6 ms·

From the other side, I also feel like the adversarial nature of the debate has gotten completely out of hand. Democracy is all about compromise, but when it co

From the other side, I also feel like the adversarial nature of the debate has gotten completely out of hand. Democracy is all about compromise, but when it comes to guns people just go off the rails. Here's how it feels from my point of view: I'd like it if the police could really just run a serial number (perhaps with judicial oversight, warrants, etc.), like they do on T.V. But the right takes my genuine desire to take some sensible measures to reduce violent crime and turns it into a desire to take away all of the guns and commit some atrocity. It's like I'm asking you if I could use your cellphone for a second to call for a ride, and you treat me like I'm definitely planning to steal it. Perhaps a sensible measure in some contexts, but it is always a fundamental statement about how little you trust me, and frankly insulting. Many on the left, of course, do the same thing, although obviously I'm not in as good of a position to describe it. Somehow we need to restore our trust in one another's shared values. It seems to me that a heavily partisan media has done the most to erode this trust (for example, the vicious attacks on the fundamental values of Bush and Obama), but there might be more too it.

hga 10y ago
Democracy is all about compromise Can you tell us what you are willing to give up to gain any of your goals? Compromise does not mean only we give up something, but not quite as much as was asked from us at the beginning of the process of drafting a law.
- onetwotree 10y ago
  What do you want? It's an honest question, but I think that part of the problem is that gun rights are at a sort of apogee in this country - I don't really have much more to give.
  - hga 10y ago
    gun rights are at a sort of apogee in this country I don't think it's quite that simple, for it's rather binary. In what I call the free states, it's still climbing, with e.g. 2 states going Constitutional Carry (no license required for concealed carry), with my Missouri likely joining them this month. In the slave states, its getting steadily worse, California is front and center, but also see the Massachusetts AG continuous redefining of the state's "assault weapons" law, and the various laws that have been passed in the last few years, plus Bloomberg's initiative campaign to ban the lending of firearms, a very direct threat to US gun culture. And of course there's the minor detail that a very large fraction of the country doesn't see this as a problem at all. The overwhelming majority of the states (42 with shall issue or better), and most of the people (72%, ditto), are directly living and driving this "apogee", through the politicians we freely elect. As for what we want, let's start with: Nationwide shall issue concealed carry. Nationwide reciprocity of concealed carry licenses. Going further, nationwide Constitutional Carry (no license required, which is the law of the land in 10 states now). An end to statewide "assault weapons" and magazine capacity bans. An end to statewide inexpensive gun bans (that's California and Massachusetts. Cut the thicket of "20,000" gun control laws nationwide to a relative handful, few enough that everyone can know what the law actually is. There's a whole bunch of "flypaper" laws that, whatever the claimed or real intent, just entrap those trying to abide by the law. Deport Michael Bloomberg ^_^. Seriously, rule unconstitutional the laws he's getting passed, generally by deceptive initiative, that ban the lending of guns, and that are directly aimed at strangulating the creation of new gun owners. End the VA's polices of removing gun rights from veterans without a real adjudication as is required by law, and stop the extension of this to the elderly on Social Security. End the ITAR attempt to put most of the nation's gunsmiths out of business. Put a stake in things like the BATFE's proposal to redefine what nitrogen percentage makes wetted nitrocellulose a high explosive (only stopped for now because of the disaster it posed for the DoD and the rest of the government). Terminate the BATFE with extreme prejudice, and forbid all in it from ever working in law enforcement again. This article paints a nice picture of them, but in the field they're murderous and incompetent thugs. The ban is to keep them from polluting other law enforcement agencies. I can go on if you want ^_^.
    - onetwotree 10y ago
      Well, I'm going to replace my comment. I'll just let yours stand as evidence of the kind of thing that happens when you ask for compromise on such a strange issue.
