Those would would sacrifice a bit of essential Liberty to gain some (perceived) temporary safety. (B. Franklin, paraphrased)
Last edited by RoyGBiv; 12-18-2012 at 09:22 AM.
........... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I don't believe we're doing a great job arguing this. The opposing audience is too heterogeneous and I think we as a group fail to understand that. There is no point in arguing with those whose agenda is control in general. As in any political debate, the capture audience are "the moderates". In this case, those are the people who realize this is a mental issue, who agree that restrictive laws won't reduce incidence of these events, who don't support all-out firearms prohibition, but do want hi caps and ARs go away because of a higher casualty rate. This is a difficult argument to engage into because it is true, and I haven't seen much of convincing rhetoric on our side. Almost all I've seen is preaching to a choir.
p.s. seems like Erik has said pretty much the same while I was typing.
A meme that is often tossed around on gun blogs mocks the occasional political editorial in the coastal media thusly: "Why won't you stupid cousin-humping rednecks vote for us?"
The flip side is often apparent on our side, however: "Why won't you childish emotional communist hippies listen to my logical arguments?"
May I quote your post in its entirety on my blog, with link and attribution?
IMHO one approach to address the "low information" crowd in the context discussed here is perhaps being more vocal about the need to protect "our children" by making schools safer using all tools available, e,g., arming and training principals/senior personnel, allowing CHL holders to carry, arguing that hardly anyone would dare to assault a police station unless it would be a "gun free zone", etc.
They think that will make a difference. Ok - ban all firearms everywhere in the world. What would have happened if he walked in with a case of cheap glass bottles full of gas w/ rags sticking out? Or a chain saw. Or an axe. Or a knife. Or any number of other implements I can think of.
The question I'm asking: Is there a better way to educate the people described above so that a knee jerk "maybe an AWB" is not their response. It will never be possible to stop the "won't someone think of the children gun ban" megaphone chant.
Why not wait a month and have the NRA start a "truth about guns" campaign? Prime time adds w/ statistics? Interviews with people who were saved by being armed?
ETA: How many school shootings have the Israelis had in the last decade? Or two?