|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 19, 2016, 03:49 PM | #101 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,449
|
Quote:
Suzi's underlying problem isn't about firearms, but her lack of foresight and ignorance of how rights and rule of law work.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
June 19, 2016, 04:58 PM | #102 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
|
Quote:
So how do we help them see the truth? The anti-gun politicians are assuring them that they can make this all better by simply removing the guns; the 2A was written for a different time and is no longer relevant. Many of them don't really believe that, but they are frightened. In their mind a good guy with a gun is just another guy with a gun. Do we tell them they are unenlightened and guns aren't dangerous? If we can't win the hearts and minds of Suzi and the millions like her, can we win this fight?
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin |
|
June 19, 2016, 05:29 PM | #103 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
Regardless of Suzi, can we lose this fight? If Suzi and the millions of terrified, hand-wringing soccer moms are the final say in this nation, then how do we explain why Constitutional + shall-issue carry has been growing these past decades, and now includes 41 of 50 states? How do we explain record gun sales throughout the entire Obama administration? Can they all be previous owners stockpiling? While some ultra-left states have descended into madness (CA, etc), federally we see a diversity of opinion, and therefore no stampede towards Suzi's side in this. SCOTUS's small sample size leans our way, too, with Caetano adding a small bit to the protections already in place from Heller and McDonald, and Hellers "in common use" language will, if the AR is challenged, result, if nothing else, in some interesting contortions by the antis on the Court. |
|
June 19, 2016, 05:59 PM | #104 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
|
Speed I am a big fan of playing the devil's advocate role!
All good points. All of the gains and advances we've made over the last decade or two are encouraging and surprising to me. I never thought concealed carry would be legal in Illinois in my lifetime. With that said, don't underestimate the power of Suzi and her friends. A key vote here, a court ruling there and things can change quickly.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin |
June 19, 2016, 06:33 PM | #105 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,449
|
Quote:
Not every "Suzi" can be reached. Suzi may live in a suburban bubble and imagine that defensive needs are fictional. She may only know the other girls with whom she has lunch after tennis and believe that guns are a fetish of incomprehensible 'gator hunting rubes, not her people, and therefore are unimportant. Suzi might be genuinely ignorant or a sort of social bigot. That itself isn't a reason to conform one's position for her comfort any more than the ignorance and bigotry of some people on other civil rights issues is a reason to trim one's position anti-discrimination policies in government hiring or public accommodations. That someone somewhere opposes your position isn't a reason to take their preferences as a given. The rights described in the 1st, 2d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th are all rights held by individual against the state. They put the "limited" in "limited government", which is meaningless if those legal limits are ignored when someone like Suzi finds them an obstacle to having the state impose her preferences on the rest of us. If Suzi lacks the mind to grasp that, you aren't going to win her heart. That doesn't mean anyone needs to call Suzi a nitwit. For some people asking them a few questions can start the process of reflection that leads to a better position. Also, don't believe for a moment that the issue is semi-automatic rifles with box fed magazines, which is why defending their specific utility must be something of a dead end. That's just the current point of interest; in the absence of a principled position, it will come back to something else, pistols with detachable magazines, revolver reloaders, shotguns that hold more than five shells (who needs six shells fired as fast as he can pump and pull the trigger?) etc.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; June 19, 2016 at 07:03 PM. |
|
June 20, 2016, 10:22 AM | #106 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
I agree. The ultimate goal would be to eliminate every handgun and all long guns except some bolt action and O/U shotguns that are strictly controlled for the 'sportsperson'.
