Do we have too many or too few guns in the US?

[BaiHu]

Long winded viewpoint covering the gamut:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-problem-isnt-that-there-are-too-many-guns-in-america-its-that-there-arent-enough-2012-7

[ToddG]

Don't understand subject line. What means too many?

[BaiHu]

Don't understand subject line. What means too many?

I think it refers to some kind of arbitrary number that is referenced by 'too'. If you have 'too' much candy, you can get a cavity. If you have 'too' much money, then you...mmmm, I'm really stumped here:confused:

Maybe it's just a number after google?

[Corlissimo]

Well, if two is one, and one is none then...

[BaiHu]

...then too many is some?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[Simon]

We couldn't have too many guns in the U. S. because I don't have all the models that I want to own.

[Suvorov]

According to my wife I have too many. :rolleyes:

Can't speak for the rest of the country, but even if I had a magical landing craft - I still wouldn't want to invade.

[SecondsCount]

I have been accused of having too many. Not sure what the standards are but it was a member of this forum who made the accusation. :cool:

[LHS]

I don't have enough. I'd be happy to take some of these guns off the streets and give them a good home. Help homeless guns!

[Joe in PNG]

I don't have enough. I'd be happy to take some of these guns off the streets and give them a good home. Help homeless guns!

Only the good ones. Unless you happen to like High Point, Jennings, Raven, et al. Who am I to judge?

[NETim]

One is too many in the wrong hands. In the hands of responsible, mature individuals, there is no such thing as "too many."

I cannot, and will not, go along with this notion that all must be punished or have freedoms restricted because off what havoc some nutbag may create.

If public safety truly were the goal, and the anti's truly believed their schemes were actually effective, alcohol would be at the top of the list.

[cclaxton]

This is an irrelevant question. It's not about the quantity of guns or even the quality of the guns. It is about a population of people that is insufficiently trained and poorly skilled at their safety and their appropriate use and staying within the laws. I see it every time I go to the range, and not just novices.

Now if this is a question about the marketing and sales of guns and whether there is a oversupply or high demand for guns, then that is a market question best answered by those who know the supply and demand economics of guns.

CC

[Corlissimo]

This is an irrelevant question. It's not about the quantity of guns or even the quality of the guns. It is about a population of people that is insufficiently trained and poorly skilled at their safety and their appropriate use and staying within the laws. I see it every time I go to the range, and not just novices.

snip

CC

This is a good point. The next logical question in my mind is: How can this be addressed?
Which then leads me to ask: Should it be an "individual responsibility" item only, or something addressed via mandated standards?

Thoughts from The Collective?

[NETim]

This is a good point. The next logical question in my mind is: How can this be addressed?
Which then leads me to ask: Should it be an "individual responsibility" item only, or something addressed via mandated standards?

Thoughts from The Collective?

Mandates invite abuse.

[Kyle Reese]

It's all relative, depending on where one sits on the issue and how the argument is framed / presented.

For persons opposed to the private ownership of arms, ANY number in non government hands is "too many".

I too support keeping guns "off the street". I can imagine a panhandling HK or Kalashnikov laying passed out in the gutter to be quite an eyesore in many communities.

[BWT]

What's conflicting about the situation is. You look at guns and in issues cited, and the reason you find moderates questioning is because there are some valid points to gun ownership, very valid. But, they also don't want certain people with those rights, also valid. Criminals, etc.

What would be an interesting discussion would be, how criminals were treated back then comparative to today, and how after effects were, etc.

The way I see it... The way our founding fathers truly found equality, freedom and liberty, to get away from the ideologies of nobility, etc. was to make every man equal in all forms of the Law.

I think that's what freedom is, the ability to choose. You remove that, and you've removed freedom.

Too many? I mean... the article's all about gun crimes, so in that context, that's the opinion of everyone. It's very philosophical and maybe reflective, but it waffles for a purpose. Just by the terminologies he uses, I'd be willing to bet he doesn't own a gun.

But maybe he doesn't think that you shouldn't be able to own them, or maybe it's you shouldn't be able to own "certain guns".

Dunno, but, anyway, it is what it is.

[Tamara]

Don't understand subject line. What means too many?

I know! It sounds like English, but it just won't parse. :confused:

I'm not even sure how many I have off the top of my head within the closest ten, but I do know that it's not enough.

Remember: If some is good, then more is better, and too much is just enough.

[Tamara]

What's conflicting about the situation is. You look at guns and in issues cited, and the reason you find moderates questioning is because there are some valid points to gun ownership, very valid. But, they also don't want certain people with those rights, also valid. Criminals, etc.

That's because said "moderates" stand on philosophical ground as shaky as a Parkinson's patient.

Objects can not be criminal, only actions can.

