JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
The idea the OP was stating is a good one. If you are going to live in a free society (including one with the right to own firearms), all of society will have to accept the risk that comes with that freedom. ...

Ironically, history would indicate that the less free the society, the more risk to your health. Just look at all the millions that died under various fascist, socialist and communist regimes.

No one really wants to teach that anymore though...I mean one of the last serious presidential candidates literally was calling for us to emulate Venezuela all but 2 years ago.
 
The idea the OP was stating is a good one.

If you want to help gun controllers get more gun control laws passed.

If you are going to live in a free society (including one with the right to own firearms), all of society will have to accept the risk that comes with that freedom.

And if they say no, we don't have to accept it, we don't want to accept it, you can't make us accept it, and we're going to pass more gun control, what are you going to do about it? Will you stamp your feet and say "yes, you do have to accept it, let me read you this quote from Thomas Jefferson"? Again, politically tone-deaf. You are trying to use a philosophical argument against emotional arguments. In politics, emotion beats philosophy every time.

I understand why it won't help our cause to go out and bluntly tell those that don't have or want guns that they have to deal with it and accept the risk, but it is true.

They don't care if you think it is true or not.

A good salesman would be able to convince somebody who doesn't want guns in their society that guns are good for them and reduce risk for them, even if they don't own or use them. Unfortunately we have a shortage of good salesmen right now.

It isn't a matter of convincing "somebody" you have to convince people like this, and millions like them.

ge?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftimedotcom.files.wordpress.com%2F2018%2F03%2Fmarch-for-our-lives-crowd-size.jpg
image?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftimedotcom.files.wordpress.com%2F2018%2F03%2Fmarch-for-our-lives-dc.jpg
seup_washington-dc_24march2018_wv2_-2-_custom-f890df776fa76673e612db8b9601e0ba34e482d0-s1300-c85.jpg

We are way beyond the point of quoting Thomas Jefferson and "selling" people on the idea that they need to accept the possibility of they or a loved one being a mass shooting victim as the price to pay for the freedom of a minority of people to own so-called "assault weapons". The best salesman in the world is not going to persuade millions of Americans to buy that in 2019.

Think about it. Everyone is upset and disgusted with mass shootings. The American people want "something" to be done. The American people turn to the gun controllers and ask "What are your ideas?" and the gun controllers say "We want to pass an 'assault weapon' ban and ban .30 caliber magazine clips."

The American people turn to gun rights advocates and ask "What are your ideas?" and you respond with "you need to accept possibly being a mass shooting victim is the price of freedom". Seriously, which answer are most Americans in 2019 going to prefer?
 
Last Edited:
You can think it, but don't ever say it!

I agree with Prof John Lott "More guns, less crime". However, even tho statistics are actually on our side with "real" mass shootings being only a tiny percentage, they make a big impact. I wish they'd stop doing that stuff!!! If we could somehow eliminate gun free zones so people could shoot back, we would see a drop in that type of activity. But that idea is a no sell also. We're not even able to make any headway on hardening targets, people still don't want to be inconvenienced, or to see cops/detectors/fences/gates/lockeddoors at school. No, they blame it all on gun owners and demand that government does "something".
 
If you want to help gun controllers get more gun control laws passed.



And if they say no, we don't have to accept it, we don't want to accept it, you can't make us accept it, and we're going to pass more gun control, what are you going to do about it? Will you stamp your feet and say "yes, you do have to accept it, let me read you this quote from Thomas Jefferson"? Again, politically tone-deaf. You are trying to use a philosophical argument against emotional arguments. In politics, emotion beats philosophy every time.



They don't care if you think it is true or not.



It isn't a matter of convincing "somebody" you have to convince people like this, and millions like them.

View attachment 543602
View attachment 543603
View attachment 543604

We are way beyond the point of quoting Thomas Jefferson and "selling" people on the idea that they need to accept the possibility of they or a loved one being a mass shooting victim as the price to pay for the freedom of a minority of people to own so-called "assault weapons". The best salesman in the world is not going to persuade millions of Americans to buy that in 2019.

Think about it. Everyone is upset and disgusted with mass shootings. The American people want "something" to be done. The American people turn to the gun controllers and ask "What are your ideas?" and the gun controllers say "We want to pass an 'assault weapon' ban and ban .30 caliber magazine clips."

The American people turn to gun rights advocates and ask "What are your ideas?" and you respond with "you need to accept possibly being a mass shooting victim is the price of freedom". Seriously, which answer are most Americans in 2019 going to prefer?
Somebody is going to have to be persuaded to do something. It seems pretty clear in your mind that the antis won't be persuaded to accept anything short of an "assault weapons" ban. That leaves it up to us to either accept the ban or not. If we accept the ban then we wait for the next ban and the next ban until we have nothing left to ban. If we refuse to accept the ban, will that gets ugly in too many ways to imagine right now.

