Hypocrisy at its worse (rant warning)

[KCcarguy]

A couple of points: It is possible to be a "pro 2A" gun owner like myself and be in favor of prudent gun control measures that are non- violative of the second amendment. I believe these can actually (in the long term) help preserve my rights to ownership.

Emotion and fear are the cornerstones of the new NRA's advertising and profiteering machine. And, unfortunately, many of their more extreme members parrot NRA propaganda and leave folks like myself at least somewhat stained by their garbage. I didn't leave them, they left me about 25 years ago. Just because they are vitriolic in their discourse, doesn't mean they care more about the Bill of Rights, They certainly haven't taken the time to understand it.

They can pry my iPhone from my cold dead hands (or buy it on EBay when the iPhone 6 comes out).

What would you do Doc? You keep criticizing the NRA. What amount of gun control is the right amount? When should it stop? What kind of guns should law abiding citizens be allowed to own? What is the end-point? Do we keep regulating guns until violent crime disappears (never)? And, lastly, what makes you think criminals are going to cooperate?

Again...practically speaking, regulating "assault weapons" will not keep me from hunting or even having a reasonable chance of defending my family. I just think attacking only part of a complex problem will get us nowhere and punish law-abiding gun owners in the process.

 

[ndcent]

RE: Fear and Hysteria, I found this video tremendous in terms of presenting data and fact without agenda. Share if you like it.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ooa98FHuaU0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[H2O_Doc]

What would you do Doc? You keep criticizing the NRA. What amount of gun control is the right amount? When should it stop? What kind of guns should law abiding citizens be allowed to own? What is the end-point? Do we keep regulating guns until violent crime disappears (never)? And, lastly, what makes you think criminals are going to cooperate?

Again...practically speaking, regulating "assault weapons" will not keep me from hunting or even having a reasonable chance of defending my family. I just think attacking only part of a complex problem will get us nowhere and punish law-abiding gun owners in the process.

In my opinion, the right amount is that which is (first) non-violative of the 2nd Amendment, but which offers the voting populace the means to limit the availability (note that I didn't say use) of certain arms or their performance in support of the public welfare. What the specifics would be I cannot say. I will say the slippery slope argument, however genuinely forwarded, is itself slippery. You can take any reasonable and prudent proposal and through a chain of incrementalism, dismiss action for fear of some possible end state well outside that which was originally proposed. We,in all sorts of policy arenas, need to get beyond the "slippery slope" discussion stoppers. Not everything is a slipper slope, and even if you find yourself there, it just means be careful, not flee from reason.

As for your question about what arms should law abiding citizens be allowed to own, I don't know. I take a more expansive and inclusive view, but that is my personal view that I am willing to discuss in the public policy forum with others who might take a more narrow view.

One big disconnect I see is between urban and rural citizens. I think city folks sometimes just don't get the role of hunting and even just plain old target shooting that are important parts of the lives of rural Americans. In contrast, many rural citizens don't have to live with the gun violence that are so rampant in some urban centers. What is needed is dialog, which is precisely what folks like the NRA don't want.

Attacking part of a complex problem is precisely the way to approach the issue. Complex problems can seldom be solved otherwise and it keeps us from trying to impose blanket solutions. It is in this approach that we can recognize the wants or needs of urban communities to have some regulation to address issues of public safety, without adversely affecting hunters and sportsmen.

No one thinks criminals will cooperate, which is why we have laws in the first place. You cannot jail someone if they haven't committed a crime (generally), and it is hard to deter criminal behavior without some sort of sanction (though sanctions will not deter ever single bad actor).

 

[1engineer]

In my opinion, the right amount is that which is (first) non-violative of the 2nd Amendment, but which offers the voting populace the means to limit the availability (note that I didn't say use) of certain arms or their performance in support of the public welfare. What the specifics would be I cannot say. I will say the slippery slope argument, however genuinely forwarded, is itself slippery. You can take any reasonable and prudent proposal and through a chain of incrementalism, dismiss action for fear of some possible end state well outside that which was originally proposed. We,in all sorts of policy arenas, need to get beyond the "slippery slope" discussion stoppers. Not everything is a slipper slope, and even if you find yourself there, it just means be careful, not flee from reason.

