Lott Ducks

[Charles Kozierok]

John Lott is a well-respected member of the gun rights community. I've actually read some of his stuff before and thought it was pretty reasonable and decently supported.

I heard him interviewed today by a substitute stooge on Hannity's program. At one point the guy, to my complete surprise, asked Lott flat out what the problem was with requiring the same background checks required by FFLs at gun shows. I was looking forward to Lott's answer.

Unfortunately, I didn't get one. He ducked it completely by instead going on for two minutes about how the background check system isn't as good as people think it is.

This was quite reminiscent of how the NRA's LaPierre similarly ducked this question in a cowardly manner.

The pro-gun-rights position is not strengthened when its advocates not only oppose reasonable measures, but are too dishonest to even explain why.

 

[monovillage]

Good for him, why should he give anti-gun assholes fodder?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Good for him, why should he give anti-gun assholes fodder?

He just did.

You completely missed the point of my post.

 

[monovillage]

He just did.

You completely missed the point of my post.

No, you're just upset that he didn't give you and others fodder to attack gun rights.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm generally anti-gun-control. That's why I criticize people who are pro-gun-rights who behave in a stupid way, thus making it easier for the gun rights side to be attacked.

I think I'll wait and see if someone more reasonable and rational replies.

 

[monovillage]

Don't use loaded troll terms like "stooge" or say LaPierre "acted in a cowardly manner" or "too dishonest to even explain why", if you don't expect to get trolled back in return.

You are the one that initiated the tone of the thread.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I called the substitute host for Hannity a stooge. Who cares? Are you his mother or something?

And yes, LaPierre and Lott both behaved in a cowardly and dishonest manner by trying to duck questions about background checks at gun shows.

An opinion is not "trolling" just because you don't like it. And believe it or not, the world isn't so black and white that because I dislike Wayne LaPierre, I must be a gun grabber.

Learn how to think instead of just jerking your knee.

 

[Fern]

John Lott is a well-respected member of the gun rights community. I've actually read some of his stuff before and thought it was pretty reasonable and decently supported.

I heard him interviewed today by a substitute stooge on Hannity's program. At one point the guy, to my complete surprise, asked Lott flat out what the problem was with requiring the same background checks required by FFLs at gun shows. I was looking forward to Lott's answer.

Unfortunately, I didn't get one. He ducked it completely by instead going on for two minutes about how the background check system isn't as good as people think it is.

This was quite reminiscent of how the NRA's LaPierre similarly ducked this question in a cowardly manner.

The pro-gun-rights position is not strengthened when its advocates not only oppose reasonable measures, but are too dishonest to even explain why.

I think there is a problem allowing non-FFL sellers access to the fed govt background check system. How do we maintain any semblence of a right to privacy?

FFLs are registered and I'd be mighty surprised if they aren't forced to operate under rules ensuring confidentiality of information visa-vis their license (such as CPA's and other licensed tax professional are with a client's personal tax info). Such restrictions wouldn't apply to your average citizen/non-FFL dealer; they have no license to lose.

Essentially, the federal backround check system would have to be open to the public to allow the casual non-FFL seller to access it. I don't think that's do-able, legally or otherwise.

Fern

 

[cwjerome]

I agree with the OP. Taking the hard line will lose you more than agreeing to reasonable measures.

I don't see how a system could not be put in place for private party sales. It's not a game stopper. Make part of having an FFL mean being a go-between for private sales for background check purposes. They take name/DOB/SS and enter into the system for the parties for a $5 fee. Or something along those lines could be figured out.

 

[Moonbeam]

John Lott is a well-respected member of the gun rights community. I've actually read some of his stuff before and thought it was pretty reasonable and decently supported.

I heard him interviewed today by a substitute stooge on Hannity's program. At one point the guy, to my complete surprise, asked Lott flat out what the problem was with requiring the same background checks required by FFLs at gun shows. I was looking forward to Lott's answer.

Unfortunately, I didn't get one. He ducked it completely by instead going on for two minutes about how the background check system isn't as good as people think it is.

This was quite reminiscent of how the NRA's LaPierre similarly ducked this question in a cowardly manner.

The pro-gun-rights position is not strengthened when its advocates not only oppose reasonable measures, but are too dishonest to even explain why.

Your mistake was to use the term 'reasonable' to describe something pro gun control or to assume absolute opposition to it (them) could be anything but honest. You believe that the truth has something to do with reason and logic when in, fact, truth is what is absolutely defended. Just ask first, please, if you want to know what it is. Don't wonder around in some rational stupor thinking you have something to contribute. You're getting the gun out of my hand when it's as cold and dead as my brain.

 

[Moonbeam]

I agree with the OP. Taking the hard line will lose you more than agreeing to reasonable measures.

I don't see how a system could not be put in place for private party sales. It's not a game stopper. Make part of having an FFL mean being a go-between for private sales for background check purposes. They take name/DOB/SS and enter into the system for the parties for a $5 fee. Or something along those lines could be figured out.

I demand the right to create what I fear, Mr. Nutcase, number two!

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I demand the right to create what I fear, Mr. Nutcase, number two!

I think the OP is doing a public service. I'm sure way more people read these posts than listen to talk radio and, I'm positive they're more intelligent.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think the OP is doing a public service. I'm sure way more people read these posts than listen to talk radio and, I'm positive they're more intelligent.

