The next Civil War

Great Debates
1

The amount of propaganda, logical fallacies and sheer bullshit about gun control is becoming nauseating.

Gun control is a question of values. Do we want, as a nation, to live in an Old West society, with every armed yahoo shooting it out on the streets? Do we want a society where peaceful and honest citizens can defend themselves without reliance on donut-gobbling police (who are tools of the tyrannical commie government anyway)? Do we want a society where the law is enforced by extensively trained and carefully regulated police forces? Or where innocent civilians are huddled in their paper-thin homes awaiting the next attack of drug-crazed maruading psychopaths?

Oy vey. It’s enough to make an intelligent person vomit. I’m warning you people: In general society, this debate has already heated up to the point of violence, and it’s getting worse. I predict that Columbine and Waco will become trivial examples of the kind of violence we shall soon see. We are headed on a course of nothing less than civil war.

My advice to everyone (including myself) is to calm down and listen to each other.

Absent a few nutjob extremists, gun control advocates do not want to disarm every citizen to prepare for a UN invasion. We do not consider every murderous thug to be merely “misunderstood” and turned loose after a couple of hours of therapy to continue to prey on an innocent population. What we want is to let our children go to school without being mowed down like rabbits. Show us one damn ounce of respect for wanting to keep our children safe.

Again, absent a few nutjobs, gun control opponents do not want a nuclear bomb in every garage, and require a turret-mounted anti-tank gun on every car to get to work safely. They want to be safe in their own homes and cars from an increasingly violent and crazed society. They have little trust in the police, and for good reason: The police are underfunded, often corrupt, and are wasting their resources and credibility on an ineffective and morally dubious “drug war”.

We’re it, folks. The posters on GD are probably in the top 10% of intelligence in this world. If all we can do is scream obscenities and insults and quote politically manipulated statistics at each other, the world doesn’t stand a chance. We are making policy. If such a smart and technologically sophisticated group cannot come up with rational and creative compromises to our problems, who will? The politicians? The NRA? The trial lawyers? There isn’t anyone else smarter than we are. We can’t sit smugly in our hermetic extremists positions and hope that someone else will wave their magic wand and remove the controversy. If we fail, civil war is inevitable.

2

I couldn’t agree more. Towards this end can the Dopers on this board, from both sides of the debate, agree on some ground principles to work from? I’ll propose a few below but I am by no means trying to set the stage by myself. Feel free to chuck any or all of them and propose your own. Just please do so with the understanding that we need to start from a common, if somewhat broad, ground to get a start on a meaningful dialog.

  1. Outright banning of ALL firearms is NOT a goal.

  2. Some form of gun control is needed beyond what currently exists. This could be as simple as closing some loopholes in existing laws or entirely new legislation…that’s open for debate.

  3. Education should be a component of reform. This does NOT necessarily mean marksmanship classes for all 4th graders. Again, this is open for debate.

  4. Debate/argue with the understanding that all of the Dopers responding are good people as interested in a decent society to live in and preservation of basic rights as the next person (this may not be true but for the sake of the argument it should be assumed).

  5. Some attempt should be made at agreeing on source statistics where possible. I.e. U.S. Bureau of Statistics numbers should be used where applicable without saying, “The All Guns Are Evil website posted something different and I’m working from those numbers instead.”

Work calls so I’ll leave it at this for now. Hopefully some good dialog will work here.

3

Great rant, Single Dad. If you don’t mind, though, I’m going to try and save this from being thrown to the Pit by actually bringing up (or focusing) a point for discussion.

I agree with Single Dad that there’s a lot of pushing to extremes on this issue- you’re against gun control, then you want kids running around playing cops and robbers with real AK-47s; you’re for gun control, then you want guns removed from society and a virtual police state where the evil politicians screw you over because you can’t resist.

