Why Our Gun Debate Is Off Target

Discussion in 'Discussion Club' started by Charles Kozierok, Feb 17, 2013.

  1. Charles Kozierok

    Charles Kozierok Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Messages:
    6,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    A piece that might surprise some from the WSJ. Quite balanced and rather interesting... and pretty much where I am on this issue.

    It was posted in P&N this morning but it took only a couple of dozen replies to degenerate into irrational responses and insults, so I'm reposting it here to see if we can do better.

    The article is long and it moves back and forth, so it's worth reading, but a few quotes:

    The bottom line: gun owners have to speak up, take responsibility for themselves, and stop allowing people like Wayne LaPierre to be seen as representing them, when he does not. People are tired of Newtowns and of 7-year-olds picking up unsecured guns and killing or maiming themselves. Ignoring this issue, or being one of the extremists who says "NO TO ANY CHANGES!" just increases the likelihood of onerous gun control laws being passed in the future.
     
  2. Hayabusa Rider

    Hayabusa Rider Elite Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2000
    Messages:
    39,330
    Likes Received:
    1
    As I said in that thread, the opinion is good as far as it goes, but there has been significant, responsible resistance to the SAFE act in NY, with a majority of counties trying to make themselves heard without resorting to antics. Where are the articles about that? I shouldn't be surprised if the NY paper knows. We'll see if we get anywhere, but the papers love the NRA, the rest of us not so much.
     
  3. Charles Kozierok

    Charles Kozierok Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Messages:
    6,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think I mentioned somewhere that there were dueling pro- and anti- protests in Albany a week or so ago, which I heard about on the radio. The group against the bill was much larger than the one supporting it.

    A quick search this morning found this. But I agree, it's not being talked about much. It's New York state, after all.

    I think that's kind of the point of the article, in a way -- reasonable gun owners, the 95%+ of them who don't belong to the NRA, need to get involved in the process. If they don't, there will just be more bannings and silly capacity restrictions (7 cartridges?)
     
  4. Londo_Jowo

    Londo_Jowo Lifer

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    16,264
    Likes Received:
    1
    The problem with states like New York much is determined by the populous living in the large cities and those living in the rural areas lose their voice in any argument between the two. Most of the people I know that live in Upstate or Southern Tier believe no matter how much they try to have a meaningful debate the outcome will be determined by liberals politicians as well as the cities of NYC and Albany
     
  5. waggy

    waggy No Lifer

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2000
    Messages:
    68,161
    Likes Received:
    4
    agreed
     
  6. Charles Kozierok

    Charles Kozierok Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Messages:
    6,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quite correct. And one of the reasons I live in a state with no major population center.

    The same thing happens in other states. I remember when I lived in MA, hearing snark along the lines that the politicians thought the state ended at I-495.
     
  7. jpeyton

    jpeyton Moderator <BR> SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    25,244
    Likes Received:
    0
    But Wayne LaPierre does speak for me.

    Since CA and NY are "special needs" cases when it comes to the rights of law-abiding gun owners, lets use Colorado. Here's what is making headway in their state legislature:

    HB1224: Banning standard capacity magazines - another emotion-driven ban to make moms feel better about themselves, while driving out a locally-grown, world-renowned manufacturer of standard capacity magazines and accessories (Magpul)

    HB1226: No CCW on college campuses - aka preservation of shooting galleries for mentally unstable gunmen

    HB1228: Fees for background checks - because we need more roadblocks between law-abiding citizens and free/easy instant online background checks

    HB1229: Universal background checks - wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook or Aurora, but sure why not
     
    #7 jpeyton, Feb 17, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2013
  8. Exterous

    Exterous Lifer

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    14,019
    Likes Received:
    34
    What I don't really understand is the outrage over guns and using the mass shootings as poster children. I don't own a gun and don't plan on it anytime soon but it really makes no sense to me.

