Also, while I’ll admit that this is probably rank question begging …
I see an important difference between:
Using the examples of alcohol, tobacco, swimming pools, and motor vehicles, et al, as an example of best practices that could ameliorate a public health crisis, and
Using the examples above as an example of worse or worst practices and a de facto excuse not to reduce gun violence
To draw an analogy: some will refer to other countries in an effort to show that the US needs no improvement, introspection, or policy changes (eg, “Try being in Saudi Arabia illegally”), but are stubbornly resistant to figuring out what nations do things better than we do, and then striving to implement best practices at home.
I think, on reflection, that’s what has me slightly hamstrung.
Generally, is that a fair argument, or merely self serving ?
[That’s not a rhetorical question, incidentally, nor is it an effort to persuade LHOD or W_E? to change any of the proscribed conditions]
It isn’t the arguments per se that are the issue. What I have observed is some side comparison issue like cars or pools will get referenced and then a large number of posts nitpicking the on-topic posts about cars will overwhelm the thread and the gun debate will be lost in the drowning in pools debate.
To me there is no functional difference between comparing other countries gun laws and comparing how we regulate other things that pose a societal risk–they are exactly similar types of discussion. I think both things can, and do, lead to massive thread hijacks which is a problem. But I think not being able to discuss them at all also constrains a gun thread from having any substantive discussion. While the tone of the LHoD thread is fine–I’d argue it isn’t much of a debate. It’s more like a brainstorming discussion on gun policies. I think it would be almost impossible for people to actually disagree in that thread without violating some rule in the thread’s OP. That isn’t intrinsically bad, but it’s not a gun debate.
I’m going to weasel this, in that I both agree and disagree.
I agree it’s not much of a debate, because it’s structured to avoid some of the points of contention. You could easily debate whether a particular restriction is minimal though, but as of right now, everyone has been very careful in keeping the discussion to things that most common gun owners do NOT consider being more than a minimum hardship.
At least so far (and in large part because it’s being carefully watched) we aren’t pushing any sort of extreme, so no one is pushing back all that hard.
Where I strongly disagree with @Martin_Hyde’s point is the one we just brought up 3-4 posts prior: it is proving to at least some of the board members that there is room to find compromises with people that they had previously thought intractable. This is INCREDIBLY important, both for society as a whole and the board.
If it shows that the debate is valuable, rather than both sides are fully immoveable, then we’ve won a not-so-small victory for all parties involved.
There is plenty of room to disagree, on the min and on the max side.
Min: show that the proposed policy has more than a minimal negative effect on gun owners.
Max: show that the proposed policy has less than a significant effect on reducing injury/death.
I want to constrain to those two parameters, because if we can find policies that we agree are minmaxed, we’ve gone a long way toward finding agreement. We’ll still need to debate constitutionality, unanticipated side-effects, and the like; but at least we’ll agree we’ve found effective policies.
When we start talking about how guns are like cars, or what 30-year-old legislative amendments intended, or the like, we lose focus on the efficacy issue. Debate that, and more importantly try to find agreement on that, and we’ve made some progress.
Edit: Unless you mean that it’d be impossible to disagree because we all know what would be effective, without impacting gun owners. If that’s the case, that alone is super significant.
The problem with a ‘debate’ is that it intrinsically assumes that the intent is not to discuss or persuade but to win. Debates are theoretically useful in presenting things like opposing policy positions to a wider audience but they are rarely if ever productive in terms of coming to an agreement because that is entirely contrary to the point of a debate.
It only now occurs to me that you may have meant minimizing any negative effect, rather than a negative effect on gun owner’s health or life expectancy.
Except this is what happens: “I don’t see why we can’t license guns like we license cars (or drivers)” Then, the counter argument, that the License is only needed on a public highway. Then it continues, making the debate about car registration, rather than guns.
In a thread about school shootings, someone could point out that something on the order of 10,000 kids are killed each year by second hand smoke, but that would also lead to a hijack discussion.
Mea culpa I try to not start one of these offshoots/hijacks, but it is hard to resist replying to one of them. For example the CDC and gun studies.
(It is so hard not to snicker as I write that. I am a child.)
Whether you are starting a hijack, or perpetuating it, you’re part of the problem. I’d even say it’s worse to reply to a hijack knowing full well that it’s a hijack, than to start the hijack thinking that you’re staying on track but making a relevant point.
If I recognize a clear hijack, my response is to click the … then the flag icon, and post my reply to the Mod Signal.
So, four years ago, one of my students was murdered. Or, rather, his older sister was, a girl who would come to my room each day and check on how her brother was doing, stopped by so often that I thought of her as one of mine. Their mom’s estranged boyfriend burst into their house and shot them all, and the kid in my class lost his older sister and mother and older brother. That happened the week of a rally against gun violence that I’d helped some high school students organize in the wake of the Parkland shootings.
Earlier this year, a child I’d taught in second and third grade was arrested for attempted murder, after using a gun to attack a rival. It was years since I’d seen him; he had just left adolescence.
The week after the Uvalde massacre, with everyone still scared, on Memorial Day I opened the local news site to find that another student I’d taught, in my first year of teaching, had been arrested for first-degree murder. He’d shot someone a dozen times. I know he’s 23, but I can’t help seeing him at 7.
Sure, there are some folks who are in these discussions as a bored hobby. But it’s not “have fun?” for everyone.