[MDS]

The way I read the article, it's saying that there are two proposed solutions to gun-related violence. On the one hand, gun-control advocates are saying that there are too many guns out there, they's too easily used for crime, and if we could just get all the guns off the streets, gun-related violence would plummet. The main benefit of this approach is that with fewer guns available, guns would be harder to use for violence. The main issues with this approach - and I'm going to try to be as concise as possible here - are: a) the physical logistics of confiscating many millions of guns; b) the moral hazard invited by even the most well-intentioned administrators of any gun-control scheme; c) removing what is often the only viable option for self-defense from armed or unarmed attackers; d) the collateral damage to hunting, sporting, and other recreational uses of guns; e) the cultural damage to long-standing American traditions; and f) the dilution of our Constitution by ignoring one of the simplest and clearest statements in it.

On the other hand, gun rights advocates are saying that there are too few guns out there, they're not easily enough used for crime prevention, and if we could just get enough qualified Americans trained and equipped, gun-related violence would plummet. The main benefits of this approach - and again I'm going to try to concise - are: a) more tax revenue for non-gun-control government ventures; b) lots of self-defense options for law-abiding Americans; c) hunting, sporting, humilating DotW scores, and other gun-related American traditions may continue. The main issue with this approach is that with guns so easily available, criminals and other unsafe persons will more often use a gun for violence.

FWIW, I think the main argument against gun control is that criminals and other unsafe persons will use whatever's available for violence, so that even if we could eliminate all gun violence, that alone will not reduce the overall level of violence; and therefore, that gun control, whether or not it can reduce gun violence specifically, can never reduce violence in society at large. But I didn't see that argument in the article.

[Tamara]

The main problem with all gun control schemes is that group punishment belongs nowhere outside of boot camp or (maybe) Mrs. Krabapple's third grade classroom.

As I've said elsewhere, I don't care if every other gun owner on the planet went out and murdered somebody last night: I didn't, so the gun control crew can just piss off.

[MDS]

I don't disagree. But while we're in hypothetical territory: if gun control actually saved lives, I'd be willing to put aside my sensitivities and look for "reasonable" measures.

[SGT_Calle]

The main problem with all gun control schemes is that group punishment belongs nowhere outside of ...

this is the preview of the most recent comment I saw on my iPad app and I just KNEW the next words would be boot camp! Good point.

[Al T.]

I find the subject amusing.


If gun control actually saved lives

Other than truly overwhelming evidence that it has no effect on violence rates, what would happen is that we would revert to the strong taking advantage of the weak - as most any prison would demonstrate.

If gun control worked, Chicago would be the safest city in the US. If having an easy-peasy CWP law and lots of folks packing worked, Atlanta would be right at the top of the list for "safety".

Both places suck, IMHO. :) Ain't got anything to do with guns.

[NETim]

I find the subject amusing.



Other than truly overwhelming evidence that it has no effect on violence rates, what would happen is that we would revert to the strong taking advantage of the weak - as most any prison would demonstrate.

If gun control worked, Chicago would be the safest city in the US. If having an easy-peasy CWP law and lots of folks packing worked, Atlanta would be right at the top of the list for "safety".

Both places suck, IMHO. :) Ain't got anything to do with guns.

Sometimes I think it has something to do with people and their choices.

:)

Guns make an easy target as modern society attempts to condition us from birth to associate firearms with violence. And the herd mentality welcomes group punishment.

Gun control. The nice, easy PC cure for what ails us.

For every complex problem there is a simple solution... and it is wrong. -- H. L. Mencken

[Corlissimo]

Sometimes I think it has something to do with people and their choices.

:)

Guns make an easy target as modern society attempts to condition us from birth to associate firearms with violence. And the herd mentality welcomes group punishment.

Gun control. The nice, easy PC cure for what ails us.

For every complex problem there is a simple solution... and it is wrong. -- H. L. Mencken

Yep. And IF there were a sweeping Gun Control Act it would likely soon be followed by the Baseball Bat Act, then the Golf Club Reform, then Knife Prohibition, ad infinitum.

The root cause is human nature. Until predators have no easy targets to prey upon they will continue to do just that with whatever they have access to.

Maybe instead of long sentences for repeat violent offenders, there should be a return to the days of old and lobotomize them. Then let their families take care of them. You know, the same families that all say "He was a good boy. He turned his life around." etc etc.

Extreme? Maybe. But nothing else is working so what the hell.

[Kyle Reese]

Yep. And IF there were a sweeping Gun Control Act it would likely soon be followed by the Baseball Bat Act, then the Golf Club Reform, then Knife Prohibition, ad infinitum.

The root cause is human nature. Until predators have no easy targets to prey upon they will continue to do just that with whatever they have access to.

Maybe instead of long sentences for repeat violent offenders, there should be a return to the days of old and lobotomize them. Then let their families take care of them. You know, the same families that all say "He was a good boy. He turned his life around." etc etc.

Extreme? Maybe. But nothing else is working so what the hell.

They'd just leech off of the system further with disability, etc.

[Corlissimo]

They'd just leech off of the system further with disability, etc.

