The missing voice in the gun control debates

[Terr]

@Northern_Piper

Oh, and of course one other major difference: firearms ownership does not have any constitutional protection.

Neither does free speech. A great example to emulate, I am sure.

[BrainGlutton]

@Terr

Neither does free speech.

And yet it thrives. There’s a lesson in there somewhere.

[Northern_Piper]

@Terr

Neither does free speech. A great example to emulate, I am sure.

[QUOTE=Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]
**Fundamental freedoms

2**. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.
[/QUOTE]

..

[Terr]

@Northern_Piper

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Fundamental freedoms

Not worth the paper on which it is printed.

The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on various grounds, and forbids the posting of hateful or contemptuous messages on the Internet.

In Warman v. Winnicki, 2006 CHRT 20, Karen A. Jensen found the respondent had posted messages to the Internet which were “vicious and dehumanizing”. The adjudicator ordered the respondent to cease and desist his discriminatory practices and to pay a penalty of $6,000.

In Citron v. Zündel TD 1/02 (2002/01/18) the Tribunal found that the respondent had theories of secret conspiracies by Jews. The respondent posted his theories to the Internet. The Tribunal found that the tone and extreme denigration and vilification of Jews by the respondent was a violation of s. 13(1). The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease and desist his discriminatory practice

[Northern_Piper]

Sure, we’ve had this debate before. I don’t see how it’s particularly relevant to the topic of gun control. I don’t want to see this thread hijacked, so how about you respond to the issues of gun control?

[Ibn_Warraq]

@BrainGlutton

Well, yes. That, in addition to poverty/crime, is what accounts for the high levels of inner-city violence – a Southern-derived macho-honor culture where slights and insults demand violent redress.

Really. Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian, Puerto Rican, Mexican, and Salvadoran gangs are so violent due to the culture of the antebellum South.

Please provide some evidence to support such an extraordinary claim.

[Terr]

@Northern_Piper

Sure, we’ve had this debate before. I don’t see how it’s particularly relevant to the topic of gun control. I don’t want to see this thread hijacked, so how about you respond to the issues of gun control?

Just pointing out that the Canadian gun control system will be just as un-“acceptable to gun owners in the US” as the Canadian free-speech control system.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@BrainGlutton

I’m getting that from Vietnam: The Necessary War, by Michael Lind:

You’re using as your source someone who’s so stupid that he thinks that the Vietnam War was a good thing?

That’s rather weird. Do you think that the US was right to invade Vietnam and kill several hundred thousand Vietnamese.

If not, please explain why you think that Michael and his book is useful for anything other than toilet paper.

Moreover, he says nothing in there about Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Cambodians or other communities which have had large numbers of their young men join gangs.

So please, explain your defense of the crackpot idea that “Southern honor” is responsible for the high crime rates of many northern cities.

[Northern_Piper]

as mentioned, I also doubt that the Canadian system would be as welcomed by moderate US gun owners as Brain Glutton blissfully imagines.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@BrainGlutton

And yet it thrives. There’s a lesson in there somewhere.

Not in Canada.

For the record. I’m still a huge fan of Canada, but I obviously disagree with them when it come to separation of Church and State and freedom of speech, neither of which they believe in.

[BrainGlutton]

@Ibn_Warraq

You’re using as your source someone who’s so stupid that he thinks that the Vietnam War was a good thing?

Not good, just necessary; Vietnam being a theater in the Cold War, at a time when perceived failure-of-nerve by either side could provoke a “bandwagon effect” of non-aligned nations leaning towards the other. I disagree – in fact, I disagree that, for the West’s part, the Cold War ever was worth fighting at all – but you cannot deny it is an arguable position.

[BrainGlutton]

@Northern_Piper

as mentioned, I also doubt that the Canadian system would be as welcomed by moderate US gun owners as Brain Glutton blissfully imagines.

[shrug] Something more moderate but generally modeled on it, then. There was a time, you know, when the NRA was open-minded to gun control, so long as it was not universally-confiscatory gun control:

The NRA formed a legislative affairs division in response to debate concerning passage of the 1934 National Firearms Act,[18] the first major gun control legislation in the United States. At the time, the NRA supported the act without studying its impact on the second amendment, and also supported the Gun Control Act of 1968. The two acts created a system to license gun dealers and imposed taxes on the private ownership of machine guns.[19]

“The Cincinnati Revolution”

Since the 1970s, the NRA has undergone a series of political crises, focused on taking control of the organization and changing its focus away from hunting, conservation and marksmanship to one of Second Amendment advocacy and political mobilization.

