Gun control – a failure to communicate

[gehrheart]

here ___---__---__ From the Ridge: Gun control ? a failure to communicate

A fundraiser for the NRA called me the other day, apparently scouring his call list for year-end financial gifts. He invited me to hear some recorded words of wisdom from Wayne LaPierre, Executive Director of the NRA. LaPierre gave me his state of the arms race and explained how the international community was pressuring us to give up our guns.

The polite young man came back on and asked, “Do you think Iran should be able to dictate our gun policy,” which is rather like asking if Al Quida should head up our national security. What could I say to this leading question but “no!” Before he could launch into his canned pitch for a donation and membership, I countered that the real problem in the gun debate lies in the failure of either side to listen.

The NRA fails to listen to reasonable arguments that we do not need assault type weapons to hunt, let alone protect our homes. The NRA believes any reasonable compromise will cede territory to the enemy. Meanwhile, a series by the Washington Post details the horrific violence in Mexico and along our border that is being fueled (no, not caused) by gun dealers in the United States.

The anti-gun lobby fails to listen to reasonable arguments that protect our right to hunt and defend ourselves, believing we should ban or restrict all guns in the interest of public safety. That ain’t going to happen in this country. Although I do not hunt with a gun, my son does, and I hunt with a bow. I cannot imagine, nor would I tolerate those fundamental privileges taken away.

Between those two extremes lies a whole world of common ground. With gun control activists exploring anti-gun legislation and open-carry advocates testing the edge of the law, no one is exploring the middle ground. NRA’s unwillingness to explore it and the gun control lobby’s inability to see it makes us all less safe.

Finding arguments on either side of gun control is exceptionally easy. We’ve heard them all. Finding consensus on a volatile issue is exceedingly difficult; yet it can be found with genuine effort. Are we up to the challenge?

There should be no compromise to a constitutional right!
I find it laughable to read this author thinking the NRA failure to listen to "reasonable" gun control measure. I have been under the opinion that the NRA is to soft. Granted they have done a lot for gun owners, not taking that away from them. To call for a middle ground?

Do we have a middle ground for freedom of speech, religion?


No Compromise.

Maybe I just need some more coffee this morning.

Read More

 

[spengo]

I got as far as "assault type weapons."

 

[elsullo]

It is astounding to again read an opinion that the NRA is too unyeilding on firearm issues! As IF the gun-banners would stop at confiscating only American citizens' "black guns" to protect the poor Mexicans from their drug gang violence? This mook feels that implacably resisting gun control ultimately threatens his right to hunt? He wants more "listening" but has somehow not heard that all hunting calibers have already been defined as "cop-killer" bullets! Look at Britain and Australia: they confiscated even lever-action rifles and pump-action shotguns for hunting, not just detachable magazine fed guns (and violent crime rates soared!) And there are PLENTY of the anti-gun types who also want to ban ALL hunting as being cruel to animals! Eeeeeeeeewwww...........

There IS NO MIDDLE GROUND that any "listening to both sides" will find. The gun-banners will NOT stop at any point, and eventually will prohibit us even carrying a rock or a sharp stick to defend ourselves.........................elsullo

 

[korntera]

I wholely agree! I HATE how so many people here call anybody but themself a "libtard" or whatever ignorant saying they can come up with. Those people do not deserve a place on this forum as even Liberals like guns and have a common ground. I used to co run the University of Oregon College Democrats club, thats right Democrats and do you know what we did? We had a 2nd amendment shooting day that we used to teach people firearm safety AND why guns can be fun and safe and how its people not the guns that cause problems.

Do you know that the Oregon Democratic Party has a Gun Owners Caucus? I am part of it. When those IDIOTS use terms like "libtards" they are only worsening the cause. I almost hate being on this forum and other gun forums sometimes because unless you are a repulican/conservative you shouldn't be here. If people looked towards the middle i think we could all make progress.

 

[spengo]

I wholely agree! I HATE how so many people here call anybody but themself a "libtard" or whatever ignorant saying they can come up with. Those people do not deserve a place on this forum as even Liberals like guns and have a common ground. I used to co run the University of Oregon College Democrats club, thats right Democrats and do you know what we did? We had a 2nd amendment shooting day that we used to teach people firearm safety AND why guns can be fun and safe and how its people not the guns that cause problems.

Do you know that the Oregon Democratic Party has a Gun Owners Caucus? I am part of it. When those IDIOTS use terms like "libtards" they are only worsening the cause. I almost hate being on this forum and other gun forums sometimes because unless you are a repulican/conservative you shouldn't be here. If people looked towards the middle i think we could all make progress.

Wait... what? You agree with who? No one said "libtard" and no one was talking about Democrats. Just gun-banners, some of which are Republicans for that matter, and everyone here SHOULD hate gun-banners... especially the ones trying to ban evil black rifles.

 

[donMiguel]

...why defend it with fallacy?
The OP shared, in quoting an external article,

The polite young man came back on and asked, “Do you think Iran should be able to dictate our gun policy,” which is rather like asking if Al Quida should head up our national security. What could I say to this leading question but “no!” Before he could launch into his canned pitch for a donation and membership, I countered that the real problem in the gun debate lies in the failure of either side to listen.