    I've said this before but just to add the sources behind my thinking:
    In England, over 1,000 people die from falling down the stairs each year
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/790609.stm

    Given that our population is over 6x their size I think its fair to conclude our deaths are somewhere along those lines at least

    2012 - one of the worst years of mass shootings - 88 people were killed while the average is somewhere in the 20 a year range.
    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/18/nation/la-na-nn-mass-shootings-common-20121218
    I focus on the mass shootings as people only seem to really care about mass shootings. Not much national media coverage of the child shot in Detroit a couple of days ago. (Or if they do care about all killings then I really don't understand the argument as the weapon focus is completely off base. Assault weapons? You are far more likely to be shot with a handgun than an 'assault weapon')

    So - by my thinking 20 people a year or even 88 people a year is not nearly high enough to start modifying a constitutional right in round about ways. I don't decide to avoid stairs for their risk and I don't see other people doing so. I still drive to work every day even though I have a far higher chance of dying in a car accident than a mass shooting. You rarely talk to someone who is scared about getting into a car even though I am willing to bet we all know someone who has been in a horrible car accident. This whole endeavor seems horribly misguided. To me its the poster child for the 'no one can ever be hurt and if something bad happens it's someones fault and the reason can be legislated away' society many seem to believe in.

    This is not to say that changes can't be made. For example - I am all in favor of fixing the many issues the background database seems to have. But a lot of this strikes me as surrendering rights for the added illusion of safety
     
    #8 Exterous, Feb 18, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2013
  9. jpeyton

    jpeyton Moderator <BR> SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    25,244
    Likes Received:
    0
    But...but...we should scrap the Bill Of Rights for 300 million people if it might save even one child's life.
     
  10. Charles Kozierok

    Charles Kozierok Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Messages:
    6,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's because they are big and flashy dramatic.

    Same reason a plane crash that kills 300 people makes the news and prompts all sorts of inquiries and demands for change, while 30,000 people dying in car accidents every year gets ignored.

    These shootings are emotionally evocative, and generate both legitimate desires to stop them, and also opportunities for gun rights opponents to push through legislation they'd want even if there were no mass shootings.
     
  11. Exterous

    Exterous Lifer

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    14,019
    Likes Received:
    34
    I don't think the problem is that they are big and flashy. I think the problem is that no perspective is provided or researched. No one really bothers to research an issue even a little bit. If balanced perspective is not provided on TV (usually within the same news segment) or on Facebook they don't get it. Its no wonder that no one bothers to dig into a source to vet it before using it to form or confirm their views. This is easily manipulated by those who want to forward their adgenda
     
  12. Charles Kozierok

    Charles Kozierok Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Messages:
    6,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's all driven by emotion. When 20 kids die, most people don't want to hear about "perspective" or "research". Say anything other than "OMG THIS IS TERRIBLE WE MUST DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW!" and you get labeled a heartless jerk.
     
  13. Exterous

    Exterous Lifer

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    14,019
    Likes Received:
    34
    Perhaps - but I could easily see that reaction being a side effect of the lack of perspective fueled by the fire of media fearmongering. :hmm: The more I think about it the more it seems as though its a self feeding cycle
     
  14. fskimospy

    fskimospy Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    43,591
    Likes Received:
    24
    Of course another issue is that a lot of federal agencies have been explicitly barred from researching the causes and best methods of prevention of gun violence. This was lobbied for by the very same people who complain that methods being used are not effective.
     
  15. Jaskalas

    Jaskalas Lifer

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    22,160
    Likes Received:
    26
    In what way did LaPierre speak wrongly on the issue?

    Our Gun Debate is off due to it focusing on guns, instead of the big picture. If one were to remove guns from the equation our society would still be violent. We would still be promoting it in our media and our entertainment, in our literature and our culture.

    One does not become an American and escape the messaging of harming or killing other human beings. This saturation can be taken as promotion. Those who are vulnerable may not distinguish between condemning or condoning violence. They may simply see it, and in a moment of weakness, act on it.

    I appreciate violence is natural and it'd occur without media saturation, but it must not be understated how common and popular the imagery is. How easy imitation becomes when you have populated a person's imagination.

    I'm not calling for European style censorship - but if there's a discussion on violence it would be disingenuous to solely focus the means to an end. We have to focus on why they reached that end in the first place.
     
  16. Fern

    Fern Elite Member <br> Super Moderator
    Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    0
    What are we 'normal' gun owners supposed to do to be heard?

    And who says we haven't been. We're in polls all the time.

    As far as kids getting their parents guns and accidentally killing themselves, there are already criminal penalties (manslaughter) for that.