The defining moment came at the 1977 annual convention in Cincinnati, known as “The Cincinnati Revolution.”[20] Until then, the NRA had focused on sportsmen, hunters and target shooters, and had downplayed issues of gun control. At the convention, the leadership had planned an elaborate new headquarters in Colorado, designed to promote sportsmanship and conservation. Within the organization, an opposition was formed of activists whose whose central concern was Second Amendment rights. The activists defeated the incumbents in 1977 and installed Harlon Carter as Executive Director and Neal Knox as head of the ILA.[21][22]

After 1977, the organization expanded its membership by focusing heavily on political issues, downplaying the roles of hunters and target shooters, and forming coalitions with conservative politicians, most of them Republicans.[23] With a goal to weaken the Gun Control Act of 1968, Knox’s NRA successfully lobbied congress to pass the McClure-Volker firearms decontrol bill of 1986 and worked to reduce the powers of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). In 1982, Knox was ousted as director of the ILA but began mobilizing outside the NRA framework and continued to promote opposition to gun control laws.[24] The organization’s approached 3 million people by 1984, but internal turmoil continued, as several executive vice presidents were removed.[25]

At the 1991 national convention, Knox’s supporters took control of the board, and named staff lobbyist Wayne LaPierre as the Executive Vice President. The NRA focused its attacks on the gun control policies of the Clinton administration.[26] Knox again lost power in 1997, as he lost reelection to a coalition of moderate leaders who supported movie star Charlton Heston, despite Heston’s past support of gun control legislation.[27] In 1994, the NRA unsuccessfully opposed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, but successfully lobbied for the ban’s 2004 expiration.[28] Heston was elected president in 1998 and became a highly visible spokesman for the organization. In an effort to improve the NRA’s image, Heston presented himself as the voice of reason in contrast to Knox.[29]

<snip>

The NRA supported the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA), which regulated what were considered at the time “gangster weapons” such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and silencers.[43][44][45] However, the organization’s position on parts of the act has since changed.[46]

The NRA supported the 1938 Federal Firearms Act (FFA) which established the Federal Firearms License (FFL) program. The FFA required all manufacturers and dealers of firearms who ship or receive firearms or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce to have a license, and forbade them from transferring any firearm or most ammunition to any person interstate unless certain conditions were met.[47] As a practical matter, this did not affect the interstate commerce in firearms or ammunition. It was with the adoption of the Gun Control Act in 1968, which repealed most of the FFA, that the lawful interstate trade of firearms was limited almost entirely to persons holding a Federal Firearms License.

The NRA supported and opposed parts of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which broadly regulated the firearms industry and firearms owners, primarily focusing on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers. The law was supported by America’s oldest manufacturers (Colt, S&W, etc.) in an effort to forestall even greater restrictions which were feared in response to recent domestic violence. The NRA supported elements of the law, such as those forbidding the sale of firearms to convicted criminals and the mentally ill.[48][49]

[BrainGlutton]

The RationalWiki page on Gun nuts is insightful and relevant here:

What they are, and what they are not

Like mall ninjas, gun nuts rarely refer to themselves as such except in an ironic or sarcastic manner, and typically call themselves gun owners, collectors, or enthusiasts. However, there are several points separating genuine “nuts” from the average gun owner.

Absolutist views on gun rights

Nearly all gun owners, including moderates on the issue, believe in the right to keep and bear arms for sport, hunting, historical interest, and in most cases self-defense. What separates the average owner from the nut is the degree of such support. Most moderate, non-nutty gun owners accept or even support some degree of gun control, or at most grumble about it creating long lines and ammo shortages/purchase limits at gun stores.

Many gun nuts, on the other hand, take a staunchly anti-regulatory position on the issue of gun control; restrictions on (semi)automatic weapons, “high-capacity” magazines, and “assault” features, as well as measures like waiting periods for gun purchases and permits for ownership, are seen as not only an unnecessary burden, but as a step towards authoritarianism and a threat to freedom. This is the position of groups like the Gun Owners of America and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, as well as, to a lesser extent, the more radical wing of the National Rifle Association.

However, this in and of itself is not a clear mark; one can take staunchly anti-gun control positions without being a nut. Some of them may not even own guns themselves, instead seeing it as a civil liberties issue.

Intended purpose of guns

Another dividing line between normal gun owners and nuts is the degree to which the idea of self-defense is embraced. Most gun owners take it as a given that defense of one’s life, limb, loved ones, and property is an acceptable use for a firearm; the “castle doctrine” is rooted in this idea, as is support for concealed carry. The common refrain of responsible gun ownership is that one always hopes to never have to actually use a gun to kill another person, keeping it solely as a last resort in the event of the worst — a malicious home invasion a la the Manson Family, a spree killing, an attempted mugging or rape, etc. Even then, it is hoped that the mere sight of the gun, or the sound of it being cocked, would scare off any potential threats before things turned ugly.