But there’s a lot of that mis-representation going on for a lot of issues. Pro-choice? Then you obviously favor killing little children, preferably in large factories where they can be dumped on conveyor belts and fed into mauling machines. Pro-life? Then obviously you feel that every woman should be barefoot, pregnant, and only come out of the kitchen if she’s bringing you another beer. Worried that creeping moral relativism and lack of stern moral codes is leading to a hpyer-violent, amoral society? Then you’re a fanatical, tyrannical zealot who wants to take the cross that’s been up your ass and shove it down someone else’s throat. Worried about Christianity becoming an unofficial state religion? Then you’re a godless heathen who needs to be told specifically why you’re going to hell and who would be perfectly happy to live in moral decay and anarchy so long as those poor martyred Christians were finally fed to the lions.

Yeesh.

The fact is, it’s getting harder and harder for me to find rational discussion on TV or the radio. Everyone just seems to want to shout their point, and usually their point is that their opponent isn’t just wrong, but is a ruthless, heartless bastard whose ideas are the moral equivalent to roaming through the streets and shooting pedestrians. Actually admitting that your opponent’s point of view has valid points apparently marks you for death, because no one’s willing to do it.

I’m not sure what’s to blame. Maybe it’s always been this way (Lord knows, we’ve certainly had such nasty levels of discourse in this country’s past) and I’m just white-washing the good old days. Maybe it’s the advent of TV, and having to get the entire meaning of your point across in thirty seconds or less has resulted in detailed discussions being worthless. Maybe it’s how the government’s divided between the two parties, and the desperation each party feels in trying to control both Congress and the Presidency has led to drastic measures.

What do you folks think? Is modern political discourse rougher and nastier than it was ten, twenty years ago? If so, why?

4

I agree with you (except about the “inevitably” part, since I’m not a determinist, but I’m nitpicking). I have run into the pro-gun nutjob’s website, the guy who argues that we have a right to own nuclear weapons as individuals. He is a big stinky exception. (I’m going to try to find the website, BTW).

I was impressed at NPR’s takes on the dueling moms at the Million Mom March. The broadcaster (can’t remember whom … Mara Liason?) pointed out that the difference in the MMM group, versus the Bullethose Babes or whatever the anti-gun-control women called themseves, was one of a preference for legislative vs. executive action. The former wanted new laws to keep guns separate from kids and kooks; the latter wanted better enforcement of existing laws. Hardly the makings of an eternal battle between implacable ideological enemies. Not that I expect them to sit down over tea and find common ground, but that’s not the point.

I find the same crap happens on the abortion issue. I’m not gonna hold my breath and wait for the Pope to say that life begins at birth, or for NARAL to say that life begins at conception. They don’t need to. What they do need to do, at least to earn kudos from mean, is to admit a couple of things:
(1) The reason people want to ban abortion is not to enslave women sexual. It is because of a desire to protect what they see as human life. If you don’t see it that way, fine, just don’t try to make out every anti-abortionist to be a woman hater. It’s just goofy.
(2) The reason people want abortion to be legal is not because they think it’s a party. They are not in it for money, or sexual pleasure, or winning favor with a blind idiot god or whatever. They think it’s a profoundly important bit of reproductive freedom.

On guns, if you can’t admit two things, it’s because you haven’t been paying attention:
(1) There is a difference between gun control and gun bans. There is a difference between gun control as practiced by Hitler/ Stalin/ Atilla the Hun and the version practiced by France/ Japan/ Sweden. Wanting to change regulations of gun shows is not the same as wanting to murder the entire human race.
(2) With few exceptions, gun owners do not marry their sisters, live in cow pastures, or go on killing sprees. Not all guns are designed to kill people. Owning something that is designed to kill people has no moral consquence anyway. Hospitals have scalpels. They are designed to cut people open. Condemnations, anyone?

So I’m a little touchy about this issue. I just had a frustrating discussion with a gun-phobic friend of mine, who asserted for the hundredth time that she simply couldn’t understand why I was interested in guuuuuhns (weaponry in general, actually). She wasn’t condemning me, but there were obvious moral introns in her attitude - guns are designed to kill people, thus knowledge of guns is bad…? Ignorance of possible tools of violence is good? The funny thing is, she’s not an imbecile. She knows a ton about a lot of stuff, and reads voraciously. What does she do when she comes to a passage in a book wherein the author describes a firearm? Does she cover her eyes?