I'm very glad you think. Other than that there's not much I can say because the matter of just what it is you think was incomprehensible to me from your post. Perhaps you could clarify whatever it was you were trying to say. I can't just wave a wand and make myself more intelligent.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Your mistake was to use the term 'reasonable' to describe something pro gun control or to assume absolute opposition to it (them) could be anything but honest. You believe that the truth has something to do with reason and logic when in, fact, truth is what is absolutely defended.

My post was deliberately directed at the more moderate and rational people, who support reasonable efforts to combat violence and the proliferation of guns, without further infringing on the second amendment.

There are extremists, of course, who will just oppose everything on principle. Your comments, which suggest that all people who are against gun control are extremist, make you sound extremist yourself.

 

[cubby1223]

My post was deliberately directed at the more moderate and rational people, who support reasonable efforts to combat violence and the proliferation of guns, without further infringing on the second amendment.

So how do you do it?

Do you support Feinstein's plans that seems to suggest if we just banned pistol grips and custom stocks then we will be safe from violence? Or I should say if we ban the "mean looking guns" the politicians get to keep their jobs for another term?

I live near of Chicago, which is in the news a lot regarding gun violence, and the gun violence in the city is almost exclusively by unregistered, illegally owned handguns. None of the ideas I have seen from anyone will do a damn bit of a difference for Chicago. These proposed laws that must be passed so the politicians can "prove" they care about us, all they do is punish the legal, safe, law-abiding citizens.


If you want a suggestion to reduce gun violence, my suggestion is not turn mass shootings into perpetual 24/7 media events. The people who commit these acts want the attention. We take that away.

But that's not going to happen. These events are opportunities for other people to further their own personal influence and power.

 

[cubby1223]

In regards to gun shows, I do fully support the ability for a citizen to resell his property to another person. Do the background checks when the person applies for a state permit to own a gun. Then require that only people who have permits can buy from gun shows.

Problem solved.

 

[fskimospy]

What's strange is this is at odds with the NRA's own position in the past. They used to support universal background checks, but they have moved increasingly to the right in recent years.

 

[cubby1223]

And as to the specific topic of this thread, this is standard operating procedure for all activists, for all advocates, every side of the issue, every form of political affiliation.

The host gets credit for asking "the tough question", and the opposition does not get their talking point.

If Lott answers the question as we all know the answer, then the activists on "the other side" will do everything they can to reduce the debate down to this one singular issue because they now have a solid quote as ammunition.

That's the game of activism, don't give the other side their quote, because they will make that the focal point of the debate. Liberals do this. Conservatives do this. It's the game of activism.

 

[cwjerome]

In regards to gun shows, I do fully support the ability for a citizen to resell his property to another person. Do the background checks when the person applies for a state permit to own a gun. Then require that only people who have permits can buy from gun shows.

Problem solved.

A lot of states don't require permits to own a gun. If you federally mandate all states to do so, many states will resist because they either don't believe in gun permits or the larger issue of states' rights in principle.

 

[cwjerome]

What's strange is this is at odds with the NRA's own position in the past. They used to support universal background checks, but they have moved increasingly to the right in recent years.

There's nothing strange about that, organizations are like people, and opinions or positions change over time. I believe the NRA is wrong for appearing to move away from universal background checks, but I don't see it as strange.

 

[fskimospy]

There's nothing strange about that, organizations are like people, and opinions or positions change over time. I believe the NRA is wrong for appearing to move away from universal background checks, but I don't see it as strange.

I do find it strange, as being against universal background checks is a very unpopular position to hold. It's not that often that organizations shift to very unpopular positions from popular ones.

Again though, I view this as a symptom of their continued radicalization.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So how do you do it?

I laid out my personal views in detail here.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

What's strange is this is at odds with the NRA's own position in the past. They used to support universal background checks, but they have moved increasingly to the right in recent years.

This was actually addressed recently by a former NRA president. Something along the lines of saying the system was "broken" or it "took too long" to get the checks done.

Of course, the reasonable and honest response to this is to say: "If you want instant checks done for private sales, fine, but first you need to fix the system so it works properly." But they aren't really opposing the gun show demands simply because of issues with the system. They're opposing them because they've decided to oppose everything, in the same sort of mindless fashion as illustrated in the first few responses to this thread.

 

[Moonbeam]

My post was deliberately directed at the more moderate and rational people, who support reasonable efforts to combat violence and the proliferation of guns, without further infringing on the second amendment.

There are extremists, of course, who will just oppose everything on principle. Your comments, which suggest that all people who are against gun control are extremist, make you sound extremist yourself.

My post was directed at the less moderate and irrational people who do not support reasonable efforts to combat violence and the proliferations of guns. The folk you addressed, I believe, are the choir but I figured the group I aimed at would chime in. And you have gotten support from others so that base is covered. I am not much worried about how I sound as I am at finding a way to deliver a somewhat different message. I was informed that one has to speak to people at their level of understanding and have gotten used to the fact that, when talking to some types, I'm going to sound pretty extreme.

Also, I am not a gun grabber or an anti gun fanatic and this is well known to my most important critic, me. What others think is trivial by comparison. I have more guns than I can count by visualizing them in my head. Like all the other things I have they mean nothing as well as any reputation for being a rational being.

Your aim is to petition for rational compromise on gun control issues as I see it, and that to me is a very good thing, but I am interested in addressing the issue of fanaticism, far more dangerous than guns in my opinion. What you want to preserve, I think they jeopardize. And I try to address it according to my own lights on the matter. The course we steer depends on the shy we see.

 

[cubby1223]

I laid out my personal views in detail here.

We can go through your list one by one and we discuss what would be required to enforce your views, you'd be like "well, I didn't want that..."