As for your question about what arms should law abiding citizens be allowed to own, I don't know. I take a more expansive and inclusive view, but that is my personal view that I am willing to discuss in the public policy forum with others who might take a more narrow view.

One big disconnect I see is between urban and rural citizens. I think city folks sometimes just don't get the role of hunting and even just plain old target shooting that are important parts of the lives of rural Americans. In contrast, many rural citizens don't have to live with the gun violence that are so rampant in some urban centers. What is needed is dialog, which is precisely what folks like the NRA don't want.

Attacking part of a complex problem is precisely the way to approach the issue. Complex problems can seldom be solved otherwise and it keeps us from trying to impose blanket solutions. It is in this approach that we can recognize the wants or needs of urban communities to have some regulation to address issues of public safety, without adversely affecting hunters and sportsmen.

No one thinks criminals will cooperate, which is why we have laws in the first place. You cannot jail someone if they haven't committed a crime (generally), and it is hard to deter criminal behavior without some sort of sanction (though sanctions will not deter ever single bad actor).

Doc, we do not live in a Utopian society unfortunately. You are correct in your assessment of urban vs rural ideals and challenges in regards to gun ownership. Hell, I agree with most of the points you have made in this thread too. The problem, as with all issues of this magnitude, is politics.
If you look at a US map by county of how democrats and republicians voted in this last election you will see that by land area over 90% of the map is red. This red color on that map is also almost all rural. These people (and I live in the "rural-ist" of rural,) are the mostly responsible people who have guns, shoot guns, hunt with guns, trade guns and will be the first to bear arms should the need arise. Unfortunately those little tiny blue areas have a slightly different opinion of things and right now they are the majority. Politics.

The most important thing we as a nation could do to "fix" this area is NOT change or make new laws but properly enforce existing laws. Why make a new law when the current one is not enforced correctly? So we could have another law that enforcement officials cannot control properly? Yeah, that's a good idea.

The first step, and one that could greatly change the landscape of gun ownership, is to enforce the existing laws the way they are written now. Then and only then should we re-evaluate and start a "dialog." Don't start a new project until you have finished the first one correctly.

I do not and have never owned a gun (except for my way cool potato gun) nor do I belong to the NRA. I do however believe we are the most powerful and feared nation on earth and garner grudging respect from most citizens of other countries precisely because of the rights and freedoms such as the second amendment that we still have today.

Did you know that if you took only the hunters who went out on the first day of deer season (in the US) in 2010 and made them into an army it would be the 5th largest army in the world? If you took all of the people who hunt in the US and made them into an army it would be the largest army in the world by three fold. Those stats usually don't make it into the discussion.

 

[Thai]

I want to re-quote my own post on page 1:

A decent article from NY Times (shocking!!): Gun Laws and Crime - A Complex Relationship - NYTimes.com

In other words, strict gun laws have not been shown to do what it intends to do.

ABC 20/20 article: Gun Control Isn't Crime Control - ABC News

Note, these two articles are not from NRA or pro-gun sites! They are from traditionally liberal sites!

Long article: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/194051.pdf

But, at least, from reading it, it seems like enforcement of existing regulations is what is needed, rather than more laws/regulations. And yes, criminal background check do work if done right (aka enough staffing, etc.).

Unfortunately, nothing will prevent a guy with psychiatric issues from snapping. Liberals are equally ignorant to think that it is possible via gun control.

FACTS are FACTS. Gun control has never really worked. Enforcement of existing regulations is what is needed.

 

[H2O_Doc]

I want to re-quote my own post on page 1:



Gun control has never really worked. Enforcement of existing regulations is what is needed.

Some of the existing laws are precisely that: gun control. Gun laws can work to varying degrees, but none of them will prevent every instance of the misuse of firearms. Arguing that gun control has categorically never really worked is wrong, it has worked in some capacity in some instance. Arguing that it cannot cure every gun related crime is entirely correct. The question is how much, within the protections under the bill of rights, is acceptable and appropriate.