Of course, now there are super-pro-gun types who are wondering why I am even friends with her. If she guns give her a bellyache, I should just not be friends with her…? Give me a break. Most of the music I listen to gives most of my friends bellyaches, should I dump them too? If any amount of disagreement on guns causes us to make enemies, maybe SingleDad’s worst fears really will come true.

Give me a hug and pass the ammunition.

5

Ignoring the main post, I’d like to point out that I am one of those children, and it is simply not a concern. Of course every so often one will comment to his friend “do you think he’ll go crazy and shoot everyone?” or something like this, but no one really expects that to happen. We’rea really more concerned with getting a girlfriend, or buying Perfect Dark, or writing that english paper…which reminds me…no, just kidding.
So, with that said, I’ll get to responding to the meat of that.
A compromise:
[ul]
[li]A highly trained police force would be created. This force would have very strict numbers and would be highly organized. The community would vote on the ratio of officers to civilains; options could be 1:200, 1:500, 1:1000 and others.[/li][li]This force would be different in two ways. First, it will be trained to befriend everyone, rather than intimidate them. Secondly, they would be trained in calming people down as well as negotiating. It should be very clear that violence must always be a last resort for them.[/li][li]Guns would be sold only by the government. There would be a very secure and elaborate identification process to ensure that each household can only purchase one gun for every 3 (2?5?) members.[/li][li]All automatic weapons would be illegal. Handguns would count as two guns for the above law. (Afterall, one can’d do much with them aside from kill people.)[/li][li]Any one with any number of existing weapons can keep them, provided they are totally registered. Police officers have the right to search anyone’s house for weapons ** provided that a neighbors calls any fears or suspicions.**[/li]If this right is in any way abused, the offending officer will be kicked off the force and then fined.
[li]Lastly, the government will establish a hotline that anyone with fears about shootings can call. All calls will be taken seriously.[/li] [/ul]
Comments? Reacions? Modifications? Alternatives?
I’m also not sure this is at all plausible…

6

John, excellent point. What’s even more interesting is that such vilification and ad hominem on both sides serves the interests of power, because an inability to deal with content will keep the status quo in place.

7

**

Frankly a highly organized police force scares me. They are quite common in dictatorships, and can easily be turned against the civilians/troublemakers. I would support a well armed citizenry as safer and more sensible.

**

That has always been the “aim” of police forces. Sadly it never reflects the reality.

**

This is the scariest idea you have. Guns were envisioned in the constitution as protection from tyrants. If you have a tyrannical government how can you protect yourself from it.
Two social movements that accomplishmed quite a bit of positive change were the BLP and AIM. Imagine what they could have done if the government had controlled all acess to guns. The very idea is laughable.
I’m also quite scared about what would happen if the police knew everyone who had a gun and didn’t. Right now the police are a force of fear in many communities. People are rightfully scared of them and get guns to protect themselves. If the government knew exactly who and who didn’t have guns, there would be nothing preventing the police from running roughshod over poor communities.

**

Why should the government have access to weapons that I don’t have access too. They have shown that they are far less able to responsably handle them than I am. I have killed and injured far less people that the government.

**

Again very scary. The idea that the government can search your house from a tip from neighbors is frightening. That could be incredibly abused. The police already abuse the principles of searching peoples homes. You are siply giving them more tools to do so.

**

Isn’t that what 911 is?

The problem is that you are aproaching fro the standpoint that are government is just and benevolent and knows what is best for the citizens. If this were the case you wouldn’t need guns, and no one would complain about your plan. Of course this isn’t the case.

8

John, excellent point. What’s even more interesting is that such vilification and ad hominem on both sides serves the interests of power, because an inability to deal with content will keep the status quo in place.

9 
 I'm coming on this side of the issue from the gun owners side. I own a few for hunting, self-defense, and I have a concealed carry permit. After reading varioud websites and publications put out by various gun control groups I have come to the conclusion that my right to keep firearms is endangered. There are enough people who wish for the outright ban of handguns that I consider them a legitimate threat to my freedom. For now we'll put aside the debate about whether or not it is a legitimate freedom I have to begin with.

