# The "reasonable conversation about guns" that anti-gun Internet people want **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 21, 2013, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334 "2013-04-21T21:36:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/141 "2013-04-24T10:11:47Z")
This sounds like how that bill which stated that we were signing on to an international agreement regarding access for the disabled was really about how the UN would have the right to dictate parental decision making, or something like that. When one side of the debate sees nefarious intent, at a psychotic level, in every single issue, no debate can be had. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/142 "2013-04-24T12:23:06Z")
So where do I cash in my “nope, nuh uh, there were never any further plans, never” bonds when registration or confiscation do come to a floor vote or actually happen? I’m still waiting for my “no, this is just about keeping cigarettes away from kids, we’re not going to start banning unhealthy things wholesale” check from ten years ago, btw. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/143 "2013-04-24T15:53:07Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > So where do I cash in my “nope, nuh uh, there were never any further plans, never” bonds when registration or confiscation do come to a floor vote or actually happen? I’m still waiting for my “no, this is just about keeping cigarettes away from kids, we’re not going to start banning unhealthy things wholesale” check from ten years ago, btw. Have we banned cigarrettes? Have we banned any particular type of cigarrette? Have we confiscated cigarrettes? Have we done any of this at the federal level? People said the NFA registry has been around for over 75 years without a whole lot of confiscating going on. This doesn’t mean the anti-gun folks are just going to roll over and die, just like the GOA doesn’t roll over and die just because the the anti-gun folks want them to. I am not a constitutional law scholar but I believe we have the constitution on our side. Something that doesn’t apply to cigarrettes. We will have to fight for our rights in court forever (everything fromn our right to vote to our right to our right not to have soldiers crash on our couch), but that doesn’t mean we turn our backs on legislation that might be a good idea in order to act as a moat around laws that are bad ideas. You may not think that this is a good idea, which is fine (I would ask you why you think its a bad idea), but don’t oppose it just to spite the anti-gun folks. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/144 "2013-04-24T15:53:52Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > So where do I cash in my “nope, nuh uh, there were never any further plans, never” bonds when registration or confiscation do come to a floor vote or actually happen? I’m still waiting for my “no, this is just about keeping cigarettes away from kids, we’re not going to start banning unhealthy things wholesale” check from ten years ago, btw. We’ll tell you when you read the fucking thread and fill in all the gaps you left in your strawmen. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/145 "2013-04-24T16:15:01Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The general rules do not apply to this issue, in fact they are almost backwards. I hope you didn’t take that from a conservative news source, as they say that about everything. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/146 "2013-04-24T17:18:34Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > On the other hand, it isn’t rational if you actually support universal background checks. Which 90% of the population does. This is a bullshit statistic. I am sick of seeing it thrown it around. A recent Washington Post poll suggests that only 47% of the population was unhappy the bill was defeated. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/24/why-the-american-public-isnt-mad-as-hell-about-the-failure-of-the-gun-bill-in-numbers/?hpid=z1](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/24/why-the-american-public-isnt-mad-as-hell-about-the-failure-of-the-gun-bill-in-numbers/?hpid=z1) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/147 "2013-04-24T17:21:03Z")
What’s “bullshit” about it, exactly? That lots of people disagree with you? ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/148 "2013-04-24T17:31:13Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > They were Germans, they could start a war with Jello. And they could make it look like Jello started it. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/149 "2013-04-24T17:32:15Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What’s “bullshit” about it, exactly? That lots of people disagree with you? Hey, a wonderful username/post combo. What is “bullshit” is that it is used to imply something which is not the case, i.e. 90% of the population wanted this bill to pass. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/150 "2013-04-24T17:36:54Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > This is a bullshit statistic. I am sick of seeing it thrown it around. A recent Washington Post poll suggests that only 47% of the population was unhappy the bill was defeated. > > [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/24/why-the-american-public-isnt-mad-as-hell-about-the-failure-of-the-gun-bill-in-numbers/?hpid=z1](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/24/why-the-american-public-isnt-mad-as-hell-about-the-failure-of-the-gun-bill-in-numbers/?hpid=z1) Well, that’s just fucking stupid. The 47% figure appears to be in response to the whole set of bills. Contrasting it with the support for the specific issue of universal background checks is deceitful. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/151 "2013-04-24T17:38:56Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Which 90% of the population does. Pretty persuasive? Of course, [polls shows that an overwhelming majority of voters back Voter ID requirements.](http://www.npr.org/2011/07/18/138160440/the-politics-behind-new-voter-id-laws) But I seem to recall that didn’t move you at all. You think public support means something only if you already agree with it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/152 "2013-04-24T18:06:09Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > Hey, a wonderful username/post combo. What is “bullshit” is that it is used to imply something which is not the case, i.e. 90% of the population wanted this bill to pass. No, bullshit is when you claim this: > [@](#): > > On the other hand, it isn’t rational if you actually support universal background checks. Which 90% of the population does. … is the same as this: > [@](#): > > What is “bullshit” is that it is used to imply something which is not the case, i.e. 90% of the population wanted this bill to pass. Try again. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/153 "2013-04-24T18:17:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Pretty persuasive? Of course, [polls shows that an overwhelming majority of voters back Voter ID requirements.](http://www.npr.org/2011/07/18/138160440/the-politics-behind-new-voter-id-laws) > > But I seem to recall that didn’t move you at all. > > You think public support means something only if you already agree with it. What you need is a “liberal hypocrisy!” smiley, save you a lof typing. ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/154 "2013-04-24T18:48:33Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > [@Zakalwe](#): > > > > Ehh. Give Airman some credit here. I can think of no countries that have attempted to create/first-time implement strict gun control/ownership laws with widespread pre-existing gun ownership and a modern economy to deal with. So, in that sense, the US is somewhat exceptional. > > Actually, I believe [Australia did.](http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-18-2013/gun-control-whoop-de-doo) So THAT’S Obama’s plan–keep the economy in the grinder and then offer people (their own tax)money for their guns! Brilliant! I’m off to spin that one into a glurge email. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/155 "2013-04-24T18:55:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Pretty persuasive? Of course, [polls shows that an overwhelming majority of voters back Voter ID requirements.](http://www.npr.org/2011/07/18/138160440/the-politics-behind-new-voter-id-laws) > > But I seem to recall that didn’t move you at all. > > You think public support means something only if you already agree with it. Whenever you or others raise this childish question, my answer has always been the same: Public opinion polls tell you what the prevalence of a particular opinion is in the population. No more and no less. If you are persuaded on a topic simply by the opinion of the public, you are an idiot. I for one have never based my opinion on something upon the popular opinion of the public. But your argument appears to be this: a) Checking the background of all people who are buying a gun is exactly the same as b) Changing, in the months prior to a presidential election, the manner of documentation that people are required to show in order to cast a vote Is it your position that those two things are identical, such that my stance should simply align with popular opinion in both cases? Really? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/156 "2013-04-24T19:02:07Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Whenever you or others raise this childish question, my answer has always been the same: Public opinion polls tell you what the prevalence of a particular opinion is in the population. No more and no less. > > If you are persuaded on a topic simply by the opinion of the public, you are an idiot. I for one have never based my opinion on something upon the popular opinion of the public. > > But your argument appears to be this: > > a) Checking the background of all people who are buying a gun > > is exactly the same as > > b) Changing, in the months prior to a presidential election, the manner of documentation that people are required to show in order to cast a vote > > Is it your position that those two things are identical, such that my stance should simply align with popular opinion in both cases? Really? No, they’re obviously very different. But since they are different you should adduce the reasons to support, or oppose, each. Massive public support is not a reason to support the Voter ID program, according to you, and it’s not a reason to support the background check provision either. There are either substantive reasons to take a position on each measure, or there are not. If you trot out the percentage of people that support background checks as a reason to support background checks, why can’t I trot out the percentage of people that support Voter ID? Be consistent. You said, “If you are persuaded on a topic simply by the opinion of the public, you are an idiot. I for one have never based my opinion on something upon the popular opinion of the public.” But you also said, “On the other hand, it isn’t rational if you actually support universal background checks. Which 90% of the population does.” You seem to be uncertain about whether you are in fact persuaded on a topic simply by the opinion of the public. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/157 "2013-04-24T19:10:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, they’re obviously very different. > > But since they are different you should adduce the reasons to support, or oppose, each. Massive public support is not a reason to support the Voter ID program, according to you, and it’s not a reason to support the background check provision either. There are either substantive reasons to take a position on each measure, or there are not. If you trot out the percentage of people that support background checks as a reason to support background checks, why can’t I trot out the percentage of people that support Voter ID? > > Be consistent. You said, “If you are persuaded on a topic simply by the opinion of the public, you are an idiot. I for one have never based my opinion on something upon the popular opinion of the public.” > > But you also said, “On the other hand, it isn’t rational if you actually support universal background checks. Which 90% of the population does.” > > You seem to be uncertain about whether you are in fact persuaded on a topic simply by the opinion of the public. Please highlight for me where I said that I was persuaded by public opinion. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/158 "2013-04-24T19:31:32Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > …I can’t remember the last time you’ve added anything substantive to a discussion… Well, I’ll be darned! When they leave here, they are stuffed with brilliant insights and crunchy goodness! Have you tried pulling your head out and reading them again? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/159 "2013-04-24T20:03:32Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Please highlight for me where I said that I was persuaded by public opinion. Fair point. I took as the implication of “Which 90% of the population does,” a claim that you regarded the 90% public approval as a persuasive data point. Was I wrong about that assumption? ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/160 "2013-04-24T20:09:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fair point. I took as the implication of “Which 90% of the population does,” a claim that you regarded the 90% public approval as a persuasive data point. > > Was I wrong about that assumption? Yes, you were. Here’s the exchange: > [@Bone](#): > > It’s a completely rational position to oppose background checks if you believe it will embolden gun control advocates and you want to oppose those same gun control advocates. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > On the other hand, it isn’t rational if you actually support universal background checks. Which 90% of the population does. Hentor is saying that since most people support background checks, broad opposition to background check legislation for the reason given is irrational. In other words, why would Joe Blow support background checks if, at the same time, he did not want to embolden gun control advocates by supporting background checks? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334.md?page=9)