Nothing whatsoever should be taken as me advocating more gun laws and I do agree the existing laws should be enforced. What I am vocal against is sophistry on any side of an argument and sophistry is what I see too often among gun ownership advocates (the group to which I belong). What I am for is an open discussion and, again, assertions of "slippery slopes" are wholly insufficient for me to refuse to listen to countervailing ideas.

It would be easy to misunderstand my position, it happens to me often.

 

[aha2988]

FACTS are FACTS. Gun control has never really worked. Enforcement of existing regulations is what is needed.

I have to say I when i picked up my permits to purchase handguns the sheriff's office didnt even I.D. me I just told them my name and they handed me the 4 permits i ordered online. ironically the backwoods gun shop I purchased from did make the notion to ensure I am who i said i was even matched up the address on the I.D. to the permit.

thats the legal way to get a pistol in NC all long rifles need no permit and as long as your 18 you can purchase them along with ammo. It's not to hard though to buy a pistol off a friend or go around getting a permit but if you get caught with gun without a permit issued for said pistol then well they bend you over and take your gun along with some money.

 

[KCcarguy]

In my opinion, the right amount is that which is (first) non-violative of the 2nd Amendment, but which offers the voting populace the means to limit the availability (note that I didn't say use) of certain arms or their performance in support of the public welfare. What the specifics would be I cannot say. I will say the slippery slope argument, however genuinely forwarded, is itself slippery. You can take any reasonable and prudent proposal and through a chain of incrementalism, dismiss action for fear of some possible end state well outside that which was originally proposed. We,in all sorts of policy arenas, need to get beyond the "slippery slope" discussion stoppers. Not everything is a slipper slope, and even if you find yourself there, it just means be careful, not flee from reason

Why take action without a specific endpoint? How do you know we arent already there? Making laws and policy will always have positive and negative consequences and doing it without a defined goal is irresponsible IMO. That's what leads to the (admittedly cliche') "slippery slope".

And I definitely agree with you on the disconnect. It's a group of people who have positive experience with guns vs those who do not. And I think a personal responsibility vs nanny-state difference in philosophy/ culture exists as well....which makes sense
Considering many of us in the middle of the country are only a generation or two removed from self-reliant farmers, etc.

 

[1engineer]

Why take action without a specific endpoint? How do you know we arent already there? Making laws and policy will always have positive and negative consequences and doing it without a defined goal is irresponsible IMO. That's what leads to the (admittedly cliche') "slippery slope".

And I definitely agree with you on the disconnect. It's a group of people who have positive experience with guns vs those who do not. And I think a personal responsibility vs nanny-state difference in philosophy/ culture exists as well....which makes sense
Considering many of us in the middle of the country are only a generation or two removed from self-reliant pfarmers, etc.

When dealing with the public through the political process there can rarely be a clearly defined goal. Vague, ambigious and misleading goals are the norm.

That's why I only deal with machines...

 

[H2O_Doc]

The most important thing we as a nation could do to "fix" this area is NOT change or make new laws but properly enforce existing laws. Why make a new law when the current one is not enforced correctly? So we could have another law that enforcement officials cannot control properly? Yeah, that's a good idea.

The first step, and one that could greatly change the landscape of gun ownership, is to enforce the existing laws the way they are written now. Then and only then should we re-evaluate and start a "dialog." Don't start a new project until you have finished the first one correctly.

I do not and have never owned a gun (except for my way cool potato gun) nor do I belong to the NRA. I do however believe we are the most powerful and feared nation on earth and garner grudging respect from most citizens of other countries precisely because of the rights and freedoms such as the second amendment that we still have today.

First, I could totally see you having a potato gun worthy of its own patent: you are just that nerdy.

I agree with the points on enforcement; that should come before any additional restrictions (which is what laws are at the end of the day) particularly if they might achieve your goals of reduced crime etc.