Only if that's allowed. If current gun policies prohibit felons from purchasing why can't the same be done for those felons who've made themselves "enemies of society"? If you've been lobotomized then you're done. You chose this course of action, you made yourself an enemy of society through repeated demonstrations of malevolence against society. It should follow the logic of "Don't crap where you sleep". If these actions were taken consistently against the offenders, then pretty soon other would-be offenders might not be so keen on choosing that lifestyle. Now THAT would be a real deterrent. But society just doesn't have the will to enact something like this. So once again, we (society) need to look in the mirror a bit when looking to cast blame for violent acts.


Sorry, my curmudgeon monster really got off the leash today. :p

[BLR]

Of the entire article, this part is the most challenging thing to overcome:

“Well, guns do kill people. Without guns, all those lives in the various scenes of carnage mentioned above would not have been lost.”

The issue is, many, many people really believe that. They think if guns were to disappear tomorrow, no violent crime would take place. As if baseball bats, knives, axes, pipe bombs, rocks and sharp sticks would be unthinkable to use.

And more unfortunately, this represents the mentality of people in general for any number of arguments.

[MDS]

Of the entire article, this part is the most challenging thing to overcome:

“Well, guns do kill people. Without guns, all those lives in the various scenes of carnage mentioned above would not have been lost.”

The issue is, many, many people really believe that. They think if guns were to disappear tomorrow, no violent crime would take place. As if baseball bats, knives, axes, pipe bombs, rocks and sharp sticks would be unthinkable to use.

And more unfortunately, this represents the mentality of people in general for any number of arguments.

Worth reposting. If we can calmly and methodically show that assumption to be false when we discuss this, I think we'd make a lot more progress. That is very hard, though, because it requires that we approach the argument with an open mind, willing to accept that we might be wrong, or at the very least that we might learn something from a gun control advocate. Us gun right advocates can get just as emotional and irrational as the other side - since facts are on our side, that hurts us a lot more than them...

[BLR]

Worth reposting. If we can calmly and methodically show that assumption to be false when we discuss this, I think we'd make a lot more progress. That is very hard, though, because it requires that we approach the argument with an open mind, willing to accept that we might be wrong, or at the very least that we might learn something from a gun control advocate. Us gun right advocates can get just as emotional and irrational as the other side - since facts are on our side, that hurts us a lot more than them...

And it's not like history is replete with examples for us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julio_Gonz%C3%A1lez_%28arsonist%29
http://canadiancincinnatus.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/08/knife-attack-on.html

IMHO, every gun owner is an ambassador for the cause, and everyone should be an NRA member.

[Tamara]

I don't disagree. But while we're in hypothetical territory: if gun control actually saved lives, I'd be willing to put aside my sensitivities and look for "reasonable" measures.

Question: If it could be indisputably proven that a national ban on gun ownership would solidly and conclusively result in a drop in the national murder rate, what percentage would it take for you to turn over your heaters? 5%? 50%? 95%?

[ToddG]

Question: If it could be indisputably proven that a national ban on gun ownership would solidly and conclusively result in a drop in the national murder rate, what percentage would it take for you to turn over your heaters? 5%? 50%? 95%?

101%

[Suvorov]

Question: If it could be indisputably proven that a national ban on gun ownership would solidly and conclusively result in a drop in the national murder rate, what percentage would it take for you to turn over your heaters? 5%? 50%? 95%?

Unfortunately, even if such a thing were possible, there would always be "unintended consequences." Reducing the natural murder rate by 95% does no good if you set up a population for slavery.

[Al T.]

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

For the full read (and it's fing brilliant):

http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/

[MDS]

Question: If it could be indisputably proven that a national ban on gun ownership would solidly and conclusively result in a drop in the national murder rate, what percentage would it take for you to turn over your heaters? 5%? 50%? 95%?

(I'm not sure if you're joking, so I'll pretend that you're not...)

It's not that simple. Let me try a different tack. If someone thinks that gun bans save lives, they're unlikely to understand more subtle arguments. Since there's plenty of evidence to show how armed citizens are safer from criminals and other unsafe persons, this is an argument that we can have with wild-eyed gun-ban zealots and still have a chance in hell of actually, you know, communicating. Of course, that conversation isn't going to work if we turn into wild-eyed zealots ourselves - we have to arm ourselves with knowledge, like the Good Jay says, and debate calmly. Few things are as satisfying to me as having a gun-grabber walk away fuming after a little back-and-forth in public.

So, to sort-of answer your question. If someone proves that a gun ban would reduce the murder rate, my understanding of the facts is definitely wrong and I'd have to take a careful look at every aspect of my current take on gun control. That would be a lot of work though, and since we're deep in hypothetical territory here, I can't tell you what answer I'd come up with.

[Tamara]

(I'm not sure if you're joking, so I'll pretend that you're not...)

I am serious as a heart attack.

What amount of utility is worth robbing you of your fundamental rights? (We're just pulling "gun ownership" and "murder rate" out of a hat, here...)


It's not that simple.