      - hga 10y ago
        Again, I ask you, what are you willing to give up? If you can't list a single thing, where's the "compromise"? And please don't take a list and assume I'm demanding all of it in exchange for one of your items, "kitchen sink" may be what I ultimately want, but not in this narrow context (by the same token, the liberals are not shy about calling for total confiscations, so where's the compromise on that side?). ADDED: And I have no need to replace my comment, since you are not willing to specify anything you're willing to give up. Not. One. Single. Thing. Maybe we have different definitions of the word compromise?
        onetwotree 10y ago
        > Maybe we have different definitions of the word compromise. Well if yours is to ask for measures so extreme that I've never even heard of them, then yes, we do. You make responsible gun owners look like nuts. But thanks, you've done a wonderful job of illustrating the problem I was commenting on.
        hga 10y ago
        If you've never heard of nationwide reciprocity of concealed carry licenses then you simply don't know very much about the subject, it's probably #1 on our long term wish list right now, seeing as how 42 states have shall issue or better concealed carry regimes that create a confusing patchwork of laws, reciprocity here but not there, etc., a perfect thing for the Federal government to apply itself to. And I'm not surprised you haven't heard of the ITAR effort to put most of the nation's gunsmiths out of business, it's very new and still fairly obscure, but are you telling me you see nothing wrong with the general concept of destroying their livelihoods and the work they do for us? I also gave myself great wiggle room in the "20,000" laws and flypaper bit; are you telling me you can't think of one gun law that makes no sense at all, perhaps one that hasn't worked out in practice? Maybe a relaxation on "the shoulder thing that flips up"? And, again, ignoring any of the "extreme" items in my wish list, You. Can't. List. A. Single. Thing. to give us in return. If you're asking us to "compromise", but have no idea what you're willing to give up to get what you want, how should we view your offer? As for your opinion that this makes half the country "look like nuts", "We don't care." We'll just keep piling up the legislative victories in our free states, and sending enough Congresscritters to D.C. who know better than to cross us to keep the Federal government in relative stasis. And it looks like we'll help elect the most pro-gun President since JFK.
bjt2n3904 10y ago
> my genuine desire to take some sensible measures to reduce violent crime How is a database a sensible measure? Even in your example (like on TV), the crime has already been committed. We see this in the real world too. After the Pulse massacre, they looked up the gun. Sure enough, it belonged to the shooter, who passed background checks, took training courses, and went through psych evaluations. All of the above (frequently touted) measures were completely ineffective at preventing or even mitigating the disaster. I too have a genuine desire to stop mass shootings, but the genuine-ness of my desires doesn't necessarily mean effective-ness.
- onetwotree 10y ago
  This is the kind of thing that deserves study and debate. But when study is cut off from federal funding, and debate constantly suffers from a lack of trust, we're really screwed.
  - hga 10y ago
    This so called study still has plenty of dollars chasing it, with Bloomberg's billions now stepping up to the plate, the problem is with that "so called" detail. The major medical journals such as the NEJM are quite willing to publish self-evident garbage, like Kellerman's infamous one that only scored a successful self-defense use of a gun if it killed the perpetrator, which we're not legally or morally allowed to intend, nor is the common outcome (about a 1/4th chance of a handgun round to the torso killing the target, and most are never shot at, few are hit, and fewer hit in a vital area). I for one think e.g. the the CDC has one job, one that it's manifestly been failing at as has become obvious with the lab screwups and the Ebola response, and which we may now be seeing with Zika. As for the lack of trust, the gun control side does not hide its desire for confiscation; how is the other side supposed to have any trust in its good will?

hga 10y ago

Democracy is all about compromise Can you tell us what you are willing to give up to gain any of your goals? Compromise does not mean only we give up something, but not quite as much as was asked from us at the beginning of the process of drafting a law.

