criminals.
B) Even if we accept we can magically disarm everyone, it brings back the situation where the 250 pound criminal can easily overpower women, the elderly, the disabled, etc.
**
People tend to inherit a ‘default’ view on issues from society around them in general, and from their parents, and such. I’ve found that some people can question these ‘default’ views and come to realize that they didn’t really make all that much sense, and can easily change their views to something that made more sense.
And I’ve also realized that are some people who will take these default views, who never came to them under their own thinking, and defend them to the death from anyone trying to reason with them. I’ve never quite understood why, but some people just seem incapable of questioning their own beliefs.
And so when you say that I’ll never be able to change your mind no matter how much good reasoning I use, or how much the evidence supports my decision, I’ll never change your mind - which of these two categories of people do you think you belong to?
People can’t be reasoned out of things they were never reasoned into.
**
This contradicts what you just said.
**
And yet, you say, no matter what we do to convince you, you’ll never question your preconception. You’re being totally contradictive.
**
There’s a difference between supporting everything you believe and simply refusing to even consider changing your mind on a specific issue when presented with a rational reason to do so.
I think we, as a society, need to realize that the “gun violence epidemic” is highly exaggerated. The whole issue hinges on some idea that our streets are war zones.
We do have a high gun murder rate, and it’s due to gang related activity. 92%, even. That leaves us with 1000 non-gang related murders per year, in a country of 300 million - with 80+ million gun owners. In any case, do you really think gun control laws are going to disarm gangs? That’s the main problem here - and better enforcement in general against gangs would create a much larger dent in the gun homocide rate in the country.
If you think there’s a huge epidemic, with 1000 non-gang related murders per year in a country of 300 million, then you’re right to advocate an invasive ‘solution’ to this problem. But I’d say you were having an emotional reaction.
SenorBeef, please read my post again in regard to changing my mind.
You wrote that you would not be able to change my mind. I agreed, because you can’t. Then, I went on to make the point that I can. In other words, and as I stated, you could present information that would make me reconsider. I think it is important to take responsibility for thoughts. Not inconsistent. I just emphasize the ability to think for myself and not take a position because it is popular.
As for default views I don’t know if this has anything to do with the OP, but my history would indicate that I should be pro-gun. I was raised deep in the heart of dixie. Many of my relatives had more guns than teeth. I did not include my dad’s third rule of gun safety before but it was: **3) If you ever pull it, use it. Empty it. Do not point it and warn. ** I think his fear was that the gun would end up in the hands of the perpetrator. My family had deer heads on the wall (ugh) and tons of fire power. My uncle loaded his own ammo even. My dad gave me a 20 gauge pump shotgun when I was 16. I can shoot a rifle really well. Actually, I qualified as “Expert” in the Army. I missed qualifying as “Hawkeye” by one target. However, if I had to defend myself with a pistol I would be in big trouble. I went out to the firing range, bought a target, set up, and starting firing. The range guy walked by and said “Lady, you need to pick it up some, you are digging a hole out there”. My target came back pristine. Can’t hit shit with a pistol. I would be better off throwing it at someone. All of that just to make the point that I have spent a lot of time around a lot of people that are “card carrying members of the NRA”.
I began to really consider my beliefs about gun control after Columbine. I am a teacher. This tragedy hit me very hard. I see the gang members you spoke of every day. I mingle with them every school day. I am suspicious of the NRA and the gun manufacturers. They have so much to gain financially from the outcome. They have much to lose as well.
I did not include my dad’s third rule of gun safety before but it was: **3) If you ever pull it, use it. Empty it. Do not point it and warn. ** I think his fear was that the gun would end up in the hands of the perpetrator. My family had deer heads on the wall (ugh) and tons of fire power. My uncle loaded his own ammo even. My dad gave me a 20 gauge pump shotgun when I was 16. I can shoot a rifle really well. Actually, I qualified as “Expert” in the Army. I missed qualifying as “Hawkeye” by one target. However, if I had to defend myself with a pistol I would be in big trouble. I went out to the firing range, bought a target, set up, and starting firing. The range guy walked by and said “Lady, you need to pick it up some, you are digging a hole out there”. My target came back pristine. Can’t hit shit with a pistol. I would be better off throwing it at someone. All of that just to make the point that I have spent a lot of time around a lot of people that are “card carrying members of the NRA”.