It's exactly that simple.

[Tamara]

Unfortunately, even if such a thing were possible, there would always be "unintended consequences." Reducing the natural murder rate by 95% does no good if you set up a population for slavery.

It doesn't matter. Society exists to protect the rights of minorities and the individual is the smallest minority.

If I am being beaten down in an alley for lack of a handgun, I care not one whit how many people were saved by the handgun ban.

[Mjolnir]

Question: If it could be indisputably proven that a national ban on gun ownership would solidly and conclusively result in a drop in the national murder rate, what percentage would it take for you to turn over your heaters? 5%? 50%? 95%?

I've given your question a lot of thought. 154%.

:wink:

[Mjolnir]

It doesn't matter. Society exists to protect the rights of minorities and the individual is the smallest minority.

If I am being beaten down in an alley for lack of a handgun, I care not one whit how many people were saved by the handgun ban.

Yet the Elite are horrified at the concept of LIBERTY for the common man. It's not about "liberty" or safety. It's about naked, raw POWER.

I can only imagine what devious plans would see fruition if they are ever successful...

[MDS]

I am serious as a heart attack.

What amount of utility is worth robbing you of your fundamental rights? (We're just pulling "gun ownership" and "murder rate" out of a hat, here...)

It's exactly that simple.

I'm not talking about people robbing our rights - that's a whole different thread. I'm talking about being willing to discuss something distasteful - and even then only under hypothetical conditions that don't actually exist - as tactic to improve the communication between sides on this debate. Gun rights and murder rates weren't pulled out of a hat - they're exactly what the OP article was discussing - and I was just responding to that article, not making some grand statement about freedom.

As for simplicity, good on you and carry on. I'll keep working on that for myself. Until then, I'll have to stumble through the complexities as I perceive them.

[BCL]

Question: If it could be indisputably proven that a national ban on gun ownership would solidly and conclusively result in a drop in the national murder rate, what percentage would it take for you to turn over your heaters? 5%? 50%? 95%?

Over 100%. Even then I still wouldn't be willing to. Humans aren't the only dangerous thing on earth...

[Tamara]

Gun rights and murder rates weren't pulled out of a hat - they're exactly what the OP article was discussing - and I was just responding to that article, not making some grand statement about freedom.

As for simplicity, good on you and carry on. I'll keep working on that for myself. Until then, I'll have to stumble through the complexities as I perceive them.

I'm not dealing with grand statements or complexities; I'm making this argument as simple as possible. I'm getting down to the nitty gritty, taking it right to the bone.

Any deal giving up your right to armed self-defense is giving up your right to armed self-defense. I'm honestly curious what amount of public utility that personal, individual right is worth?

[JConn]

The fact that some people choose not to be responsible about their own safety does not mean I shouldn't be able to be responsible for mine. It seems that a lot of gun control advocates just don't want that large of a responsibility and they think that somehow they will be safer if no one can protect themselves. Anyone that says criminals won't have guns should be asked about how easy it is to get marijuana.

[Kyle Reese]

Anyone that says criminals won't have guns should be asked about how easy it is to get marijuana.

Liberal tone - "But that's difffferennnnnnnnt."

[LOKNLOD]

Liberal tone - "But that's difffferennnnnnnnt."

In all fairness, I assume it's a heckuva lot easier to grow a pot plant in your yard than to plant an AK tree (I planted a half case of 7.62x39 once, not so much as even a gas tube sprouted).

[Joe in PNG]

And yet, here in Papua New Guinea where just possessing 20 rounds of 5.56 is enough of an offence to send one to jail for 5 years...
-the Chinese are smuggleing in guns
-the police just plain sell theirs to criminals
-people just make their own

and, there is always the old standby, chop them up with a bush knife.

Conclusion- even very strict gun control is not exactly bringing down the crime rate here.

[Tamara]

Obviously, strict penalties for "Felon In Possession" didn't deter this guy:

http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=91057&sitesection=wxin&VID=23757480

[MDS]

I'm not dealing with grand statements or complexities; I'm making this argument as simple as possible. I'm getting down to the nitty gritty, taking it right to the bone.

Any deal giving up your right to armed self-defense is giving up your right to armed self-defense. I'm honestly curious what amount of public utility that personal, individual right is worth?

I feel like I'm being unclear. =(

Let me try again. I am not for gun control. In my opinion, guns should be available in vending machines. I believe that gun safety and marksmanship should be required coursework starting early in life. And I believe that attempts to take guns away from law-abiding citizens are insidiously misguided at best, and truly evil at worst. I don't believe that the question of how giving up the right to armed self-defense makes sense in any context, and most especially in the context of trading that right for utility - since giving up that right would bring a net loss of utility.

