The trouble with uncles and beer

The BBQ Pit
1

This is a semi-private topic addressing some points that UncleBeer raised in a previously killed thread and were raised again in a recently moved thread… (is anyone else confused?)

Here, first, is a quote from UncleBeer from the killed thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=42841

Now here’s the comment from UncleBeer from the moved thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=42973

then I said…

then andros said:

So… that’s really what this thread about. Anyone confused? Anyone interested? Well, regardless, here’s how I would have responded to UncleBeer’s comments in the moved thread (had I not been trying extra hard NOT to be drawn into off-topic discussions - I really do try to maintain some topic discipline… usually)

In the first quote, Beer wrote:

He then provided a quote from LaPierre. I just wanted to point out a technical error. LaPierre was referring to Clinton’s licensing plan, not Gore’s. However, I’ll give you and the NRA the benefit of the doubt and assume that for consistency, the reason for opposition to Gore’s plan is the same as the reason for opposition to Clinton’s plan. I will not address any potential fallacy with this opposition here, since that would be inconsistent with the intent of this thread.

In the second quote, Beer chastises me with the following comment:

Here, you jump to an invalid assumption again. I did, in fact, search the NRA website. Now before I get too far into this little discussion, let me preface it by admitting that I have been known to look right at an object I’m searching for and not see it… “Honey. Where are my keys?” - “There on the table in front of you, dear…” However, in this case, I did try to do due dilligence. I first scoured the NRA site clicking and looking for relevant topics (Gore’s gun policies, gun legislation, gun licensing, etc.). After some time, I gave up this approach as fruitless. Then I went to their search engine. I tried a number of search criteria. Some were apparently too specific and returned only a few irrelevant hits. Others were too vague and returned hundreds of irrelevant hits. This method, too proved fruitless. I gave up. Then Beer provided his quote and document ID, so I went back and searched for that document, specifically… still no hits. I was about to give up again when I realized that all of the FAX ALERTs followed a predictable naming convention so I guessed at what the URL might be and manually typed it into my browser… That finally worked. Here is that link, BTW:

http://www.nraila.org/grassroots/20001013-AntiGunGroups-001.shtml

Perhaps there was a better way to get to that document. Apparently Beer used better search criteria than I did. The point is, I did try.

Here’s where I obviously made a mistake, but it was an honest mistake. I spend most of my time in the General Questions forum. I tend to avoid the Great Debates forum, but do venture in occasionally if there’s a topic I’m interested in and it looks like it’s not out of control. This is my very first time in the pit. In all my time in the General Questions forum I have found that people express opinions and engage in debates with reckless abandon. These are rarely moved unless the subject is obviously of an evangelical nature and rarely killed unless the subject is out of line or fanatical. Therefore, I assumed that debating was OK in General Questions, as long as it didn’t cross the line into something that was obviously a “long-running discussions of the great questions of our time”. I didn’t think my question fit that criteria. Others seem to think it does. However, I’m no longer challenging that issue.

I still think there’s an obvious gap between “Great Debates” and “General Questions” for topics that are “Not so Great Debates”. I wanted serious feedback and I was afraid that plugging this into “Yet Another Gun Debate” would have every crackpot and his dog spinning off into uncontrollable tangents on one hand, and people with serious opinions on the subject avoiding it like the plague on the other hand.

I never wanted the topic to escalate into a debate in the first place. My only agenda on the SDMB has always been knowledge. I want to learn more about things I don’t know enough about. I want to learn why certain people feel and behave the way they do. And, in some cases, I want to share knowledge that I may have. However, most of the feedback I was getting in that thread seemed to have a lot of emotional baggage attached. When I started challenging the reasoning, it was merely an attempt to strip away the emotional part and see if there was some rational reasoning underneath. I don’t feel we ever got that far. In fact, the mere fact that the thread was killed rather than moved makes me wonder if manhattan was not acting on some hidden agenda (hey, if the NRA and other gun advocates can have their conspiracy theories, why not me?).

At one point UncleBeer wrote:

I thought this was ironic since this statement was meant to challenge me for challenging others for doing exactly that.

2

Search criteria. Ya know what I did? I searched for the word “photo.” In about 10 seconds I had right at the top of the page, a link to the article I quoted from. That ain’t so difficult is it? I’m sorry if I jumped to an invalid conclusion, but since I was able to quite easily retrieve the desired information, I assumed you hadn’t made an effort. Again, I apologize for this.

But, your link goes to the wrong place. Had you initiated a successful search, you’d have read this as the first line in Vol. 7 No. 4 - Dated 1/28/00

Clinton’s plan is Gore’s plan.

From my thesaurus, synonyms for debate:
confute, refute, controvert, oppose, question, contend, contest, reason, wrangle, ponder, weigh, differ, dispute.

See, you were debating. And when you challenge someone’s reasoning, you are certainly not going to get unemotional responses. You are like to more fervent and ardent replies.