That has been said in the past. People decide first on an emotional level. Rational decisions are rare and slow to implement. Convincing folks that EBRs are nice MSRs is very difficult if they have a negative emotional mindset. I just don't think the nice gun argument works.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 20, 2016, 01:23 PM | #107 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
|
I also agree Zukiphile. I think communicating a coherent understanding to Suzi and those in her circle of influence without rancor improves our position. We are certainly not going to reach those who do not support a free state based on political ideology or agenda, or those who simply can not comprehend the right to keep and bear arms makes us all safer. I believe it is the huge group of people somewhere in the middle who will ultimately determine what happens.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin |
June 20, 2016, 02:01 PM | #108 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,449
|
Quote:
There are two ways to address that group. One I favor, and the other I don't. The one I like less is negative social pressure. This involves casting everyone with the contrary view as a moron, short-sighted, a bigot, or not really an american. This is used very effectively on free speech and SSM issues, so that there are large portions of the culture in which contrary views are not well tolerated. The one I favor is allowing people to have a more positive view of guns and shooting. I don't like Glenn's idea that conclusions are emotional products with analysis only an after-thought, but there isn't a good reason to keep the fun of shooting sports a secret. Suzi may think of unpleasant stories in the news or camo clad loons when she hears "gun", but I think of competition amongst some very nice people. Jerry Miculek conveys a lot of happiness in his many videos. How could anyone sit through one of his explanations of technique and not come away thinking the sport might be fun? That's not itself an argument for the right, but pressing the cultural point (Suzi may prohibit her boys from even pretending to shoot things they would use as imaginary, toy guns) may help provide greater acceptance.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
June 20, 2016, 02:29 PM | #109 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
June 20, 2016, 02:31 PM | #110 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Quote:
Next, I don't think we should keep shooting sports a secret and may mention that millions of folks have such guns without going nuts. My point was that the focus on sporting as in the MSR mantra is insufficient and actually can be used as a point of attack. Antigun media outlets like the NY Times and others have written explicit pieces mocking that argument.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
June 20, 2016, 02:58 PM | #111 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,449
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Has anyone set forth the MSR label itself as an argument sufficient to win the issue? It doesn't bother me that you hold disdain for the label anymore than it bothers me that some manufacturers market their product that way. I don't use it but it seems fairly descriptive.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; June 20, 2016 at 03:14 PM. |
|||
June 20, 2016, 06:12 PM | #112 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2007
Posts: 1,100
|
Why try to argue the point in the first place? You either believe in such a right or not, and many have spoken with their wallets by buying AR-15s. They are flying off the shelves. Do you think they are buying them to turn around and hand them to Uncle Sugar? I seriously doubt it. Let's face facts; a lot of Americans are pretty stupid. The only history they know is what happened yesterday, if they're lucky. They hear the BS spewed out by the MSM and they jump on board the ban bus because they are told they will be more safe without them. I call BS on it because the latest FBI stats prove the homicide rate is lower than it has been since 1957. Here's a radical thought, let's ban radical Muslims, since they're the one's using the AR-15's to kill people. We won't hear that though because the head of DHS is a Muslim, as is the head of the CIA and the list can continue for quite a while.(do a little research and it might well surprise you) The fact is that it will not be Joe Blow who decides if we keep our semi-auto weapons. Why argue the point. You would be much better served to take the time to decide what you will do if they ban them. Will you fold up like a rag doll, or stand up for what you believe to be right?
|
June 20, 2016, 06:46 PM | #113 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
|
I agree with both aspects. The gun control lobby relies on all the cognition problems, which are actually several sets of cognitive bias in the public and acute among gun control rank and file
1) Inversion of the core and central trend, ie the actual statistics on gun homicide. Eg the public thinks gun murder is flat or up when it has crashed. Other crime rate and type problems, like not knowing that the vast majority of murder is repeat criminals, and that with guns appears to be over 90% illegal guns owned by criminals. 2) Failure to understand the technology, and that Cho and Breivik did not need "assault rifles." (and that CNC and 3d advances make it a luddite fantasy to focus on implements) 3) Failure to understand all the most valuable Bill of Rights liberties are dangerous and can easily be shown to make us "less safe." 4) Failure to understand that the "limits" on Bill of Rights liberties cited by gun control advocates, such as libel and defamation, are not analogous to gun control whatsoever, but a) post harm, post proven and adjudicated harm, sanctions applied b) only to the individual who committed the harm. (The analogy to defamation would e shooting someone and claiming second amendment protection, not claiming the right to have a firearm.) So there is a wide variety of cognition problems, running the gamut from actual trends, to the basics of pre harm vs post harm limits on rights. |
June 20, 2016, 07:26 PM | #114 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,800
|
The "ban everything" crowd refuses to recognize any use as valid. The only use of (whatever their target is) that they admit to is a criminal misuse, and criminal misuse is the reason they believe XYZ should be banned.