You are unusually lucid and willing to engage in civil discourse (no false flattery) and we are participating in something unusual here of all places: a worthwhile discussion on a controversial topic that normally tends to degenerate into hyperbole and name calling. It is in this (more broadly adopted among our fellow citizens) that we might find understanding and a workable solution (whatever that might be).

 

[blackrifle01]

I am a gun nut...whatever that means.

There doesn't need to be anymore new gun laws.

Keep in mind that Adam Lanza broke 41 laws when he went on his murder spree. To think a new law or restriction is somehow going to save lives is stupidity at its finest. FBI crime statistics and analysis of the previous AWB already showed that it was ineffective. In fact, since the AWB expired, more black rifles and 30 round magazines have been sold than any other time in history yet gun crime is going down.

Time for people to realize that no law is going to prevent a crime. No gun law is going to stop a madman. No gun-free zone is going to keep you safe. If we cannot be proactive, then we must be reactive. Here is a fact...the Clackamas mall shooter was stopped by a person with a concealed carry weapon. There have been multiple mass-shooter events that have been prevented or "minimized" by an armed citizen that responded the moment the mass shooter event began. If we want to be ready for the next nutjob, then we need to have good people ready to react (not wait around to be executed). And if you tell me an "Assault rifle" (a term used by the ignorant) is not a defensive weapon, I point you to the Korean store owners who kept themselves alive during the LA Riots. I point you to the survivors of Hurricane Katrina that used AR15s, AK47s, Semi-Auto shotguns, to protect themselves and their property in the aftermath.

If we really want to save lives, then all speed limits would be 35 mph (highways, city roads, etc). DUI drivers would all receive life sentences without parole. Unbuckled children in vehicles would result in felony charges. It's amazing to me that people would entertain giving up essential liberty for an illusion of safety.

Keep in mind that the 2A is not about hunting or defending yourself from a burglar (though those are benefits). It's about placing a check on government. Yes, even our own government may one day become our worst enemy (however slim and negligible that chance may be).

You can call me crazy for thinking this way, but the facts, history, and human nature prove me right every single time. If my way of thinking classifies me as a NRA gun nut, then so be it.

 

[H2O_Doc]

I am a gun nut...whatever that means.

There doesn't need to be anymore new gun laws.

Keep in mind that Adam Lanza broke 41 laws when he went on his murder spree. To think a new law or restriction is somehow going to save lives is stupidity at its finest. FBI crime statistics and analysis of the previous AWB already showed that it was ineffective. In fact, since the AWB expired, more black rifles and 30 round magazines have been sold than any other time in history yet gun crime is going down.

Time for people to realize that no law is going to prevent a crime. No gun law is going to stop a madman. No gun-free zone is going to keep you safe. If we cannot be proactive, then we must be reactive. Here is a fact...the Clackamas mall shooter was stopped by a person with a concealed carry weapon. There have been multiple mass-shooter events that have been prevented or "minimized" by an armed citizen that responded the moment the mass shooter event began. If we want to be ready for the next nutjob, then we need to have good people ready to react (not wait around to be executed). And if you tell me an "Assault rifle" (a term used by the ignorant) is not a defensive weapon, I point you to the Korean store owners who kept themselves alive during the LA Riots. I point you to the survivors of Hurricane Katrina that used AR15s, AK47s, Semi-Auto shotguns, to protect themselves and their property in the aftermath.

If we really want to save lives, then all speed limits would be 35 mph (highways, city roads, etc). DUI drivers would all receive life sentences without parole. Unbuckled children in vehicles would result in felony charges. It's amazing to me that people would entertain giving up essential liberty for an illusion of safety.

Keep in mind that the 2A is not about hunting or defending yourself from a burglar (though those are benefits). It's about placing a check on government. Yes, even our own government may one day become our worst enemy (however slim and negligible that chance may be).

You can call me crazy for thinking this way, but the facts, history, and human nature prove me right every single time. If my way of thinking classifies me as a NRA gun nut, then so be it.