The dictates of Iran have no bearing on gun policy here. To imply otherwise is fallacious, and serves only to agitate the uninformed. It is in the same league as the secret world government and the black helicopters following folks to work. At best exaggerations, though some embrace them as both truth and evidence. This distorted perception of the world is what makes the majority nervous, more so when the nonsense is cheered by gun owners.
As a law abiding citizen with no disqualifying history or conditions, I exercise my right to town and carry. And when I discuss this with people who do not know guns, or fear guns and people with guns, I exercise restraint, logic and compassion. I invite them to the range to punch holes in paper. And some convert, or at least change their gun-hostile ways.
Yes I (and we) have a right to own and bear arms. But the Constitution also has the ability to evolve through amendments, and those amendments are determined by the majority when the states ratify them. So stand up for your / our rights, but be sensible in your approach. Be honest, non-inflammatory, and know that at some level, it does matter what others think.

 

[keystir]

I know people on both sides of this debate and I tend to agree with the author that there are people who are so entrenched in their respective positions that they will never budge on their views and I'm not sure there will ever be a middle ground reached between the 2 sides and to be honest I'm not sure there should be. I would never admit this on the forum and it will be deleted if ever mentioned again but even though I am not in the group I think the No compromise whatsoever crowd may have a point and that if they do give an inch a mile will be taken. I'm 99% sure Obama is not sitting in Hawaii right now sipping a Mai tai while trying to figure out how to take our guns but I'd be lying if there wasn't that 1% in the back of my mind thinking maybe i'm wrong. I'm a liberal but I'm not retarded, not all of my firearms were purchased from an FFL.

But having a strong opinion about gun rights is different then making fabricated, inflammatory, rhetorical remarks that only serve to confuse people and muddy the facts until folks can no longer differentiate truth from lies. I will always put in my .02 cents when this happens.

 

[chris61182]

I got as far as "assault type weapons."

You should have kept reading, they repeated the lie about Mexico's source of guns as well. Sure builds a lot of credibility for any common middle ground when they start off dishonest.

 

[korntera]

Wait... what? You agree with who? No one said "libtard" and no one was talking about Democrats. Just gun-banners, some of which are Republicans for that matter, and everyone here SHOULD hate gun-banners... especially the ones trying to ban evil black rifles.

The OP brings up the failure to communicate and so many people on this and other forums jump to petty name calling before trying to figure out why. Being from what most people would call the other side I see how repulsive some people can be and how difficult it is to communicate with someone that uses a term like libtard.

 

[chris61182]

Instead of replying to those who say they agree with this original author, I figured I'd address some of the points the author made instead, because it seems clear what exactly the author's goal was, and that wasn't to communicate or find any sort of middle ground.

A fundraiser for the NRA called me the other day, apparently scouring his call list for year-end financial gifts. He invited me to hear some recorded words of wisdom from Wayne LaPierre, Executive Director of the NRA. LaPierre gave me his state of the arms race and explained how the international community was pressuring us to give up our guns.

The polite young man came back on and asked, "Do you think Iran should be able to dictate our gun policy," which is rather like asking if Al Quida should head up our national security.

So yes, the pro-gunners are being a bit hyperbolic with regards to the pending/threatened UN Arms Treaty. Or at least it's only hyperbole until when/if it becomes real.

What could I say to this leading question but "no!" Before he could launch into his canned pitch for a donation and membership, I countered that the real problem in the gun debate lies in the failure of either side to listen.

Actually it's not at all a failure to listen by either side, it's pretty easy to listen to the anti-gunners side and see it's all about moving the goal posts and redefining 'middle ground' to be amendable to incremental bans.

The NRA fails to listen to reasonable arguments that we do not need assault type weapons to hunt, let alone protect our homes.

In the past the antis would be talking about machine guns, or real assault rifles. Now they'll happily conflate todays high capacity semi-auto as one of the previous devices. Not that it matters either way, because when it comes to self defense, that's one of the best devices there is. Not very far in and they already have gotten off track from public safety.

Meanwhile, a series by the Washington Post details the horrific violence in Mexico and along our border that is being fueled (no, not caused) by gun dealers in the United States.

A known and highly publicized fallacy designed to further demonize the guns best suited for home defense. Again further working against public safety.

The anti-gun lobby fails to listen to reasonable arguments that protect our right to hunt and defend ourselves, believing we should ban or restrict all guns in the interest of public safety.

Actually that's not true, they listen to the pro-gun side just as much as we listen to theirs. They sugar coat their designed objectives as being in the 'name' of public safety, or if you'd just think of the children! Two themes that reverberate strongly with the pro-gun side, and can be used as a wedge to separate out those who don't think too hard.

That ain't going to happen in this country. Although I do not hunt with a gun, my son does, and I hunt with a bow. I cannot imagine, nor would I tolerate those fundamental privileges taken away.