Doesn't matter to them what is misused or who misuses it (though they may claim otherwise, their actions and demands put the lie to that), all that matters to them is to get their hated thing banned, so "no one" can misuse it, ever again....it's a fantasy they fully believe in, and demand we do, as well. Not too long ago, in my state, some college kids misused an "energy drink", by taking a massive overdose, and then adding "illegal" alcohol on top of it (they were below legal drinking age). Several got sick, requiring hospitalization, and at least one DIED. The energy drink has WARNINGS on the label, they were ignored. What was the response of the concerned people? A demand for a BAN on the sale of the energy drink, a legal product complying with all applicable laws. And, they GOT IT!!! ITs the same mindset with guns, it doesn't matter that some INDIVIDUAL breaks the LAW about committing murder, all that matters is BAN the GUN!!! Seems to me that we were better off when we didn't listen to those kind of people. We did it on a national scale with Prohibition, and look how well that worked out....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
June 21, 2016, 03:14 AM | #115 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
|
Quote:
Based on what I have seen and heard and experienced, most people have not done any research into firearms: not even to support their own position against them, certainly not to examine the rationale of pro-gun ownership groups. Instead these positions have repeatedly smacked of a knee-jerk reaction: that is not something that typically results from the analytical process.
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic. Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
|
|
June 21, 2016, 05:50 AM | #116 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
1) Every national gun control lobby organization worked to help DC fight Heller and that is less than a decade ago. They all took amicus or testified in support of DC or wrote analysis or opinion pieces in support of DC. 2) They keep repeating Australia as their model. So to have Obama and Hillary continually.That is mass confiscation of all legally acquired handguns and all semi auto long guns from all law abiding citizens. Anderson Cooper, early on in the recent Obama "Town Hall" asked President Obama about repeating Australia as his model "over and over" and gave him the chance to disavow the confiscation part of that mdoel twice, Mr. Obama deflected both times |
|
June 21, 2016, 08:31 AM | #117 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,449
|
Quote:
I would let Glenn speak to his own position generally. Specifically, I have differed with Glenn on his position that it is appropriate or accurate to dismiss the analyses in Supreme Court decisions as a mere rationalization of an emotional conclusion. The effort to delegitimize an opponent's political or legal position with a psychological diagnosis is a crude political tool that is closely related in form to marxist false consciousness theory. If ideas have meaning, then an analysis composed of them can't be waved aside properly with a sentiment that the writer doesn't understand that he wasn't actually reasoning to a position, but was instead embroidering a crude emotional antipathy the reader takes a guess at. If ideas don't have meaning, then the enterprise of psychological diagnosis of a writer itself can be as easily dismissed as the ideas to which it is applied.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
June 21, 2016, 09:08 AM | #118 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Quote:
It is not a psychological diagnosis, implying a disorder, but what we know of decision processes.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
June 21, 2016, 09:48 AM | #119 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
1. A complete lapse of personal responsibility. 2. A unrealistic notion that by banning something will get rid of it and/or change the behavior of someone for the better. 3. Those that crusade against a particular object, don't realize (or care) that the same thing can be done to other objects as well, including ones they care about. 4. Creepy politicians looking for a way to make themselves look good while, at the same time, limiting your freedoms. 5. Greedy lawyers looking to make a quick buck. |
|
June 21, 2016, 09:54 AM | #120 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,449
|
Glenn, note that what I write against below is an analytical framework, and not you or your emotional mooring. The argument isn't that you are some sort of jerk (in fact my opinion is exactly the opposite), but that I've taken exception to an idea you've set forth.
