From my perspective (I’m not particularly pro-gun or anti-gun, just pro-science), it doesn’t look like the gun rights advocates have been working in good faith to serve the public good, either-- NRA lobbying has had an incredibly chilling effect on the use of federal funds for gun violence research for nearly the past decade (cite, including stories linked therein).
The one about abortion?
Or did you miss these:
[quote=“SandMan1, post:18, topic:689471”]
But it is not illegal to carry around guns and scare people. It is legal to carry guns into bars and restaurants. This makes many people extremely uncomfortable and fearful!
Simply carrying a gun into a restaurant or bar affects everyone in that establishment![/INDENT]
What does taht have to do with anything?
You really think that guns do more harm than speech? Wait til the Koch brother drop $125 million of speech on our heads and see how much damage that does.
You ever hear the phrase, the pen is mightier than the sword?
I think its fine to use a crisis to make people focus on a problem. After newtown, I thought we might be ready for licensing and registration (yeah yeah, I know that wouldn’t have prevented newtown but 10,000 people get shot to death every year)
Once again, wtf are you talking about?
The cornerstone of their efforts was the assault weapons ban. If Dianne Feinstein came out the gate asking for something as innocuous (and frankly, as ineffective) as background checks at gun shows, I suspect they might have gotten somewhere. But the vote wasn’t about making a difference, it was a bout making a statement. Seriously, how many guns used in crime do you think are purchased at gun shows?
The National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute are not really that well funded and doesn’t have a lot political power. Are you mistaking the NRA for an industry lobby?
Whether you believe it or not, this is the reason why the NRA lobbied to punish the CDC:
The basic argument is that the CDC was funding biased research and distorting data.
But now the CDC restrictions havce been lifted so lets see what they do with it.
Compare this to the use of cell phones while driving: From the site: “Texting and Driving Safety” link: http://www.textinganddrivingsafety.com/texting-and-driving-stats/
Texting While Driving Causes:
- 1,600,000 accidents per year – National Safety Council
- 330,000 injuries per year – Harvard Center for Risk Analysis Study
11 teen deaths EVERY DAY – Ins. Institute for Hwy Safety Fatality Facts
4. Nearly 25% of ALL car accidents
Texting While Driving Is:
- About 6 times more likely to cause an accident than driving intoxicated
- The same as driving after 4 beers – National Hwy Transportation Safety Admin.
- The number one driving distraction reported by teen drivers
Texting While Driving:
- Makes you 23X more likely to crash – National Hwy Transportation Safety Admin.
- Is the same as driving blind for 5 seconds at a time – VA. Tech Transportation Institute
- Takes place by 800,000 drivers at any given time across the country
- Slows your brake reaction speed by 18% – HumanFactors & Ergonomics Society
- Leads to a 400% increase with eyes off the road
So why arent cell phones outlawed?
For one, because they are usually used outside of cars. For another because it would be politically impossible, just like banning guns. Neither will happen.
I don’t know what the heck this has to do with guns, but they can’t both be true.
Again, nothing to do with guns, but, um, you really studied the evidence and found this statistic remotely plausible?
This does have to do with guns.
For the US, the death toll was 32,163 in 2011. See page 19 here:
But still there is a good amount of peer-reviewed research on gun ownership going on, and the great majority comes out with an anti-gun conclusion. Follow the links from here to see:
Now, while such research can tell us whether we should be pro-gun or anti-gun, I don’t think it can as clearly tell us whether we should be pro-gun-control or anti-gun-control. In most jurisdictions – most countries – people can, with some inconvenience, buy guns if they want them. But, outside the US and a few war-torn nations, the great majority of people do not want them. So there are fewer guns around when tempers (and suicidal impulses) flare, leading people to use less lethal tools of violence.
Look to the model of the successful anti-tobacco campaign, which has generally sought to lead people to voluntary behavioral change. Passing a boatload of criminal laws, and then sending millions to jail when they are violated, has led to the US having the world’s highest incarceration rate while still being a high crime country. At the same time, a primarily educational anti-smoking campaign has led to us be a relatively low-smoking country. That’s the best model I see for guns.
Going back to not-relevant-to-guns-but-really?, I can’t believe I missed this one in my last post.