According to HCI an assault rifle is "...designed to be rapidly fired from the hip..." At best that is an irresponsible error on their part and at worst it is a blatant lie to scare people into thinking they have no legitimate use. No rifle I know of was made to be fired from the hip. Even the M-60 was designed to be fired from the shoulder, or a bipod, so the shooter can look down the sights. Otherwise the firearm becomes almost impossible to aim. So far as the anti-gun crowd goes HCI has an awful lot of influence on capital hill. They helped ban the importation of certain rifles on the federal and state level. If they did it with those they can certainly do it with handguns.

 If there's going to be another civil war in this country I don't think it'll be over firearms. Although I suppose the banning of firearms might be a big spark. Generally speaking I don't live by the sword. However my moral makeup doesn't prohibit the use of violent force when it is appropriate. However I'm unsure of what point it becomes acceptable to take up arms against my fellow citizens.

Marc

10

“The posters on GD are probably in the top 10% of intelligence in this world.”

I totally dissagree, the posters in GD are people who like to argue. Now if this didnt turn to flames so often id think GD would be more than average intelligence. Because ive seen forums that dont turn in to flames… almost ever. And they are for debate:)

11

Well, I hope you’re wrong, but I think you’re right. We would all be better off if Handgun Control, Inc., and the National Rifle Association would live up to their names more. (If the National Shooting Sports Foundation were to live up to their name, though, a lot of sports would be shot. <-joke) I can’t really figure out what HCI would do to handgun laws if they had their way; their literature tends to talk about registration while their leaders tend to talk about bans.

In any case, HCI yells much louder about assault rifles than about handguns, which of course if ironic since they wouldn’t know an assault rifle from a staple gun. Really, they should have written,

What, me bitter? No, I love it when the brainiacs at HCI share their wisdom. It’s more fun than having your eyeballs chewed out by rats. Why don’t we have a bunch of non-doctors start talking about what diseases they want cured. I want to cure all diseases that make you smelly. To hell with cancer patients. Cure the stinky diseases. Oh yeah, and we need to eradicate that nasty urophillic catfish that lives in the Amazon. And cholera! We MUST STAMP OUT CHOLERA NOW!!!

12

**Oldscratch: **You’re not really compromising here. But, you know, you can’t do a god damn thing against the government with any gun you could possibly buy, be it an Ak47, or a handgun. You want to try and take on a tank with one of those? Or are you going to tell me that you and a dozen of your buddies will take on a platoon of professional soldiers? I don’t think so.
On the other hand, you’re teanage son (to be) could do a hell of a lot of damamage to me. It may be hard to fight a trained army unit, but it’s rather easy to shoot someone in the back of the head. Remember that. I don’t live in fear at all, but have you ever seen American History X? It’s just too easy.
That hotline I was talking about wouldn’t be for fires or even most police work- it would be the kind of thing I would call if I felt that someone at school was going to shoot someone. Of course, it could be abused or whatever, but really, who cares? If I even suspect someone enough to call them in, then there’s got to be a good reason for it, y’know?
The police, the police, the police. That’s another one of your grievances, isn’t it? That and the government. Remember, both of these come from your neighbors, or at least they should. If you can’t trust your government, well, what can you do? Why are you an American? Nine out of ten times, the answer will be because it might not be good, but there’s nothing better. Shut your hole or come up with something better.

13

Does SingleDad’s olive-branch OP mean he’s going to stop the intellectual arrogance, pompous outrage and attacks that permeate his every GD post when someone deigns to take a stand different than his? Forgive me if I don’t hold my breath.

Both sides of the gun issue are together on at least one point. We see massacres like Columbine and the recent one at the Wendy’s restaurant in New York City, and we feel like someone needs to DO SOMETHING to stop this. That’s where we split, however.

Gun control advocates seem to want more and stricter laws. Get rid of the guns.

Problem is, the new laws and restrictions would do little to get the gun out of the hand of that desperate, unstable crack head that just slipped into your house. He didn’t go to a gun store and sign his name. He got his gun on the black market, where there are (and will be) millions of guns, anything anybody wants, forever.