Ah the beauty of personal choices, while not mandating that everyone does exactly the same as oneself. This is the beauty of classical liberalism, and should be practiced much more often! (Yeah, it's a compliment in order to ad-hominem the rest of the author's arguments, it's a cheap shot but I couldn't pass it up.)

Between those two extremes lies a whole world of common ground. With gun control activists exploring anti-gun legislation and open-carry advocates testing the edge of the law, no one is exploring the middle ground. NRA's unwillingness to explore it and the gun control lobby's inability to see it makes us all less safe.

So far we've discovered no common ground between anti and pro gunners. But I suspect there's plenty of common ground between pro-gunners and those who simply aren't interested in being pro-gun, it's called being anti-crime and/or anti-criminal.

Which unsurprisingly crime and criminal are two words which didn't appear even once in that writer's attempt to move the goal posts. Only this nebulous concept of public safety and only in regards to how the easiest to demonize group of guns is asserted without proof to make the public less safe.

Finding arguments on either side of gun control is exceptionally easy. We've heard them all. Finding consensus on a volatile issue is exceedingly difficult; yet it can be found with genuine effort. Are we up to the challenge?

Now there's an excellent challenge! Can anyone think of any gun laws that have succeeded in lowering crime and/or increasing public safety?

 

[Swedish K]

Now there's an excellent challenge! Can anyone think of any gun laws that have succeeded in lowering crime and/or increasing public safety?

Simple - Kennesaw, GA passed a law in 1982 requiring all heads of household to own a gun and ammunition for that gun. (actually all who could legally own a gun) When the ACLU filed suit against them they added a clause for conscientious objectors to be exempted. The crime rate plummeted and they have the lowest crime rate of any city of their size in the country. Burglaries dropped from 11 per 1000 residents per year to .243 per 1000 per year as of 1998.



There I found a gun control law that few here can find fault with. My work here is done - insert evil grin here.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

The NRA fails to listen to reasonable arguments that we do not need assault type weapons to hunt, let alone protect our homes.

Anyone who's ever been in a firefight with non-semi-automatic weapons against semi-automatic weapons will tell you it's no contest.

The anti's are always looking for a compromise. The problem is that you are the only one who will be doing any compromising. They will always be willing to meet you half way, and the next day they will be asking to meet you half way between your new position and their old position once again. They'll keep it up until you find yourself agreeing to their original positions.

 

[revjen45]

Compromise with the Hoplophobes is analagous to African-Americans negotiating about where they will be allowed to sit on the bus.

Here's a compromise: a machine gun is defined as firing more than 1 shot per pull of the trigger. Lets compromise and make it 3.

 

[slingshot1943]

The OP brings up the failure to communicate and so many people on this and other forums jump to petty name calling before trying to figure out why. Being from what most people would call the other side I see how repulsive some people can be and how difficult it is to communicate with someone that uses a term like libtard.

Being a gun owner , doesn't it bother you that some times you see a liberal claiming gun rights but you don't see them actively supporting gun rights? Letting the conservatives carry their water for them.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Ahh yes, the favorite buzz word(s) of the anti gun lobbies.
"Middle Ground," "reasonable" and "Compromise."
When someone approaches you with the idea of compromise, try a few quotes from The Lawdog Files.

One more time on the "Reasonable" and "compromise" thing:
The LawDog Files: Ok, I'll play

"Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?"

Since what you consider to be reasonable isn't even in the same plane of reality with what I consider reasonable, probably not.

Allow me to explain.

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

LawDog

 

[gehrheart]

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

That. +1

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I am not an all or nothing kind of guy. I believe in compromise and I believe in finding the middle ground. I have always found that all or nothing type people have historically been on the losing end of the stick almost every time in a democracy. They tend to lose the middle of the roaders' support.

I believe in reasonable gun control.

I also believe that the "reasonable" level has already been met and now we are getting into unreasonable territory. I agree with not selling handguns to minors, I believe in denying gun ownership to parolees and felons, I agree with not selling guns across state lines (only because it interferes with states rights to have different gun laws), I agree that private property owners have the right to forbid guns on their property, and I agree with not allowing carry in court houses. I am also okay with requiring FFL's to keep records of their sales. I can even be made to be okay with requiring safety courses for CC licenses if you catch me on the right day and access to the classes is easily available to all (maybe make it optional and free when obtaining the license and fund it with the licensing fees).

I do not agree with telling people what they can own or cannot own, how many of any item they can own, I do not believe in gun-free zones for anyone licensed to carry concealed, and I do not agree with gun registrations. That is not middle ground. That is all out assault against gun rights and the right of self protection.

As for all the guns in Mexico, isn't it already illegal for dealers to sell guns to non-citizens or non-resident aliens? So aren't these guns already getting there illegally? How will making it more illegal change that?

 

[gehrheart]

I have always found that all or nothing type people have historically been on the losing end of the stick almost every time in a democracy.

That may be an accurate statement. I for one however will still stand to my beliefs, losing battle or not. There should be NO COMPROMISE to a constitutional right.