Using an actually reliable source, the US Centers for Disease Control:
In 2010, seven teens ages 16 to 19 died every day from motor vehicle injuries.
Let’s say that an additional 4 teens per day age 13 to 15 die from motor vehicle injuries (since adults were almost always the drivers, I’d think the death rate of the 13-15 group would be a little less than with the older teens).
This means that your super-bold claim amounts to saying that just about every teen driving death in the US is due to driving while texting. Really? Virtually none due to talking on the cell phone, or drinking, or just plain bad driving, or, uh, the driver in the other car?
People around here are bad guessers. 
It’s partly my fault for saying amendments in general when I meant the Bill of Rights specifically. Still, our society is OK with compromises on the First Amendment, the Fourth, the Sixth, and the Eighth at least. However we’re repeatedly told the Second is not open for compromise.
Your examples are 80 years old, 45 years old, 20 years old, 20 years old and expired, and almost 20 years old. I think that’s telling. Don’t you? Still, congratulations on finding one restriction on gun ownership that passed in the last two decades. I bet that wouldn’t happen today.
We were certainly ready for expanded background checks and some laws that would’ve prevented people with severe mental illnesses from getting guns. It turns out our readiness doesn’t count.
So because you didn’t support one law, you can’t support a separate one?
It wouldn’t have. Even when it was proposed separately from an AWB, it went nowhere. This is pretty similar to what I’m saying to SenorBeef: what’s happening is that people are insisting a debate on gun laws can only happen under a very specific and essentially impossible series of conditions. That’s not an effort to have a rational debate, it’s an attempt to avoid one. If you think the current state of gun laws is fine and you think nothing should be changed or debated, just say so. (That doesn’t seem to be your actual position, Damuri Ajashi, so why go there?) I won’t respect that position, but I’ll respect the honesty. Saying the debate can only happen when there hasn’t just been a highly-publicized shooting spree - the gaps between those are getting small, aren’t they? - is insisting on a contradiction. ‘We can only debate this issue when nobody’s interested in it.’ After that we get conditions about who can propose a bill and what can be in it. And if that happens, there will just be more conditions. Sorry. I’m just not falling for this. It’s not debating, it’s excuse-making.
Are you mistaking this for a relevant point?
Spoiler alert: don’t believe it.
The compromises listed are still in effect today (except for the expired federal assualt weapon ban). The fact that they happened many years ago doesn’t change that. There have been plenty of concessions.
Pretty much. The reason is that the one law (AWB) was revealing as to the proponents’ true intentions. When that got scuttled and the background checks got pushed instead, people didn’t forget what was the original proposal. One colors the other. If a politician says that their goal is to ban a product, gets no traction, then changes their position to say that they now only want to accumulate a list of all of those products, are you suggesting that the secondary proposal should be looked at in a vacuum? That’s not what happened and rightly so.
In theory, to be as effective as possible, gun rights supporters need to act together. When acting as a voting block, they have much more political power than if they acted individually.
If you think about all the gun control proposals of recent memory, both at the federal and state level, have there been any concessions offered to gun rights advocates? Without concessions, it’ not compromise - it’s surrender.
There are two possible explanations for this: a total unfamiliarity with the concept of comrpomise, or the one I mentioned earlier. As I said, if you don’t want to have the debate at all and will grasp at any excuse to back out of a debate, just say so. Manchin-Toomey was not an AWB. It was proposed after the AWB proposal was dead in the water and would not have lead to an AWB. It banned registries, and the senators who proposed the law would not have supported an AWB. There was no way such a law was going to pass. Calling this a slippery-slope argument is sort of an insult to slippery slopes.
That’s not what’s happening, though. It appears a majority of them supported expanded background checks, but we still don’t have expanded background checks. What’s happening is that a lobby and an industry have power.
Yes. Obama signed a bill allowing the carrying of guns in federal parks. Manchin-Toomey was a compromise with measures including a stronger ban on federal firearms registries - which were already illegal but the prospect was that frightening to some people - and exceptions for people selling or giving guns to family and friends.
Those are just Federal laws. Haven’t there been state laws passed in the last 10-20 years restricting ownership?