    I think the topic rather useless. You can't really legislate parenting, at least not effectively. You can only 'punish' when an accident happens. Kids drown in pools etc every day. Shall we outlaw pools and bathtubs? At some point this gets silly, no matter that the consequences are tragic.

    Fern
     
  17. jpeyton

    jpeyton Moderator <BR> SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    25,244
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's time people grow a pair and risk being called heartless jerks.

    Be cold about it. We've lost a lot more than 20 of our sons and daughters preserving our freedoms in the United States over the course of our history. 20 dead kids in Newtown are tragic, but they're just more names on a long ledger tracking the conflict between good and evil.
     
  18. Charles Kozierok

    Charles Kozierok Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Messages:
    6,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did, and I was.

    It felt good in a way. But it didn't accomplish a damned thing.
     
  19. jackstar7

    jackstar7 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Messages:
    6,213
    Likes Received:
    7
    Did you just equate gun ownership with bathing?

    You're right. That is silly.
     
  20. Charles Kozierok

    Charles Kozierok Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Messages:
    6,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    Things can be similar in some respects, and different in others.

    No, gun ownership is not like bathing. But the pool analogy isn't that ridiculous. In both cases you have an item that people own for reasons that other people consider unimportant, in both cases a lot of tragic accidents happen, and in only one case do people call for severe restrictions in ownership.
     
  21. ThePresence

    ThePresence Elite Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    27,698
    Likes Received:
    0
    Truth.

    I am not currently a gun owner (I may soon be), but I've shot all kinds of guns through the years, including fully automatic weapons (not here in the US). I am very familiar with guns. Not too long ago I had a short conversation on another website with a congresswoman who wants to ban assault rifles because they are "military weapons designed to kill as many people possible in a short period of time". I pointed out than an assault weapons ban does not ban military fully-automatic weapons, which are already banned, it just addresses the cosmetic details of a firearm. It bans scary looking guns. Because they look scary. It's really ridiculous. It changes absolutely nothing and was obviously ineffective last time it was tried.

    One thing I hear people say a lot: "What reason is there for someone to need an assault weapon?" Or, "why does someone need a high-capacity magazine?" I have never heard such an unAmerican statement. Why do I need it? Let's ban something because you can't understand why I need it? The constitution explicitly limits the government's ability to disarm the citizens. I should never need to explain why I need it.

    On the bright side I find it really scary that these lawmakers are passing laws on things they obviously do not know anything about. These are not military weapons. OMG it's scary looking, let's ban it! These people are destroying the constitution based on their clueless assumptions.

    On the not-so-bright side, they are knowingly playing on the emotion of Sandy Hook, Aurora, etc, and trying to shove through their agenda-based legislation at a time when people might not fight them on it. They are KNOWINGLY shredding the constitution in their never-ending thirst for more power and control.
     
    #21 ThePresence, Feb 19, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2013
  22. jackstar7

    jackstar7 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Messages:
    6,213
    Likes Received:
    7
    Actually, from a quick google search, there are already a lot of regulations in place regarding how pools are built and maintained. I won't say which is easier to do between obtaining a firearm and building a pool with regards to regulations, as I'm sure that depends a lot on the individual circumstances.

    Personally, I'd be more comfortable with the pool comparison if people were only buying guns for entertainment purposes. But since many posit that they are for security, and are not toys, then comparing it to a pool doesn't hold up for me.

    In the very narrow context you made, sure, compare away... but for me that's so limited as to only highlight how poor the comparison is in the first place.


    EDIT: Additionally, it looks like there are even more pool regulations these days like pools including alarms and other measures to prevent unsupervised use by children. Go figure.
     
    #22 jackstar7, Feb 19, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2013
  23. ThePresence

    ThePresence Elite Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    27,698
    Likes Received:
    0
    A large and fundamental difference between pools and guns is that the constitution does not explicitly limit the governments ability to police the pools.
     
  24. jackstar7

    jackstar7 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Messages:
    6,213
    Likes Received:
    7
    For now. Ammendments can go either way.

    But you also just made my point for me that the comparison is a poor one.
     
  25. Fern

    Fern Elite Member <br> Super Moderator
    Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    0
    I equated two types of accidental deaths of children by objects that are inherently dangerous. The parents lack of control over those objects, or proper supervision of children when around those objects, is what results in the accidental deaths.

    So, yes, they are sufficiently similar to serve my point.

    Fern