Am I missing some option that you would care to share?

Edit: I just noticed these ideas you provided in previous comment. "and offer better solutions than the mindless gun bans pushed by the other side i.e. hardening soft targets, encouraging concealed carry by the law-abiding, and better mental health care."

I can tell you these ideas have been proposed by our side but have fallen on mostly deaf ears. Although ERPO laws have probably originated from the mental health discussions. Most antis are not going to buy in to the concealed carrying being an aid to preventing mass shootings. And hardening of schools will be a non starter. The anti kids are already raising hell because they have to do lock down drills.
 
Last Edited:
Am I missing some option that you would care to share?

I'll repeat it since apparently you missed it the first time.

Telling the American people that mass shootings are the price we all - including they - have to pay for the freedom of some of us to own guns - remember, about 70% of Americans don't own guns - and they need to "suck it up" and accept it gives the appearance that we don't care about the victims. This is 2019, not 1776. We have to make it clear that we do care about mass shootings - beyond offering "thoughts and prayers", a meme gun controllers love to taunt us with - and offer better solutions than the mindless gun bans pushed by the other side i.e. hardening soft targets, encouraging concealed carry by the law-abiding, and better mental health care.

The majority of American voters don't own guns. They support gun rights to a certain extent, but not to the extent that we do. Gun owners are not only a minority of the population, but gun rights advocates - who can be persuaded with the "price of freedom" argument - are a minority of that minority. In politics, the majority rules. We need to give non-gun owners a reasonable alternative to gun bans. Trying to persuade them "it's the price of freedom" is doomed to fail, not matter who the salesman is.
 
I'll repeat it since apparently you missed it the first time.



The majority of American voters don't own guns. They support gun rights to a certain extent, but not to the extent that we do. Gun owners are not only a minority of the population, but gun rights advocates - who can be persuaded with the "price of freedom" argument - are a minority of that minority. In politics, the majority rules. We need to give non-gun owners a reasonable alternative to gun bans. Trying to persuade them "it's the price of freedom" is doomed to fail, not matter who the salesman is.
I think we got our signals crossed. I wasn't proposing that we persuade them "it's the price of freedom". I am simply saying it is the price of freedom just like the price of having few traffic laws and little enforcement would create greater risk from accidents.

I am not advocating that we use that as an argument to maintain our gun rights. I don't know that there are any solutions they will accept beyond gun bans. Once they see that the current ban(s) are not working they will ban additional items. Rinse and repeat. We have seen it over and over in this country and abroad. Violence will never go away. It will simply be done in a different way.
 
Both Australia and England drive on the wrong side of the road. That should tell you something right there. People that try to emulate one aspect of a culture fail to admit you need that culture in it's entirety for it to work.

American problems are fixable. Our long history proves some things worked. Before I copy England I'd rather go back to what we did just a few years ago.
 
I'll repeat it since apparently you missed it the first time.

The majority of American voters don't own guns. They support gun rights to a certain extent, but not to the extent that we do. Gun owners are not only a minority of the population, but gun rights advocates - who can be persuaded with the "price of freedom" argument - are a minority of that minority. In politics, the majority rules. We need to give non-gun owners a reasonable alternative to gun bans. Trying to persuade them "it's the price of freedom" is doomed to fail, not matter who the salesman is.

You're stating we need to provide a reasonable alternative to gun bans, but you are assuming the person you are making that argument to is reasonable in the first place. No one is saying gun owners simply respond in a tone deaf way to a mas shooting event and say "That's the price to pay" (even if that is true to a degree), but the left isn't interested in a rational discussion to address the issues either.

The facts speak for themselves:
  • Gun ownership is at all time highs as a % of the population and the # of firearms yet firearms crime has declined "
    According to Department of Justice's Bureau of Statistics, as gun ownership has increased, gun-related homicides have dropped.

    U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased 69 percent, the DOJ found."
  • Guns are used to stop crimes, the GOA puts it at 2.5MM times a year (including brandishing), the Bureau of Justice Statistic's National Crime Victimization Survery puts it at nearly 68K times per year. Yet how many of these are actually reported in the news and lauded? Even if it is reported it's usually in a derogatory manner.

When presented with the data and the facts, a reasonable person would draw similar conclusions. An emotional or irrational person would disregard the facts and jump to the already formed conclusion.
  • That far more crimes are prevented with guns than committed with guns each year
  • That gun crime is for the most part isolated to inner city gang problems
  • That as gun ownership has gone up in the US, gun crime has fallen indicating there isn't a causal relationship between gun ownership and the increase in gun crime.
  • That high % of gun ownership of a population (WY being the prime example) is not the main contributing factor to gun violence.
  • That you're about as likely to be struck and killed by lightning in the US (51 fatalities per year on average) than shot by a semi-automatic rifle in some sort of mass shooting episode.