I'm just saying that if someone wants to discuss the utility of gun control, I'm willing to engage in that conversation, to talk calmly, reference undisputed facts, and generally dismantle the false arguments on which gun control logic is built. In order to engage in that conversation in good faith, I'm willing to examine the possibility that my views on gun control are wrong - to present facts and arguments in support of gun rights and allow them to be challenged by folks who disagree. I've never lost a gun control debate this way - the worst that happens is that the person I'm debating with disengages with something like "I don't want to live in a world like that." I stay calm and polite, and invite them to continue the conversation any time. Sometimes, surprisingly often, folks get a funny face and start asking genuine questions about life without gun control. Some of those folks head to the range with me and learn a thing or two. I feel like a patriot when that happens.

What doesn't work when discussing gun rights with these folks, at least not in my experience, is to skip to the end with arguments about personal freedoms. It's not that these arguments aren't true, it's not that these arguments aren't the heart of the matter, it's that these folks aren't able to connect with those arguments because they've got this whole construct of Guns Are Bad in the way. Dismantle that construct, and you have a chance to connect them to the underlying issues, the beating heart of the 2A and personal freedoms.

So, if you think that talking to liberals about underlying freedoms is an effective way to get them to see the light, I'd love to hear some examples or etc. But if you're trying to convince me that gun rights are fundamental, you're selling past the close. I'm already one of you. =)

[ford.304]

The problem is, when arguing utility, you are already ceding, for the sake of that argument, the fact that utility is something that can be argued.

There are a lot of utilitarian arguments for much less freedom of speech, or of religion, and yet we as a culture defend those rights to the hilt, because we have decided that the right is more important than the utility.

Now, we can still argue around the edges, of what actually constitutes infringement, but the fact that the right itself is not determined by utility is never questioned.

The problem with arguing gun control from a utilitarian perspective, is that the scientific literature is mixed enough that no one can claim a clean win. For every John Lott study there's a multinational study showing that our murder rate is really high compared to Scandinavia. It becomes a "pick your expert" sort of problem. You can use it to argue against specific measures (like the AWB, or the Gunshow Loophole), but against "fewer guns"... not so much.

And the thing is, there really is little to no utility argument for some of the things they want to ban. No one uses 100 round AR magazines except for shits & giggles because they don't work for crap (psst - don't tell the mass murderers that - seems to be one of the few things we have going against them). We want them because we like them, because the utility arithmetic works out even, and who made it your business anyway? You can't really argue that from a pure utility standpoint.

I do wish that anti-gun people would at least learn something about guns before making their point, though. You could make an argument for mandatory training & licensing, or a better background check system... I'd be against them both because of the whole "resisting tyranny" rights argument, but there are somewhat legitimate arguments for them. Trying to ban scary looking rifles, make killers practice their mag changes, or annoying collectors at gun shows don't even have a theoretical benefit.

[Al T.]

So, if you think that talking to liberals about underlying freedoms is an effective way to get them to see the light.

I have had so little success doing this that I don't even try with hard core liberals. I don't mind engaging fence sitters, but if you scratch a HC liberal, at least IME, you'll find a very arrogant person who is incapable of logical thinking. I had to work with a guy who is very left leaning and I had more success just throwing soft ball comments at him. He would go on a gun rant and I'd substitute "vote" for "gun" every time. While it pissed him off pretty well, (:D) he still is a liberal.

Additionally, most HC liberals are very incompetent folks as far a self-reliance goes. Same guy watched his house burn down as he was too scared to get a water hose and extinguish the fire (not kidding at all). So when they rail against others being self-reliant or competent, it's an emotional issue with them as for the most part, they cannot perceive what they are not.

[JAD]

It's very interesting. When I first got serious about the question, I was absolutely convinced that 'hard liners' were going to be the death of the first liberty. This was in 'jack booted thugs' days. Then England, then Australia, then I stopped believing in giving an inch. NRA got more and more reactionary, and started winning more and more states.

There is no reasonable discussion.

[will_1400]

I have had so little success doing this that I don't even try with hard core liberals. I don't mind engaging fence sitters, but if you scratch a HC liberal, at least IME, you'll find a very arrogant person who is incapable of logical thinking. I had to work with a guy who is very left leaning and I had more success just throwing soft ball comments at him. He would go on a gun rant and I'd substitute "vote" for "gun" every time. While it pissed him off pretty well, (:D) he still is a liberal.

Additionally, most HC liberals are very incompetent folks as far a self-reliance goes. Same guy watched his house burn down as he was too scared to get a water hose and extinguish the fire (not kidding at all). So when they rail against others being self-reliant or competent, it's an emotional issue with them as for the most part, they cannot perceive what they are not.

I do something similar, except I substitute "iPhone/internet/etc" for "gun" and then expand it to other aspects of the Bill of Rights as the openings show up. Doesn't change the HC lib's mind, but I've seen fence-sitters have the "ah ha" moment when overhearing the "debate" which I'll chalk up as a win any day of the week. Also helps that the lib's the one losing his cool over everything which hurts his position even more.