The new laws would, however, probably take guns out of the hands of the grandfather, father and son who want to deer hunt this fall. Or go target shooting at the local range.

No one seems to want to talk about how any new gun law, or any new restriction on gun ownership, gets rid of the guns we really want to get rid of – the ones violent criminals are using.
Despite the way they are often portrayed, many gun control opponents subscribe to common-sense gun policies such as issuance of trigger locks with gun purchases, criminal background checks for gun purchasers (and criminal insanity checks, the so-called John Hinckley loophole) and zero-tolerance enforcement of existing gun laws. They see more laws, particularly laws of prior restraint on lawful gun-users and laws that erode Constitutional rights, as unnecessary and a dangerous precedent.

They see liberals doing what liberals do, putting more laws on the books so that they can feel better, feel like they’re doing something, with little thought (or money) to practicality or enforcement.

There are many federal laws on the books now that are woefully unenforced. There is a federal Gun-Free School Zones Act, but of the 6,000 students caught at school with guns in the past two years, only 13 were federally prosecuted. Federal laws against providing guns to felons through ‘straw purchases,’ supplying guns to juveniles, etc., all with only a handful of federal prosecutions over the past few years.
You want to compromise, for the good of all? Fine. Start compromising.

  • Start enforcing existing gun laws to the limit, with absolute zero tolerance. See if it works. Seems to be a common-sense thing to do, before putting more unenforced laws on the books.

  • Respect the rights of those who enjoy the safe and legal use of guns. Too many people who don’t seem to have the slightest grasp of hunting or target-shooting are the ones standing at the anti-gun pulpit pounding their fists. Because it’s something they don’t care about, and know nothing about, they are quick to usurp the rights of the MILLIONS of Americans who enjoy these pastimes.

  • Both sides should work together on ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and attack the problem from that side vigorously, without reflexively grabbing at the guns of people who aren’t the problem.

14

**

 I heard this arguement before and I don't know why people keep making it. Even a group armed with light weapons is a threat in urban areas. It is quite possible to wage a gurilla war on a much larger better equipped group of people. Talk to the UN soldiers in places like Somilia or Rwanda and tell me that small arms don't constitute a threat to them.

**

 I suppose that's possible. But what assault rifles were used at Columbine or Jonesboro? At Columbine they used regular shotguns and at Jonesboro they used regular hunting rifles. Most teens are not rabid murderers and using them as examples to strike fear into the hearts of people is just plain wrong.

**

That's right, if you suspect someone that should be ample proof of their guilt. The police already have enough power to search homes, you vehicle, and your body. They don't need any more then they already have.

**

 Have you seen any of the news of late regarding the corruption of the Los Angeles Police Department? There are plenty of neighborhoods that fear the police and don't look at them as friends.
15

Nope… Doesn’t look like the gun owners are going to give an inch or even admit for a moment that their extremist solution is anything but the only possibility. Any opposition is “intellectual arrogance”. :rolleyes:

Yes, I’ll admit it, I’m a commie pinko bastard who wants the US citizenry cowering in fear from the fascist government and drug-crazed maniacs. I don’t want to protect my children, I want to offer them on the altar of Liberal guilt, hoping that their blood will assuage the horrible crimes of the white male race on the peaceful people of color in the world, enslaved and oppressed by our arrogance and greed.

Let’s just continue screaming and shouting at each other. When we get tired of that, y’all can start shooting at each other. Since the gun control advocates have the numbers, they’ll probably control the FBI, ATF and the US Army. Should be a nice bloody war. I don’t know about y’all but I’m getting the hell out of this fucked up country ASAP. When the bodies are piled high and the rivers run red with blood, when the ruins of a once-great country lie smoking in the ashes, I hope you appreciate your “freedom”.

16 
On the other hand it didn't look like the gun control advocates were going to admit for a moment that their extremist solution was anything but the only possiblity. Any opposition to their solutions came from trigger happy fear mongers who see black helicopters.

Marc

17

Well, that was interesting. A thread about how gun control debates always devolve into name calling devolves into name calling. Who could have ever predicted?