I find myself in the odd position of having to disagree with much of a post, dispute disagreeing with the general sentiment.

You point to the expiration of the AWB and the declining crime rate. Well, one would not expect the AWB to have any significant measure on the crime rate. "Crime" is pretty broad and the frequency of the use either true assault weapons or large capacity magazines is so RELATIVELY (and perhaps absolutely) low that it cannot affect the statistics much. So, it is a dramatic argument but not necessarily a useful one.

Yes a gun law can prevent a crime (this doesn't mean it will, nor does it mean that it cannot have precisely the opposite effect)! No, as I have said before, no single law can prevent all crimes. I don't know which you are really arguing, but the real debate (when it comes down to law and policy making) is whether or not a given law can lead to REDUCE crime and whether or not the loss of freedoms associated with that law are both Constitutional and otherwise acceptable. Ad absurdism arguments might seem to "disarm" your opponent, but they are dangerous to our interests. The reason these arguments are dangerous is that if you say that a law is unacceptable for reasons easily falsifiable and the opposition shows it, you are left without an argument. If you are frequently shown as ill informed or disingenuous, then you,lose credibility and your seat at the table.

Your allusion to Franklin's words on liberty and security are fair, but don't mean that regulations have no place in society. Scroll up and look at the Mason quote.

On your last point, this is just plainly wrong. "Facts" show that gun control can work and this recognition doesn't mean I want more gun laws or you are more patriotic in your love of the Constitution. What it means is that I am taking the time to understand the facts and circumstances around the discussion and if I choose to argue against gun control, my arguments will rest on a solid foundation.

 

[Atlanta_man]

As to: "Facts" show that gun control can work...

Yes, it would work somewhere between 0 and 100% to prevent the Columbine, Tucson, Aurora, VA Tech, CT events. Closer to 0 than 100% in my opinion.

Gun control, perhaps a good strong serious ban, would unfortunately empower the criminals and take away the ability for folks to defend themselves.

 

[H2O_Doc]

Ugh...it still remains that gun control and a wholesale gun ban are usually very different proposition. No one in any position to affect real change is proposing a wholesale gun ban, nor would anything close to that proposition be found consistent with the constitution.

My actual interest is less in the specifics of the public debate and more in the nature of how we go about constructing honest, rational, and useful arguments.

 

[aha2988]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

everyone is free in this country to protect themselves and there liberty, my concern is that the general public has lost the attitude of doing things for themselves, and instead asking what can there government do for them. you don't need a government to protect it's people, or write laws to "ensure" the safety of those people. the government needs it's people to protect them. and the people need the power to defend there freedom.

in the battle of Lexington "the shot heard around the world" English troops marched on to take the land from the settlers. This was the settlers government at the time attacking it's own people.

The farmers in Lexington picked up there rifles (single shot muskets) and risked there lives not for a government, not for someone else, not for land or power or money. but to stand up and defend there liberty and families as free men. Had these farmers not been armed, or had practice in using there weapons they would have stood zero chance at defending there freedom. those few proud brave men stood against many and won the battle!

the same rifles they used for hunting food became there only defense against tyranny. Just as today The weapons we carry to serve as personal protection, target shooting, hunting, and competition are also in our hands to defend the freedoms of this country and to stand against any that so choose to try and take it be it foreign or domestic.

but then theres that other hand that says hey we have a military to protect us now us civilians don't need those weapons and our government can protect us now..

well as George Washington stated for every 200 armed troops theres 400 armed civilians, in no way can our military ever be as strong as our free bodied nation and that was the intentions of our founding fathers to keep the power in the hands of the people. In doing so they gave us the liberty and power to defend ourselves knowing that if it were to ever be infringed upon it would take power away from the people and put it in the hands of the government federal and state.