[Tamara]

...you're selling past the close. I'm already one of you. =)
Sometimes I get all up on a soapbox channeling Ayn Rand and it's hard to get back out of character. :o

[NETim]

I have had so little success doing this that I don't even try with hard core liberals. I don't mind engaging fence sitters, but if you scratch a HC liberal, at least IME, you'll find a very arrogant person who is incapable of logical thinking. I had to work with a guy who is very left leaning and I had more success just throwing soft ball comments at him. He would go on a gun rant and I'd substitute "vote" for "gun" every time. While it pissed him off pretty well, (:D) he still is a liberal.

Additionally, most HC liberals are very incompetent folks as far a self-reliance goes. Same guy watched his house burn down as he was too scared to get a water hose and extinguish the fire (not kidding at all). So when they rail against others being self-reliant or competent, it's an emotional issue with them as for the most part, they cannot perceive what they are not.

EXACTLY my experience. Arrogance and projection are cornerstones of the anti-gunner's mindset.

[MDS]

I have had so little success doing this that I don't even try with hard core liberals. [...] I had to work with a guy who is very left leaning and I had more success just throwing soft ball comments at him. He would go on a gun rant and I'd substitute "vote" for "gun" every time. While it pissed him off pretty well, (:D) he still is a liberal.


I do something similar, except I substitute "iPhone/internet/etc" for "gun" and then expand it to other aspects of the Bill of Rights as the openings show up. Doesn't change the HC lib's mind, but I've seen fence-sitters have the "ah ha" moment when overhearing the "debate" which I'll chalk up as a win any day of the week. Also helps that the lib's the one losing his cool over everything which hurts his position even more.

Awesome, I've never thought to do this. Consider it stolen. And the part in bold happens all the time, most recently on a road trip with me and 3 gun-grabbers. Sometimes, it seems to me, the fence-sitter is actually pretty hard core, it's just that since he's not the one actually losing a debate, he's able to look at the arguments a little more coldly. On this road trip, one guy was pretty angry with me after the trip, but the other guys actually mentioned how reasonable I was - even though I didn't give an inch in terms of actually agreeing that any gun control whatsoever could be a net good thing.


I don't mind engaging fence sitters, but if you scratch a HC liberal, at least IME, you'll find a very arrogant person who is incapable of logical thinking. [... ] Additionally, most HC liberals are very incompetent folks as far a self-reliance goes. Same guy watched his house burn down as he was too scared to get a water hose and extinguish the fire (not kidding at all). So when they rail against others being self-reliant or competent, it's an emotional issue with them as for the most part, they cannot perceive what they are not.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I think we should be careful in painting a whole big group of people with a broad brush. Liberals often paint gun nuts with a broad brush, and one of my favorite tactics is to point out the hypocrisy there. It's nothing really specifically to do with guns per se, but it definitely hurts the communication when one side thinks all liberals are pampered bleeding-heart pansies, while the other side thinks all gun nuts are inbred bible-thumping ignoramuses (ignorami?) - there are plenty of examples of both stereotypes, but they don't always apply.

[MDS]

Sometimes I get all up on a soapbox channeling Ayn Rand and it's hard to get back out of character. :o

Lol - love it. If you're going to channel someone on a soapbox, you could do worse than Ayn Rand. :)

[NickA]

The fact that some people choose not to be responsible about their own safety does not mean I shouldn't be able to be responsible for mine. It seems that a lot of gun control advocates just don't want that large of a responsibility and they think that somehow they will be safer if no one can protect themselves. Anyone that says criminals won't have guns should be asked about how easy it is to get marijuana.

+ 1. I think this is a large part of it. You never hear the other side acknowledge the HUGE responsibility a CCW carrier shoulders. As far as they're concerned we're all wild-eyed cowboys who can't wait to whip out the heater, when it's really the last thing any of us want to do. Their failure to confront this responsibility is not something that they want to be reminded of. As someone else said in this thread, projection and arrogance.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[NETim]

Sometimes I get all up on a soapbox channeling Ayn Rand and it's hard to get back out of character. :o

Galt/Rearden 2012!!

[NickA]

Galt/Rearden 2012!!

I would very much support a Tam/TCinVA ticket ;).

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[NETim]

I would very much support a Tam/TCinVA ticket ;).

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

I dunno. You know those darn libertarian types, always a minding their own business and urging others to do the same.

How can one build a strong and just society on that notion?

Just tain't American I tell you!!!


;):D

[NickA]

I dunno. You know those darn libertarian types, always a minding their own business and urging others to do the same.

How can one build a strong and just society on that notion?

Just tain't American I tell you!!!


;):D

The chance to hear "giant pulsating ball of suck and fail" used in a Presidential debate outweighs all other concerns :)

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[NETim]

The chance to hear "giant pulsating ball of suck and fail" used in a Presidential debate outweighs all other concerns :)

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

Heh! :D

[Chuck Haggard]

In all fairness, I assume it's a heckuva lot easier to grow a pot plant in your yard than to plant an AK tree (I planted a half case of 7.62x39 once, not so much as even a gas tube sprouted).