What it sounds like you are asking for is an emotional plea to counter another emotional plea. Once you step into that arena, they'll win every time. However, I'm a rational person so if you have ideas, I'm all ears :)
 
I think we got our signals crossed. I wasn't proposing that we persuade them "it's the price of freedom".

The OP did:

I think the time has come for gun-rights advocates to address the mass-shooting issue directly, loudly and unapologetically.

One idea that I find interesting was suggested by columnist John Daniel Davidson in his Feb. 2019 article Is The Second Amendment Worth Dying For?. In the article, Davidson asks the reader to think about the trade-offs between safety and freedom, and proposes a thought experiment:

What if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to mass shootings is part of the price of the American idea?

Should this be standpoint of the gun community: we will never be able to 100-percent protect ourselves from mass shootings. However, we value the the right to self-defense, as well as the ideas concerning tyrannical governments incorporated in the Second Amendment, and accept the necessary sacrifices, up to and possibly including the greatest sacrifice, to preserve these. It will likely not convince the opposition, but it's finally a message that puts us in an offensive position while weakening theirs, one that explicitly says we will no longer accept mass shootings as an excuse to take away our rights.

Then you said.

The idea the OP was stating is a good one.

I disagree that it's a good idea. I think it plays right into the hands of the gun controllers.

I am not advocating that we use that as an argument to maintain our gun rights. I don't know that there are any solutions they will accept beyond gun bans.

Maybe not. But we have to offer solutions other than "thoughts and prayers", or "it's the price of the American idea".

Once they see that the current ban(s) are not working they will ban additional items. Rinse and repeat.

I agree. That's why we have to do things that might actually reduce mass shootings i.e. hardening soft targets, encouraging concealed carry by the law-abiding, and better mental health care. It's in our best interests to reduce mass shootings, not only for the lives saved. While rare they provide the energy and popular support for gun banners.
 
The problem is largely a result of the MSM and it's constant 24/7 news cycles and it's willfully ignorant reporting of made up facts and stats and no accountability or responsibility for the false reporting they spread and the image that fosters in the minds of the unknowing and impressionable! THIS is the first step in taking back rights, STOP the MSM and hold them accountable for what they report and the spin they personally apply!

We don't need to convince people mass shootings are bad, we need to convince them that the solutions to the problem isn't what the MSM, antis, and politicos say it is, it's addressing the elephant in the room, Mental Health and lack of care for it!
It's holding criminals responsible for their actions, enforcing sentencing and punishing crime severely, including felon in possession of a firearm when it's already illegal for them to have one! Breaking the backs of the gangs and drug lords and going after the black market! Taking away a persons rights isn't the answer, punishing criminals is a good start!
Making more anti gun laws simply punishes the innocent, all the while lack of enforcement of existing laws makes ANY anti gun law worthless, new or old!

Next, we need to push hard to get enough states to amend the constitution to enact political term limits and a fixed pay scale, ending the strangle hold of the "Professional Politicos" over the citizens who keep reelecting them for lack of viable options!
We need to take back control of the process, and hold our elected representation responsible to US, the People! Of the People, By the People, For the People!

We need to push for laws that force the MSM to report Fair, Honest and Unbiased news, and we need to hold them accountable to those laws! It's not just about the 1st rights of the press, its the libel they commit each and every time they falsely report or spin for their own agenda that we need to hold their feet to the fire with! We need to break the backs of the MSM's Masters like Michale Bloomberg, and remove the agenda driven spin he and those like him exerts over his MSM holdings! The MSM's rights of freedom of speech do not trump mine!
 
Isn't that exactly what the OP said?




Better check your facts.

View attachment 543658



You have to look at the evidence of past elections to realize large segments of voters make political decisions based on emotion and irrational reasons. Many Obama voters couldn't really state his policies. They were enchanted by the idea of the first Black President. Same thing with Hillary voters. They just wanted the first woman President. Same thing with many (most?) Trump voters. They liked "Make America Great Again" and "drain the swamp", which aren't very specific proposals. Other than "build the wall and make Mexico pay for it" they probably couldn't list any specific proposal. But they couldn't stand Hillary and/or wanted to stick it to the elites and establishment. Not every voter of course, but a large percentage of them.

No, we shouldn't make fact-free Appeals to Emotion. That's what gun controllers do. But we shouldn't just dryly recite statistics and make philosophical arguments about the price of freedom either. We should make it clear that we are just as upset about mass shootings as everyone else - rather than coldly accept them as "the price of the idea of America" - and then explain that we have solutions and why our solutions are better and are more likely to produce the desired effect.

Sorry buddy, but the CBS poll isn't legit, simply made up facts to spin the message!
Try the DOJ and FBI reports, or even the Illegal CDC reports for the true %!
 