There probably have, since I already linked to 13 laws in the last year and a half that loosened restrictions on gun ownership. Maybe we’re getting too specific on the Second Amendment part of the issue. The broader point I’m making is this: we’ve always been willing to be flexible on Constitutional rights and as a society we’re pretty comfortable with that idea. We’re OK with ceremonial deism and with restrictions on free speech that would cause imminent violence or with passing classified information to other countries. We’re OK with at least arguing about what cruel and unusual punishment really means. We seem to have gotten flexible on jury trial and due process issues in some circumstances. The idea that there are limits even to freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights is not at all controversial. But at this point a very vocal minority of people has decided that any kind of restriction on one amendment is an unconstitutional infringement. I think history makes it clear in context how unreasonable that really is.
It means that your right to carry a gun into a restaurant or bar does not operate in a vacuum; it affects everyone around you.
The gun industry is destroying itself the same way the comic book industry did. It used to be comic books were cheap and ubiquitous. You could buy them everywhere and they appealed to a broad demographic. Then in the 1980’s the comic book companies realized they could make a lot of money by marketing specifically to a narrow group of hard-core comic fans. They problem was they got so good at servicing their hardcore fans they lost the mass market. Comic book sales are 1/10 of what they were fifty years ago. Unless you go to a specialty comic book store, they’re hard to find. Now, lots of kids grow up without reading comic books, starving the industry of future fans.
In 1970 50% of U.S. households owned a gun. Now the number is about 30%. This has happened even though the number of guns in the country has soared. Basically, the gun manufacturers have been making buckets of money by selling more and more guns to the hard-core gun fans. But in the process they’re alienating the mass market. At some point the majority is simply going to say “Why the hell are our laws set up for the benefit of the 20% that owns a gun? Let them get a safer hobby.”
When I say “we” are OK with it, by the way, I mean society seems to have given it a thumbs-up as a compromise. I think it’s asisine, but it’s an example of a compromise whether I like it or don’t.
It’s not a lack of desire for debate - it’s a belief that the other side is not acting in good faith. Just what debate do you think is being avoided, or isn’t being had that should be had?
Person A: I want to kill you!
Person B: Umm, no thanks
Person A: Ok - how about I put a GPS ankle bracelet on you and I super promise that I will never ever use it to try and kill you, you know, what I wanted to do just a moment ago.
Person B: I don’t believe you, no thanks to the ankle bracelet.
It’s not a slippery slope argument. It’s a ‘you guys are liars’ argument.
That’s kind of what I was saying. The vocal group, while a minority, has greater power when acting together as compared to larger numbers acting individually. This is why if you are a gun rights supporter it’s important to be focused and vote in a block.
This isn’t a concession. This was a amendment by Coburn attached to a credit card bill. It wasn’t offered in exchange for anything, it was attached to a must bill that Obama supported. I’m not that familiar with the intricacies of parliamentary rules but I wonder why this tactic isn’t used more often. I do grant that this expanded gun rights. Provisions in Manchin-Toomey that made illegal things more illegal isn’t an expansion.
I’m curious why you think the comic book market has dwindled so much and how they marketed to a narrow group - but that’s probably another thread. I thought the oversaturation of the market combined with much cheaper sales through internet hurt the industry.
It’s a lack of desire for debate. You can’t claim the other side is acting in good faith right after rejecting a compromise on the grounds that compromise itself is dangerous.
That’s an insult, not an argument.
Look at those goalposts fly! Who other than someone who had participated in any similar discussion would have seen this coming? You asked me about concessions and have promptly ignored examples of concessions. The exemptions for transfers and sales was a concession. The ban on registries was a concession because opponents of the bill demanded it even though it was already illegal. Is that preposterous? Sure. But they wanted it because they’re that concerned about it. Further, I already told you about one expansion and you said it didn’t count for other reasons. This is exactly the kind of nonsense I’m talking about.
I truly believe that gun control advocates aren’t acting in good faith and aren’t trustworthy. I am totally open to debate. I’m curious what debate you think should be had that isn’t being had.
You are right. What you provided qualifies for what I was asking. I was thinking more along the lines of a quid pro quo kind of thing, but it was an expansion of gun rights none the less.
If you are willing to debate compromise with reasonable people, but consider those who want to compromise either stupid or deceptive, exactly who is it you’d like to see on the other side of this hypothetical debate table?