We are never going to all agree on this issue. We can barely even debate the issue civilly, much less rationally. I think that the task of coming up with laws that most effectively secure rights and safety for the country is very daunting, and I’m happy that it is not my job to do so.

18

And they wonder why we gun owners seem so intractable!

It is exactly this kind of extreme, reactionary, hysterical rhetoric that pushes us to the point of sheer exasperation! My firearms are not now, have never been and will never be, a threat to anyone save the poor miscreant who attempts (again) to threaten me with deadly force. I say ‘again’ because a Walther .380 once saved my life on a lonely road at night in northern Colorado.
There was no 911 to call for help. It was me and two of them. Had I not been armed, I would undoubtedly be just another unsolved statistic.

Does the “Right to Keep and Bear Arms” mean unrestrained firearms ownership? No way. Should every nutjob walking on two legs have access to firearms? Absolutely not. With freedom comes responsibility. If you can’t demonstrate that you’re a responsible adult, your “Right to Keep and Bear Arms” needs to be abridged! If you’re a criminal, or a thief, or a drunk, or a doper, you have no business with a gun. Hell, I’d go so far as to say that if you drive too fast or too reckless or if you have a crappy credit record, you’re not ‘gun-worthy’. “Rights” come with “responsibilities.” Forfeiture of those rights is the penalty for not meeting the attendant responsibilities.

The mindless trading of freedom for false promises of ‘security’ is not, and never will be the answer.

19

The sad fact is, with some 250 million guns ALLREADY OUT THERE, any new gun control laws will be useless.

I am a gun owner, with a firm belief in the right to own a gun to protect myself and my family. I also hunt, and enjoy the shooting sports.

Let’s take a look at the “Rosie” school of gun control.

Lets look at the extreme…, government mandated confiscation of firearms.
(as is promoted by many “anti-gun” groups)

If the gov went to every person on the list of registered gun owners, went to their house, and said
“you must turn over your firearms” maybe a few million would actually give them up. <smirk>

Note: Many of you anti-gunners might say “Well it worked in the UK, or to an extent in Australia”

Sorry, This is the good ole USA, for the good or the bad.

However, we can all see the logistical, not to mention “social” problems with the issue of confiscation.

#1. Not enough manpower/firepower,(sad grin), without using the military.

#2.Using the military to confiscate guns from law-abiding
American citizens would arguably send this country into anarchy.

#3.Even if the gov managed to take firearms away from ALL of the law-abiding American gun owners, that leaves tens of millions of “UNREGISTERED” guns in the hands of criminals. baby rapers, serial killers, and psychos.

Having said that, I have no problem with requiring a license
to own a gun, background check, and certification/training.
Especially training.

(The idiot parents who buy a gun, don’t learn how to use it or store it, and let their children shoot themselves or their classmates should never have been allowed to breed)

A reasonable waiting period is also fine with me.

One more point:

If you are a parent who owns a gun, and you do not adequately protect your child from your firearms,
whether it be a trigger lock, safe, whatever,
PLEASE learn how to use/store it, too many kids die
because of your stupidity MOM and DAD.
(the .32 on the nightstand is NOT how to do it.)

Guns will NEVER be gone in this country.

20

I suspect that, quite apart from genuine ideological differences, the biggest problem is… “the slippery slope.”

I have little doubt that, behind closed doors, even the average NRA member would say, “Well, sure, I could go along with licensing… but you know damn well those gun control nuts won’t be satisfied with that. If we give in on a small thing like that, they’ll get cocky, and start pushing for confiscation!”

I suspect that most “soccer Moms,” even those who call themselves “pro-choice” would admit, behind closed doors, “Well, sure, partial birth abortions are disgusting, and I’d LIKE to see that done away with. But you KNOW if we let the religious maniacs outlaw that, they won’t be satisfied. THey’ll get bolder, and try to outlaw ALL abortions.”

I could dream up similar scenarios for all sorts of other issues, but you get the idea.

I wonder how many people wind up stridently supporting policies they don’t really believe in (or stridently opposing policies they DO believe in) just because they’re afraid to give their enemies even an inch.