What will it take to make America want reasonable gun laws?

[Daskinor]

Sigh, its always the same arguments. And in the end it comes down the arguments always come down to semanticists.

The Idea of guns, the myths and facts of guns, the reality of guns, the idea of freedom the idea of safety. This whole argument is how fit each individual persons own beliefs about firearms into different segmented facets of life.

Its not an thought that is easily changed. It's our culture.

And culture changes.

Guns are going away, slowly. They have been for the last 80 years. In 50 years we have gone from about 30% of Americans own guns to roughly 20%. Hunting/Sports is the number one reason for ownership, with self defense trending down.

From a purely sociality prospective you can draw parallels with Smoking Rates. At one point you could smoke anywhere. Then people started to object, and the places you could smoke were slowly reduced. Now you cant even smoke directly outside a building. Meanwhile smoking has gotten more expensive. And the most recent changes moving into the mainstream is the removal of smoke breaks and increased insurances premiums. Smokers increasingly feel like a second class citizen for using a legal product. While the majority simply do not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke anymore.

At one point you could buy guns in hardware stores. Then you couldn't, you needed to go to a special store. Then that store got hit by regulations and hoops that increased the work required to sell the gun increasing the price. Then there are more hoops to jump through. You need to wait, you need permits, a background check. While they are in themselves are meaningless in a timescale sense (whats 3-7 days when you will own and use it for years). Some things you can not even buy anymore because someone else use them for crimes. It feels like it takes more and more to own something that you have right too.

Then the next generation comes along, they trend more towards removing guns from society. They don't want guns openly available in the society they are a part of. And a society they will both inherit and change at the same time. A group of people that "just because that's how it has always been" is not a valid answer to the question of "Why are things this way".

That is the answer every generation gives, because every generation brings change.


You can argue the semanticists of what constitutes a gun. Or what makes constitutes an assault rifle. If a background check should be expanded, or if mechanisms should be put in place to exclude people from ownership. We could go on and on.

In the end change is happening still. Guns are becoming less important, and because of that the majority of those that stand to inherit our society are willing to reject them. There will be more and more that resist change. But I will let you in on a secret. In the end Conservatism, both the idea of resistance to change and reliance on traditional norms, always loses.

Think about when smoking sections disappeared from restaurants. Where you happy or sad when it happened. Then when its the last time you thought about a restaurant even having a smoking section. And would you even go back to them having them.

[mjr]

Just gonna drop this here...

Trigger warning! The following article mentions guns...

http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/24/...nd-about-guns/

[Daskinor]

Originally Posted by mjr

Just gonna drop this here...

Trigger warning! The following article mentions guns...

http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/24/...nd-about-guns/

Disagree with;

#1 - While the basic gun safety rules are important. The last two paragraphs use an "Appeal to Definition" argument I find very counter productive in any debate. I am paraphrasing but the point being made is. Because people who believe it is not safe to have guns in schools don't know the first thing about gun safety, their ideology is invalid.

Its no difrent then a "scientific theory" vs "I have a theory"

#2 - A running theme in the article is the Ad hominem attacks. It shows that the article is written to appeal to the emotions of one side of the argument more then make any real substantiate claims.

#3 - This claim is demonstratively false. Of course in this case the weapon was dropped. From a legal standpoint products need to be safe from an probable misuse, this includes dropping it.

The rest of the argument relies on the first point being actuate.

#6 - This is an odd point to make, in some ways it refutes #3. "A gun can fail mechanically and become less safe"



#10 - Less shots before reload allowing for return fire more often. And yes seconds matter. And if your spraying and praying for self defense you are doing it wrong. I believe for most people it really comes down to the balance between "I am target shooting and want to have fun" vs the annoyance of needing to reload. Jugging by our customers ammo habits its more about the target shooting.

The article makes a weird logical leap between someone who conceal caries, and there for is not a prime candidate for an extended magazine. And the hypothetical super criminal who is both hyped up on drugs and wearing body armor where one bullet might not take him down. Either way it does not actually talk about the reason for the magazine limit, just make an odd straw man argument against it.

#12 - Hollow Point vs FMJ bullets. the argument basically revolves around what do I fire into someone when I risk hitting others. Its inclusion in the list is just out of place and odd. I guess it's just to highlight restrictions on Hollow Point ammo.

#13 - The premise of the argument is wrong, not all sellers are required to be licensed. Some of those unlicensed sellers sell at gun shows. Federally licensed sellers need to do a background check, while unlicensed sellers do not. This however varies drastically from state to state.

Its another "Appeal to Definition" fallacy. By saying it's not really a 'Gun Show' loophole its a 'private seller' loophole, does not address the substance of the counter arguments.

#14 - Is the worst point made in this entire article. It basically boils down to;

"universal background checks" happen even if there is no federal standard.

"universal background checks" do not work at some places for undefined reasons. Without any mention of parameters for success or failure.

"universal background checks" only happen in some places for some firearm types. They don't work because a person who passed used the gun for a crime. With an 'Ad Hominem' attack thrown in for an 'Appeal to Emotion' fallacy.

So "universal background checks" don't work and are annoying because they keep law abiding citizens from getting guns. A claim that is not even brought up int the previous three paragraphs.

[jackfaire]

From what I have seen it boils down to a very simple formula.

Politicians write sensible gun legislation.

Talking heads and lobbyists paid by the NRA scream at congress and the public "they tryin ta take our guns"

The public says "Woah no don't take our guns! Write sensible gun legislation. I am going to vote against that bill you wrote and/or call you and tell you not to support it now get in there and write sensible gun legislation"

So the sensiblly wrtten bills get killed because no one could be bothered to read the bill for themselves instead trusting that they're being told the truth about what the bills say.

Creating a culture where any politician they don't systematically agree with is treated as an enemy who wants to hurt them.

The party system makes this very easy to do.

EDIT - This is based on personal observation I have met people at my job who are very "don't take my guns" that then say they want (insert things that are usually in gun control bills) but say they vote against any Democratic Gun Control bills because they are "trying to take our guns"

I have attempted to point out to quite a few of them to stop listening to talking heads who get paid by the outrage and to instead read the documents by people paid to look out for their interests. Sure there are corrupt politicians but most of them are just trying to follow public opinion.

We bitch and gripe about Lobbyists getting politicians in their pockets but really if the majority of their constituents weren't happy with what they did they would be replaced in office.

[mjr]

Originally Posted by jackfaire

Talking heads and lobbyists paid by the NRA scream at congress and the public "they tryin ta take our guns"

Shouldn't the same type of scrutiny you talk about apply to the NRA? Or is what politicians and the media say about them enough?

Asking for a friend.