That explanation isn't gratuitous, but illustrative. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You don't actually know about the decision process of the Obergefell minority except as it is set forth in text. Instead of dealing with the ideas expressed, you attribute their conventional constitutional analysis to a "gut opposition to gays" and a failure to think as deeply as those with whom you agree. That kind of dismissal sidesteps the substance of constitutional law. That's a pretty ordinary and human response to a position one doesn't share, that the opponent isn't smart enough or nice enough to agree with the more enlightened. However it is also ultimately an ad hominem argument with substantial chronological shortcomings.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; June 21, 2016 at 10:03 AM. |
|||||
June 21, 2016, 09:55 AM | #121 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
|
1. A complete lapse of personal responsibility.
2. A unrealistic notion that by banning something will get rid of it and/or change the behavior of someone for the better. 3. Those that crusade against a particular object, don't realize (or care) that the same thing can be done to other objects as well, including ones they care about. 4. Creepy politicians looking for a way to make themselves look good while, at the same time, limiting your freedoms. 5. Greedy lawyers looking to make a quick buck. That is a pretty good list. You're right, it is a little depressing...
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin |
June 21, 2016, 10:02 AM | #122 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Z. - we will disagree on how people decide. And that's the way it is.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 21, 2016, 10:09 AM | #123 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,449
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
June 21, 2016, 10:33 AM | #124 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Let me suggest that it's not only a question of how judges decide things. It's also a question about how people in general decide things. The former is relevant to the judicial context, while the latter is relevant in the political context. We're concerned about both.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
June 21, 2016, 11:09 AM | #125 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
|
Uh-oh, I've started rambling....
Kmac:
Quote:
Kmac: Quote:
Rambling section starts here: Responses need to be more pro-active "Here is your geographic and demographic hotspots of gun violence; here is the most effective solution to stop it; look! the NRA and a gun industry consortium is donating $10M to a 5 year project to reduce gun violence in Chicago and Washington D.C. Our data will be transparent and on line. Or, "The NRA and X crime think tank recognizes that Y% of homicides are driven by gang on gang violence, often fueled by social media in the above-mentioned hotspots" We will be working with Google to create freeware -"gang sign recognition software" that will allow social media services to auto-filter uploads that contain gang-related content." Yeah, Google and other money-grubbers will gripe about "oh, free speech" but people are dying. Shouldn't your "don't be evil" mantra be applied to those who are dying? A lot of groups in Silicon Vally are doing heavy lifting in facial recognition software; if they can't do something easier like gang signs, they need to step down. Or, "Here are 3 recommendations created by the NRA and the AMA for changing the system of reporting psychological emergencies and stopping potentially dangerous people from immediately obtaining a weapon: write your senator!" Too often you hear the NRA spokes people griping about how "this law won't stop anything" (probably true) while not offering anything to actually stop the drumbeat of bad news. Training classes are nice but our image problem doesn't originate with the demographic that knows they need training. Pro-gun citizens and pro-gun groups are going to have two stick an oar in the water and try to solve some problems not created by responsible gun owners to make their own headaches go away. "not my problem that these people are irresponsible" is not going to fly. I've just come to this conclusion over the past week, so don't ask me for expert strategic vision. I'm not sure where to begin, but I'm starting to crunch numbers and thinking about what my contribution could be. The beauty of the internet is that it disseminates ideas and info quickly to a large group of people. There are lots of people here smarter than I am. Write the NRA and your senator. Rambling gets worse here: Points of attack on gun owners: 1. accidents (esp. with kids). 2. crime. (Demand higher sentences for repeated or aggravated crimes using a firearm. Demand X amount of dollars be spent doing organized research on how criminals in "hot zones" get their weapons. Demand X dollars be spent locating straw purchasers, etc) 3. crazy people out and about. (tough nut for reasons of medical privacy. See number 5 below for external solutions.) 4. suicide (this would be almost impossible to change w/out huge invasion of privacy, potential loss of freedom, etc). However, we could see if there is a correlation between actual ownership and suicide. Did the suicide use their own gun or a family member's, etc. Figure out a non-intrusive way to make recommendations to gun owners guns whose children have certain behavior issues, etc.) 5. Terrorism (We've already gone down the path of un-limited surveillance; that's not worked 100%. The only three options is to find some pre-cogs to read the future or be willing to have more armed citizens wandering around in society or have more police everywhere to protect gun-free zones. That last choice seems to be a budgetary non-starter for both gov't and business owners.) Rambling mostly stops here. I now return you to a normal reply thread. Kmac: Quote:
Kmac: Quote:
Kmac: Quote:
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time. Last edited by doofus47; June 21, 2016 at 11:11 AM. Reason: Removed initialing |
|||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|