Many gun nuts do not subscribe to this idea, instead keeping guns in the expectation of having to use them against intruders, robbers, or killers. While they may offer platitudes about hoping to never use their guns, their personal, unvoiced attitudes will differ. The guns they view as defensive weapons are likely to be higher-grade than simple pump-action/break-action shotguns or .45 pistols; instead, they will argue that semi-automatic rifles are necessary to defend one’s home. Some go further and anticipate long-term societal breakdown and an oppressive police force or government as things to defend against; ironically, the latter puts them in line with the original Black Panther Party, which called for African-Americans to embrace gun ownership in order to stand up to police brutality.

Crankery

Embrace of conspiracy theories is perhaps the clearest dividing line between the average gun owner and the true nut. As noted, a popular idea among gun nuts is that gun control is a threat to freedom, and that, by extension, the only way people could support it is if they have authoritarian tendencies or have been scared by those that do. As a result, they are often more inclined to believe that killing sprees committed with easily-accessible, high-grade firearms, like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, and Sandy Hook, were false flag operations or staged hoaxes carried out by the government in order to drum up support for gun control, and that the United Nations’ proposed Arms Trade Treaty[1][2], designed to crack down on smugglers and arms traffickers, is targeted at American gun owners. Likewise, there tends to be a significant deal of cross-pollination and sympathy with the militia movement and the radical right in general.

They ain’t makin’ it up about about those “false flag operation” theories, either. See this Pit thread. If you believe/proclaim that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged, then you are a gun nut, and probably several other kinds of nut.

[ExTank]

Posting the same link in multiple threads doesn’t make it true.

And as a gunowner, I disagree with your cite’s assessment; it boils down to, “If you disagree with us, you’re a gun nut.”

[Cheshire_Human]

@Ibn_Warraq

That’s rather weird. Do you think that the US was right to invade Vietnam…

The US did not ‘invade’ Vietnam.

The US was invited in by the reasonably legitimate government of the place. The wisdom of how the war was conducted, after that, is a separate issue. If you’re going to throw out ‘zingers’ like that, at least get the history right.

@ExTank

Posting the same link in multiple threads doesn’t make it true.

The poster you are replying to isn’t noted for his rationality.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Cheshire_Human

The US did not ‘invade’ Vietnam.

The US was invited in by the reasonably legitimate government of the place. The wisdom of how the war was conducted, after that, is a separate issue. If you’re going to throw out ‘zingers’ like that, at least get the history right.

If you want to insist that the US didn’t invade Vietnam then you’d also have to argue the Soviets didn’t “invade” Afghanistan or Hungary since the Soviets were “invited” in by the recognized governments of those countries. The same could be said regarding Israel’s “invasion” of Lebanon in the early 80s.

Most people would laugh at this because when you send troops into a country to prop up a puppet government that you installed they call it an invasion.

That’s what the Soviets did in Afghanistan and that’s what we did in Vietnam.

So, is you position that the Soviets didn’t invade Afghanistan?

[drachillix]

@SenorBeef

I really do like when gun control advocates use their ignorance about guns, crime rates, and legislation as a point of pride.

Don’t Remember who said it but it was here.

“Some people like to wear ignorance as if it was a medal”

[JXJohns]

@BrainGlutton

[shrug] Something more moderate but generally modeled on it, then. There was a time, you know, when the NRA was open-minded to gun control, so long as it was not universally-confiscatory gun control:

This is the reason that many of us refuse to become “life” members of the NRA. I plan on my “life” being a while. Who knows where they will be politically in another generation?

[Lumpy]

@BrainGlutton

“The Cincinnati Revolution”

Since the 1970s, the NRA has undergone a series of political crises, focused on taking control of the organization and changing its focus away from hunting, conservation and marksmanship to one of Second Amendment advocacy and political mobilization.

The defining moment came at the 1977 annual convention in Cincinnati, known as “The Cincinnati Revolution.”[20] Until then, the NRA had focused on sportsmen, hunters and target shooters, and had downplayed issues of gun control. At the convention, the leadership had planned an elaborate new headquarters in Colorado, designed to promote sportsmanship and conservation. Within the organization, an opposition was formed of activists whose whose central concern was Second Amendment rights. The activists defeated the incumbents in 1977 and installed Harlon Carter as Executive Director and Neal Knox as head of the ILA.[21][22]

Which begs the question: why did the anti- gun control faction gain enough standing to change the NRA’s focus? It isn’t like some bunch of outsiders came down from the Moon and imposed a foreign viewpoint on the NRA. What happened was that more and more grass-roots members were becoming alarmed at the post-1960’s trend towards ever-expanding restrictions on firearms ownership. And when they realized that the “Fudds” were going to do nothing as long as single-shot rifles and shotguns were still permitted, the new generation took action.

ironically, the latter puts them in line with the original Black Panther Party, which called for African-Americans to embrace gun ownership in order to stand up to police brutality.