And you can carry the mindset that oh we'll never be attacked by anyone or we're there strongest country in the world.. or we should seek peace and love. which all these things would be great; however, As long as there is good in the world there will be evil to test it, and as long as there is evil in this world it is in the best intentions of american liberties for us to keep our ability bear arms in which we see fit to defend our freedoms.

we can't rely on a government, police force, or military to defend our freedom. we have to have the attitude that this is OUR FREE NATION and NO ONE will ever take that away from us. At ALL costs we will do what is necessary to defend ourselves against any threat be in a threat from our own people or a threat from foreign people.

 

[H2O_Doc]

.. or we should seek piece and love.

I definitely think its worth seeking a piece OF love : )

 

[Thai]

"Facts" show that gun control can work

This statement is just so confusing!! Why the quotes around FACTS?? Do you have any or not?? Source or credible studies?

And why use the word, "can"???

I "can" take my Prius over the Rubicon Trail...but that does not mean that it will work well there. I "can" flap my wings like a butterfly but it does not mean that i will fly off a cliff.

I have already posted two very credible LIBERAL sources that state contrary to your opinion...aka, gun control does not work in REAL LIFE. THAT is FACT.

I don't give a crap about theories. Communism is a work of art in theory too...but is IN FACT a piss poor way of life when practiced.

:redbrick:

Again my post:

A decent article from NY Times (shocking!!): Gun Laws and Crime - A Complex Relationship - NYTimes.com

In other words, strict gun laws have not been shown to do what it intends to do.

ABC 20/20 article: Gun Control Isn't Crime Control - ABC News

Note, these two articles are not from NRA or pro-gun sites! They are from traditionally liberal sites!

Long article: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/194051.pdf

But, at least, from reading it, it seems like enforcement of existing regulations is what is needed, rather than more laws/regulations. And yes, criminal background check do work if done right (aka enough staffing, etc.).

Unfortunately, nothing will prevent a guy with psychiatric issues from snapping. Liberals are equally ignorant to think that it is possible via gun control.

There is simply nothing to debate here...enforce the existing laws FIRST AND FOREMOST. Adding more and more laws will do no good when there is no funding to enforce the added regulations.

 

[H2O_Doc]

This statement is just so confusing!! Why the quotes around FACTS?? Do you have any or not?? Source or credible studies?

And why use the word, "can"???

I "can" take my Prius over the Rubicon Trail...but that does not mean that it will work well there. I "can" flap my wings like a butterfly but it does not mean that i will fly off a cliff.

I have already posted two very credible LIBERAL sources that state contrary to your opinion...aka, gun control does not work in REAL LIFE. THAT is FACT.

I don't give a crap about theories. Communism is a work of art in theory too...but is IN FACT a piss poor way of life when practiced.

:redbrick:

Again my post:

It isn't confusing at all. "Can" means that under some instances some gun control measures do produce some change in the rate of gun violence. I didn't say will because there is no guarantee of it (it depends on the specifics). I also point to the possibility of it having the EXACT OPPOSITE of the intended effect, which we should all guard against and be vocal about. And, again, I am not interested in more gun control laws, but I'm not afraid to call out sophists (even if they are On MY side) as I think they weaken our ability to defend our liberties in the end. Also, it is no way for rational adults to govern a nation or participate in important policy discussions.

You're use of communism is known in logic and rhetoric as known as false analogy (see John Stuart Mill if interested). It really doesn't advance the discussion or help you make a relevant point.

I never would have thought you'd put liberal and credible together. Hope you're not going soft on us? Where's that Birchian Thai we have grown to love : ) ?

 

[Thai]

Actually, i was just making fun of you for being safe with your statements...to allow for an easy exit...is there even a point to your post/debate? You should run for politics (if not already) with your wishy-washy statements to cover your butt. Sorry, where are your facts? Even the liberal media has admitted that gun control fails at what it was created to do.

 

[shadow247]

Criminals don't follow the law, therefore any discussion about gun laws is irrelevant.

Case in point - it is illegal to fly an airplane into a building, that did not stop 9/11 nor did it stop the gentleman in Austin, TX a few years ago.

Government can neither guarantee nor grant safety, and you would be a fool to believe otherwise. The supreme court stated as much when they affirmed that police officers do not have a duty to protect you.