One more niggle:

This is exactly why we now have a forum titled In My Humble Opinion." The gap of which you speak does not exist. Quoting the message board forum summary page “… frank exchanges of views on less-than-cosmic topics.”

3

In a reprisal of Shakespeare’s Much Ado about Nothing Joey Blades manages to hold center stage with surprising tenacity and energy! while Unclebeer provides his usual Yeoman’s performance I myself was uninspired. Nothing overtly wrong mind you, I was just left with the impression that he was phoning it in in today’s performance.

The SDMB interpration of the great Shakespearean classic left much to be desired in my opinion. First, while I understand the need to update the format for today’s audience, I find that the common English versions lack the rythmn and meter, and yes the soul of the bard’s iambic pentameter.

More importantly though was the lack of the bath scene with all the naked ladies. Not a tit in the whole performance. While the price is right I’d look elsewhere with my entertainment dollar.

In other news…

4

Very funny, Scylla. Have you read P.J. O’Rourke’s old tongue-in-cheek review as performance art of the Baltimore to NYC train shuttle? It’s quite funny and written way back when he was a liberal Maoist hippy.

5

But of course. PJ at his best is probably one of the funniest and most biting writers alive today.

My two favorite pieces of his are about the NYSE, and the review of the Dodge Viper he wrote.

“This is the car the liberals don’t want you to have!”

or:

“The Dodge Viper is kinda like that girl in High School. She wasn’t the prettiest, she wasn’t particularly liked; but you knew she’d put out.”

quotes are paraphrased

6

Hey, Joey?

Give it a rest, okay?

There are lots of things going on here. The mods on this board are not paid employees, they are volunteering to moderate in order to keep this the best message board in existence. They do a really, really good job.

They are intelligent, witty people.

They are doing the best they can.

I am sure that if you stick around, you will come to appreciate them as much as most of us do.

Let this one go, and keep posting. You will have your chances to hash things over again, and again, and again. If you wish.

Welcome to the board, but please chill, okay?

Scotti

7

OOPS!

Somehow I got the impression that you were new here. I apologize to you, you obviously know more about what is going on here than I do, and I spoke out of turn.

Please forgive my presumption.

Scotti

8

UncleBeer:

Well, color me red. I searched on topics such as gun licensing, Gore policies, etc… I guess I never used the word ‘photo’.

You’re right, I don’t know how that happened. I was looking at the right link. The link should be:

http://www.nraila.org/grassroots/20000128-AntiGunGroups-001.shtml

I never claimed that I wasn’t debating. I did claim that I didn’t want to debate. I freely admit that I was debating in the wrong place.

Apparently, you are right. Based on the topics I normally see there, I didn’t think this topic belonged there… so sue me.

I’m tired of this argument. I declare the whole world right and me wrong… I’ll shut up now.
Well… just one last thing. I still haven’t heard a GOOD reason for opposing photo licensing. Oh well, one of life’s great mysteries…

ps

Scylla. Brilliant. Pretty much sums it up I guess.

9

How 'bout this for a good reason. It won’t do a damn thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. (Which is the NRA stance bay the way.) Or, it’s an infringement on your 2[sup]nd[/sup]amendment rights.

Aren’t those reason enough?

10

UncleBeer:

It’s one thing for the NRA to simply make this claim, it’s quite another for them to explain why this would be true. The current system of background checks is obviously flawed since criminals are, in fact, passing the background checks and obtaining firearms through legitimate channels. Again, I don’t necessarily support the photo licensing proposal, but it does strike me as likely that it would be more effective at closing off some channels that criminals use to obtain guns. If the NRA is going to make their claims, they need to indicate how the proposed system is no better or even inferior to the current system. Instead, they seem to be preaching a message of futility and apathy.

I know their real message. Their solution is, let the criminals have their guns and arm the rest of America so the criminals won’t dare resort to criminal activity. This is the same mentality that resulted in the arms race, except that, in this case, no one honors the stalemate. Neither side has any qualms about delivering their payloads. I’m not trying to wax evangelical; I’m merely suggesting that if there are alternatives, we should pursue them.

See, you seem to be doing it too. How is photo licensing more of an infringement than “instant” background checks?

Those aren’t REASONS at all.

11

UncleBeer:

It’s one thing for the NRA to simply make this claim, it’s quite another for them to explain why this would be true. The current system of background checks is obviously flawed since criminals are, in fact, passing the background checks and obtaining firearms through legitimate channels. Again, I don’t necessarily support the photo licensing proposal, but it does strike me as likely that it would be more effective at closing off some channels that criminals use to obtain guns. If the NRA is going to make their claims, they need to indicate how the proposed system is no better or even inferior to the current system. Instead, they seem to be preaching a message of futility and apathy.