The Panthers were in fact doing exactly what free people are supposed to do with guns- keep and carry them peacefully as a deterrent to being attacked. The fact that bigoted whites panicked and once again embraced gun control to keep guns out of the hands of “those people” is the tragedy.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@DCnDC

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: it’s simply a problem without a solution, at least none that would work in the USA as it is or conceivably ever will be.

I don’t believe that is true.

We take guns out of criminal hands every day. The problem is that the replenishment rate is high enough that removing the guns makes little difference.

The gun control advocate’s answer is to ban guns generally and choke off the inflow. This would leave criminals as the only armed citizens of the country for decades. The other way is to regulate and track legal guns so that we severerly constrict the flow of guns into the hands of criminals and while this may take a bit longer to starve the guns out of criminal hands, it leaves the second amendment in tact and it leaves the law abiding citizenry as armed as they desire to be.

People who are intent on taking their own lives are still going to (attempt to) accomplish it whether they have guns or not.

Not to argue against my own cause but the success rate for suicide with guns is vastly higher than slitting your wrists or taking sleeping pills and after getting through their rough patch a lot of people stop being suicidal.

@C_K_Dexter_Haven

And for everyone else who’s jumping on me because I don’t know the diff between an AK-17 and BQ-43: (a) you are quite right and (b) stuff it. I don’t know the diff, nor do I care to. I do not own any sort of gun. I have not studied the various proposals, nor do I want to spend my time on that. I do not think that an “assault weapon” ban goes far enough. I favor repeal (or re-definition) of the 2nd Amendment to require registration of ALL firearms.

So you are saying you aren’t going to learn about horses because the only horse you are willing to ride is a unicorn. We will NEVER get rid of ALL the guns in the USA and we certainly will not get rid of guns int the hands of criminals by criminalizing the possession of guns.

@Lumpy

The reason pro-gun Second Amendment-absolutists (which I lean towards) furiously object to gun control as usually proposed is for any of the following reasons or often a combination of them:
[ol]
[li]That gun owners consider the very premise of gun control flawed; that limiting or banning firearms would lead to a safer more peaceful society.[/li][li]That gun owners bitterly resent statistical models of crime control that make no allowance for individual choice or personal character, thus lumping peaceful law-abiding gun owners with career criminals and sociopaths.[/li][li]The idea that owning firearms, and thus possessing the practical means of self-defense, is a privilege which the government can grant or withdraw by the simple passage of a law.[/li][li]The idea that the government should have a monopoly on “serious” firearms, leaving the populace with at most some minimally effective second-rate weapons.[/li][li]The historical precedent that things that aren’t gun bans in and of themselves- like universal registration- have frequently been the prelude to gun bans.[/li][li]The open proclamation by many gun-control advocates that they really are seeking to abolish firearms from civil society, by an incremental process of delegitimizing gun ownership.[/li][li]That many of the proposed laws, like “assault weapons” bans, would do little or nothing to make the public safer, at the cost of lost utility for legitimate possession of such weapons.[/li][/ol]
Gun owners wish they didn’t need to fear a slippery slope, and would gladly accept reasonable limitations on firearms ownership, if it could somehow be impossible for those limits to ever be exceeded.

Other than the whole"registration is the first step to confiscation" paranoia, I agree with everything on your list. And we do have a guarantee in the second amendment.

@BrainGlutton

So? That certainly is worth doing – personal firearms are good enough for home-defense and hunting and collecting, but they have no legitimate place in civil society. Do you have a better idea as to how?

That horse left the barn a LOOOONG time ago. The guns are out there, guns can remain functional for over a century. You have to craft a solution that recognizes the fact taht the guns are out there and that criminals will not surrender their guns because Dianne Feinstein passes a law saying they must.

@SenorBeef

Wait, so you’re saying that in order to be on the side that’s interested in compromise, you must think that gun ownership cannot occur in society? Your view of compromise is absolute banning of guns, and anyone who deviates from that is unwilling to compromise?

He’s probably a Republican.

@Lumpy

Which begs the question: why did the anti- gun control faction gain enough standing to change the NRA’s focus? It isn’t like some bunch of outsiders came down from the Moon and imposed a foreign viewpoint on the NRA. What happened was that more and more grass-roots members were becoming alarmed at the post-1960’s trend towards ever-expanding restrictions on firearms ownership. And when they realized that the “Fudds” were going to do nothing as long as single-shot rifles and shotguns were still permitted, the new generation took action.The Panthers were in fact doing exactly what free people are supposed to do with guns- keep and carry them peacefully as a deterrent to being attacked. The fact that bigoted whites panicked and once again embraced gun control to keep guns out of the hands of “those people” is the tragedy.

I think a lot of it was the increase in crime coupled with increasing gun regulation that only seemed to be disarming the law abiding citizenry.

Remember how popular movies like Death Wish with Charles Bronson were?