You assume wrong.

If I wanted to, today, tomorrow at the latest, I could build from locally available parts what is basically a smoothbore Sten gun. I could built a single shot muzzle loading pistol or rifle, or zip gun, from what I have sitting in my house right now, none of which is gun parts.

To grow weed I'd have to have a source for weed seeds, then grow my weed, all while not getting caught. Would take weeks at the soonest. Since my tomatoes and cucumbers ain't doing so hot this year there is also the have or don't have green thumb skills involved.

[Corlissimo]

You assume wrong.

If I wanted to, today, tomorrow at the latest, I could build from locally available parts what is basically a smoothbore Sten gun. I could built a single shot muzzle loading pistol or rifle, or zip gun, from what I have sitting in my house right now, none of which is gun parts.

To grow weed I'd have to have a source for weed seeds, then grow my weed, all while not getting caught. Would take weeks at the soonest. Since my tomatoes and cucumbers ain't doing so hot this year there is also the have or don't have green thumb skills involved.

Oh hell! Looks like I'm scratching "Pilfer tpd's garden" off my To-Do list... Hardly seems worth getting shot with any number of improvised firearms for some sub-par tomatoes and cukes. :p

[NETim]

My black cherry tomaters are doing fantastic. The Green Zebras... near death. The Black Krim plant is producing fruit but not much.

Bad, bad year. :(

[Tamara]

The chance to hear "giant pulsating ball of suck and fail" used in a Presidential debate outweighs all other concerns :)
I am sure that TCinVA could beat Biden into a pulp (metaphorically or literally, depending) in any debate.

Since I would not have a First Spouse, I would need to nominate Bobbi at First Roommate. She would make the lack of American vacuum tube manufacturers her personal crusade, as well as campaigning for school kids to be literate in Morse Code.

[jstyer]

She would make the lack of American vacuum tube manufacturers her personal crusade

That'd get my vote...

[Chuck Haggard]

Oh hell! Looks like I'm scratching "Pilfer tpd's garden" off my To-Do list... Hardly seems worth getting shot with any number of improvised firearms for some sub-par tomatoes and cukes. :p

I keep a home made blunderbuss on hand for such events, loaded with nails, broken glass and rock salt.

[TCinVA]

I am sure that TCinVA could beat Biden into a pulp (metaphorically or literally, depending) in any debate.

That's a bit like someone telling you they think you could beat up a toddler.

Q: What is best in life?
A: To crush your enemies. To see their sippy cups spilled before you...

[SeriousStudent]

...And to hear the lamentations of the day care staff.

[ford.304]

Had a thought on the drive to work this morning... Compromise normally means give and take (as opposed to the anti-gun "compromise" which is all take)... what would you trade for some of the proposals being floated around.

National CCW reciprocity for a extended-capacity (as in, more than the mag the manufacturer's original design) ban?
A license requirement to buy and sell if it meant that all states and municipalities were required to be shall issue, open or concealed carry legal?
Is there a trade that would make 10-round magazine limitations or Scary Black Rifle bans worth it?

I mean, momentum is swinging in our favor in general, so I don't know that we *need* to compromise... but I'm curious if anyone thinks that some compromise exists that would end up with a net better situation... give away some rights to gain others.

[Corlissimo]

Had a thought on the drive to work this morning... Compromise normally means give and take (as opposed to the anti-gun "compromise" which is all take)... what would you trade for some of the proposals being floated around.

National CCW reciprocity for a extended-capacity (as in, more than the mag the manufacturer's original design) ban?
A license requirement to buy and sell if it meant that all states and municipalities were required to be shall issue, open or concealed carry legal?
Is there a trade that would make 10-round magazine limitations or Scary Black Rifle bans worth it?

I mean, momentum is swinging in our favor in general, so I don't know that we *need* to compromise... but I'm curious if anyone thinks that some compromise exists that would end up with a net better situation... give away some rights to gain others.

Nothing. However, if the current issue of high capacity magazines is the main thrust then why not just put them under the NFA category? That would make it more difficult for the vast majority of people with sketchy histories to obtain them. The problem is, it likely would not end there. Next thing you know semi-autos will be on the list (including handguns), and when that isn't satisfactory for the Left then the NFA tax stamps well simply be raised so high that anyone not earning seven figures couldn't afford them. I certainly don't like that scenario.

Though there are probably holes in my logic since I haven't had my 6th cup of coffee yet. :p

--
Sent from my personal Droid. Please excuse any typos, my Droid's kinda stupid. (°_°)

[BaiHu]

Focusing in on gun deaths/injuries/crime only is kinda farcical (I love that word, reminds me of a serious popsicle).
Even according to the US DOJ, we can see some nice stats:

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/07/31/debunker-more-guns-do-not-equal-more-murders/

[MDS]

Focusing in on gun deaths/injuries/crime only is kinda farcical (I love that word, reminds me of a serious popsicle).
Even according to the US DOJ, we can see some nice stats:

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/07/31/debunker-more-guns-do-not-equal-more-murders/

There are plenty of evil folks who want to take our guns for evil reasons - but there are many, many, many more folks who just haven't been convincingly exposed to the facts. Often, the underlying reason why a person wants gun control is evil; but just as often, the underlying reason is a misunderstanding. Whatever we might think of folks who are so easily misled, we can only help the resiliency of 2A rights by educating gun-haters on the facts.