I know their real message. Their solution is, let the criminals have their guns and arm the rest of America so the criminals won’t dare resort to criminal activity. This is the same mentality that resulted in the arms race, except that, in this case, no one honors the stalemate. Neither side has any qualms about delivering their payloads. I’m not trying to wax evangelical; I’m merely suggesting that if there are alternatives, we should pursue them.

See, you seem to be doing it too. How is photo licensing more of an infringement than “instant” background checks?

Those aren’t REASONS at all.

12

Damn, I hate it when that happens…

Damn, I hate it when that happens…

13

This is utter bullshit. If you actually think this is true of the NRA, then what fucking difference would it make what they say on photo ID’s? You apparently believe nothing else they say or stand for. But, to sum it up, is there any reason to believe criminals would comply with this law? The NRA believes a photo ID would have no effect on the availablity of guns to criminals. If this is indeed true, then what’s the point of having another useless law burdening the law-abiding populace? I don’t know how to explain this more simply. I’d suggest you actually learn something about the NRA before you make such sweeping statements about their positions.

Here’s a thought though, since this is Gore’s stupid plan, maybe he, or you, should tell us how it will work. Since Gore wants to change the status quo, I think the burden of proving the benefits of this law belong to him.

Let’s talk about the 2[sup]nd[/sup] amendment restrictions. Gore admits, that only qualified buyers will be able to obtain an ID card. Gore does not say what those qualifications are. Placing qualifications on something, the lack of which prevents you from purchasing a gun, is a restriction on the 2[sup]nd[/sup] amendment, which states in part, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It’s all very simple.

14

Also,

How?

You accuse me (and the NRA) of making statements without supporting reasoning, but yet you (and Gore) do the same thing. Again, I contend that since Gore wants to drastically change the status quo, the burden of proving the benefits lie with him or you. So, why don’t you tell me just how a photo ID is going to prevent criminals from obtaining guns. You might want to start by actually finding out how criminals are getting their guns today. From the absurd statement you’ve made on the position of the NRA, I expect you’ll be surprised when you find the truth. It ain’t from legitimate dealers who will actually check potential buyers for a valid ID.

15

So, please, where **do ** you think criminals are getting their guns? I just (unrelated to this) did a search on this.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

If we agree that we don’t want criminals to get guns (and I think we do agree, don’t we?), what would you suggest would be the most prudent way to accomplish this?

16

From that link, it seems like we might actually want to enforce our present laws.

This would certainly do more good than creating a new law which we won’t enforce.

17

which also tends to suggest that gun dealers themselves (admittedly a small percentage of them) are the source of the problem?

18

Obviously the most prudent way eliminate guns in the hands of criminals is to lock them up when they are found with, or attempting to purchase, guns. From your link, I still don’t see how a picture ID is going to prevent a single one of those sales. Again, tell me how photo ID’s are going to help the problem.

You’ll note I said legitimate gun dealers. The dealers outlined in your link are not what I’d call legitimate. The ATF has also stated that a vanishingly small percent of FFL holders abuse their privileges. I suggest we lock up these guys, too. This would require no new laws or restrictions.

Here’s another idea. A law which is currently on the books and very rarely enforced. Criminals attempting, and being denied, the purchase of a gun through the Brady Law are in violation of a crime merely by attempting that purchase. Now, these guys have presumably just told us everything needed to identify them, are guilty of committing a crime and yet this law is very rarely prosecuted. Let’s go arrest these guys. Here’s something we already have on the books, impacts law abiding gun owners not at all, and is easily prosecutable. I suggest we try that before shrinking the 2[sup]nd[/sup] amendment any further. For additional ideas, see the NRA’s (yes, the NRA) Project Exile program.

19

** UB ** you misunderstood. I’m not in favor of the picture ID. My question to you was “how do you think criminals are getting their guns” (you had stated that Joey would be surprised how they’re getting them).

Yes, obviously, we’d want to get rid of those rouge dealers (but until they’ve been convicted of a crime and had their license taken away, they are “licensed gun dealers” by definition).

As far as prosecuting the criminals who attempt to get guns and fail the background check, sure go for it.

I’m all for keeping all firearms out of the hands of felons.

How do you feel about that, by the way? As far as I know, there’s a loophole in that rifles and shotguns used for hunting are legal for felons. (my ex bro in law still legally hunts in our state even tho’ about 16 years ago he killed a woman during deer season- she was chopping down a Christmas tree).

20

Dammit. I don’t want to have another gun control Pit thread.

This is no longer about Uncles or Beer but about the Brady Bill, the second amendment and some senile loon who played Moses once.

If I’m not mistaken, gun control might have been discussed once or twice in GD. And despite denying that you wanted to debate the topic, Joey, you’ve managed to debate the topic in two separate forums. Sadly, neither GQ or the Pit are appropriate for debate. So JoeyB, I suggest opening a thread in Great Debates.

I mean you yourself said:

This is Crackpot Central here, Chachi! Ship it over to the heavies over at GD and I promise they won’t let their dogs out.