I agree. That's why we have to do things that might actually reduce mass shootings i.e. hardening soft targets, encouraging concealed carry by the law-abiding, and better mental health care. It's in our best interests to reduce mass shootings, not only for the lives saved. While rare they provide the energy and popular support for gun banners.


  • hardening soft targets School safety bills highlight differences between Dems, GOP "We believe that guns do not belong in schools," said Rep. Laurie Dolan, D-Olympia.
  • encouraging concealed carry by the law-abiding. It's quite clear that the left in no way shape or form believes "more guns are the answer". As said before the media refuses to even talk about statistics supporting the notion that concealed carry owners prevent crimes. They believe that you're more likely to hurt an innocent bystander than help stop the criminal. Further, legislation in WA right now would make it MORE difficult to get a permit, not easier.
  • better mental health care. The liberals won't even forcibly get homeless drug addicts into rehab, and these are people living on the streets and committing crimes to support their habit. The minute you talk about forcing mental health on people there's an immediate push back.
To be clear I don't disagree with any of the above proposed solutions, but lets not pretend they haven't been proposed. They may get traction in more conservative states but they aren't getting any here.
 
Last Edited:
Don't like that CBS poll? How about the respected Gallup poll?

View attachment 543688

Don't like the CBS and Gallup polls? How about the General Social Survey (GSS) conducted by the University of Chicago?


View attachment 543689
GSS Data Explorer | NORC at the University of Chicago



Instead of telling me to dig up evidence that supports your claims, why don't you produce the evidence that backs up your claims? ;)


The respected Gallup poll? Same folks who predicted a Hillary win? University of Chicago? Bastion of unbiased research? Keep digging.

You seem to think a group of people that value privacy are going to truthfully answer to polls? Ok.

Guns Present Polling Conundrum

Your own polls that you linked have extreme spreads of 6-7%. If you add that to the 43% you're basically back to the baseline number....

And given that 8MM+ guns are manufactured yearly in the US going back 8 years or so..

Data & Statistics | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

It seems fairly likely that gun ownership rates remain constant, if not increasing.
 
Last Edited:
To be clear I don't disagree with any of the above proposed solutions, but lets not pretend they haven't been proposed.

I propose a 3 cent per gallon gasoline tax that would completely fund armed police and physical security at every K-12 school in the entire country. Have you seen anyone propose that? For an average 10 gallon fill-up that would be 30 cents. People who oppose that could be accused of "not caring for the children". You could hold up a quarter and a nickel and say "See this? They would rather leave our precious children vulnerable to madmen than spend 30 cents every time they fill up their car!" That's more likely to appeal to non-gun owners than shrugging your shoulders and saying "Oh well. It's a necessary sacrifice, the 'price of the idea of America'" the next time there is a mass shooting.
 
The respected Gallup poll? Same folks who predicted a Hillary win? University of Chicago? Bastion of unbiased research? Keep digging.

You seem to think a group of people that value privacy are going to truthfully answer to polls? Ok.

Guns Present Polling Conundrum

Your own polls that you linked have extreme spreads of 6-7%. If you add that to the 43% you're basically back to the baseline number....

And given that 8MM+ guns are manufactured yearly in the US going back 8 years or so..

Data & Statistics | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

It seems fairly likely that gun ownership rates remain constant, if not increasing.

Your first link is behind a pay wall. Your second link doesn't have any data on gun ownership - not sales or background checks - gun ownership.

So far you have presented zero evidence that "gun ownership is at an all time high as a % of the population". I have presented three sources that say it isn't and you tried to dismiss them with nothing more than hand waving.

You can't beat something with nothing, ;)

Obummer sold more guns in 8 years then at any time in history, gun ownership by state is up almost 48% based solely on the numbers of 4473s prosessed during that time!

Again, increasing gun sales does not = increasing gun ownership. I bought tons of guns during the Obama regime, and all of my gun purchases increased the number of gun owners by ZERO. I'm sure many here can say the same thing. Yes, of course some sales are to new owners, but many sales were to people like me and you and everyone else on this forum who already owned guns buying more guns Meet America's gun super-owners – with an average of 17 firearms each

Again, still waiting for clear evidence that "Gun ownership is at all time highs as a % of the population" as was claimed earlier. Telling me to "Google it" like Cenk Uygur does


is not evidence. ;)
 
Last Edited:
Gun ownership stats via polling... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I tried to do some very light research: Gallup said 43% Gallup said 25% Gallup said 49%... I give up.

About the 3% tax: Yeah that won't go over because even libs/dems/antis buy gas, and they really don't want more police and armed security (pssst, they want the guns gone!!!). But at least it's yet another proposal that one can point to and try to hang them with... not that it ever does any good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edit: Now if you proposed a 200% tax on firearms, and a 1000% tax on ammo, you'd probably get a whole bunch of anti/dem/lib/vegan/Peta support. ;)
 
Last Edited:

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top