And like this article shows, those facts are pretty strongly on our side, in terms of showing that increased gun ownership doesn't result in increased violence. Seeing as how reducing violence is the stated goal of gun grabbers, the whole edifice of gun control crumbles when we show that gun grabbing doesn't actually reduce violence - unless that gun control comes with an iron-fisted police state. The question isn't violence vs. 2A - it's police state vs. 2A. But to talk about that with gun-grabbers, we have to get past the notion that gun control alone reduces violence.

PS, if I seem to be harping on this a lot lately, it's because I've recently targeted a hard core liberal for deprogramming, who thinks all guns should be permanently banned globally, including for "normal" police. She believes this so strongly, that she doesn't even like to discuss it, because anyone who doesn't agree with this is obviously some sort of gun-crazed fanatic. I've been working on her for a week or two now, and we've yet to have a long conversation about it, but it could happen any day now. If she can be shown the light about gun control, then anyone can. And if she can be shown the evil in gun control, maybe she can be shown the evil in nanny states and government dependence...

[Corlissimo]

*snip*

PS, if I seem to be harping on this a lot lately, it's because I've recently targeted a hard core liberal for deprogramming, who thinks all guns should be permanently banned globally, including for "normal" police. She believes this so strongly, that she doesn't even like to discuss it, because anyone who doesn't agree with this is obviously some sort of gun-crazed fanatic. I've been working on her for a week or two now, and we've yet to have a long conversation about it, but it could happen any day now. If she can be shown the light about gun control, then anyone can. And if she can be shown the evil in gun control, maybe she can be shown the evil in nanny states and government dependence...

Not wishing evil befall anyone, but I think that if she were ever exposed to grave bodily harm, and had to wait for the police to come to her aid, that might be something that would cause her to question her staunch beliefs. This would especially be the case if the assailant was NOT armed with a firearm.

P.S. Agree 100% with your logic on the methodology necessary to have meaningful interchange with 2A opponents/challengers. Dispassionate, unemotional discussion & logic are the only ways that stand a chance of getting through the barriers. Reminds me of a Thomas Jefferson quote: "Nothing gives one person so much advantage over another as to remain always cool and unruffled under all circumstances."

[cclaxton]

Not wishing evil befall anyone, but I think that if she were ever exposed to grave bodily harm, and had to wait for the police to come to her aid, that might be something that would cause her to question her staunch beliefs. This would especially be the case if the assailant was NOT armed with a firearm.

P.S. Agree 100% with your logic on the methodology necessary to have meaningful interchange with 2A opponents/challengers. Dispassionate, unemotional discussion & logic are the only ways that stand a chance of getting through the barriers. Reminds me of a Thomas Jefferson quote: "Nothing gives one person so much advantage over another as to remain always cool and unruffled under all circumstances."

Front Sight requires a they take a free 4-day handgun training for all journalists before doing an interview. At the end of their training, he asks them one question: "Would you agree that a person who is properly trained in the safety and appropriate use of a handgun can be trusted with that handgun?" (And, of course at that point they know they can trust themselves.) So, they say, "Yes" every time. He then asks why can't everyone who is properly trained and legally able to possess firearm be able to do so for their own self defense. That has resulted in mostly positive reviews of Front Sight and handgun ownership by those who attend. It is a very convincing way..through direct experience in learning how to shoot safely and properly.

CC

[NickA]

I am sure that TCinVA could beat Biden into a pulp (metaphorically or literally, depending) in any debate.

Since I would not have a First Spouse, I would need to nominate Bobbi at First Roommate. She would make the lack of American vacuum tube manufacturers her personal crusade, as well as campaigning for school kids to be literate in Morse Code.

Tamara /TCinVA 2012: Get off my liberty, and my lawn.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[Corlissimo]

Front Sight requires a they take a free 4-day handgun training for all journalists before doing an interview. At the end of their training, he asks them one question: "Would you agree that a person who is properly trained in the safety and appropriate use of a handgun can be trusted with that handgun?" (And, of course at that point they know they can trust themselves.) So, they say, "Yes" every time. He then asks why can't everyone who is properly trained and legally able to possess firearm be able to do so for their own self defense. That has resulted in mostly positive reviews of Front Sight and handgun ownership by those who attend. It is a very convincing way..through direct experience in learning how to shoot safely and properly.

CC

Outstanding approach. Too bad there isn't a way for each responsible gunowner to do the same thing. We need a real billionaire philanthropist, someone like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates, to help set up some kind of program like this for Pro-2A education.

/pipe dream