onetwotree 10y ago
What do you want? It's an honest question, but I think that part of the problem is that gun rights are at a sort of apogee in this country - I don't really have much more to give.
- hga 10y ago
  gun rights are at a sort of apogee in this country I don't think it's quite that simple, for it's rather binary. In what I call the free states, it's still climbing, with e.g. 2 states going Constitutional Carry (no license required for concealed carry), with my Missouri likely joining them this month. In the slave states, its getting steadily worse, California is front and center, but also see the Massachusetts AG continuous redefining of the state's "assault weapons" law, and the various laws that have been passed in the last few years, plus Bloomberg's initiative campaign to ban the lending of firearms, a very direct threat to US gun culture. And of course there's the minor detail that a very large fraction of the country doesn't see this as a problem at all. The overwhelming majority of the states (42 with shall issue or better), and most of the people (72%, ditto), are directly living and driving this "apogee", through the politicians we freely elect. As for what we want, let's start with: Nationwide shall issue concealed carry. Nationwide reciprocity of concealed carry licenses. Going further, nationwide Constitutional Carry (no license required, which is the law of the land in 10 states now). An end to statewide "assault weapons" and magazine capacity bans. An end to statewide inexpensive gun bans (that's California and Massachusetts. Cut the thicket of "20,000" gun control laws nationwide to a relative handful, few enough that everyone can know what the law actually is. There's a whole bunch of "flypaper" laws that, whatever the claimed or real intent, just entrap those trying to abide by the law. Deport Michael Bloomberg ^_^. Seriously, rule unconstitutional the laws he's getting passed, generally by deceptive initiative, that ban the lending of guns, and that are directly aimed at strangulating the creation of new gun owners. End the VA's polices of removing gun rights from veterans without a real adjudication as is required by law, and stop the extension of this to the elderly on Social Security. End the ITAR attempt to put most of the nation's gunsmiths out of business. Put a stake in things like the BATFE's proposal to redefine what nitrogen percentage makes wetted nitrocellulose a high explosive (only stopped for now because of the disaster it posed for the DoD and the rest of the government). Terminate the BATFE with extreme prejudice, and forbid all in it from ever working in law enforcement again. This article paints a nice picture of them, but in the field they're murderous and incompetent thugs. The ban is to keep them from polluting other law enforcement agencies. I can go on if you want ^_^.
  - onetwotree 10y ago
    Well, I'm going to replace my comment. I'll just let yours stand as evidence of the kind of thing that happens when you ask for compromise on such a strange issue.
    - hga 10y ago
      Again, I ask you, what are you willing to give up? If you can't list a single thing, where's the "compromise"? And please don't take a list and assume I'm demanding all of it in exchange for one of your items, "kitchen sink" may be what I ultimately want, but not in this narrow context (by the same token, the liberals are not shy about calling for total confiscations, so where's the compromise on that side?). ADDED: And I have no need to replace my comment, since you are not willing to specify anything you're willing to give up. Not. One. Single. Thing. Maybe we have different definitions of the word compromise?
      - onetwotree 10y ago
        > Maybe we have different definitions of the word compromise. Well if yours is to ask for measures so extreme that I've never even heard of them, then yes, we do. You make responsible gun owners look like nuts. But thanks, you've done a wonderful job of illustrating the problem I was commenting on.
        hga 10y ago
        If you've never heard of nationwide reciprocity of concealed carry licenses then you simply don't know very much about the subject, it's probably #1 on our long term wish list right now, seeing as how 42 states have shall issue or better concealed carry regimes that create a confusing patchwork of laws, reciprocity here but not there, etc., a perfect thing for the Federal government to apply itself to. And I'm not surprised you haven't heard of the ITAR effort to put most of the nation's gunsmiths out of business, it's very new and still fairly obscure, but are you telling me you see nothing wrong with the general concept of destroying their livelihoods and the work they do for us? I also gave myself great wiggle room in the "20,000" laws and flypaper bit; are you telling me you can't think of one gun law that makes no sense at all, perhaps one that hasn't worked out in practice? Maybe a relaxation on "the shoulder thing that flips up"? And, again, ignoring any of the "extreme" items in my wish list, You. Can't. List. A. Single. Thing. to give us in return. If you're asking us to "compromise", but have no idea what you're willing to give up to get what you want, how should we view your offer? As for your opinion that this makes half the country "look like nuts", "We don't care." We'll just keep piling up the legislative victories in our free states, and sending enough Congresscritters to D.C. who know better than to cross us to keep the Federal government in relative stasis. And it looks like we'll help elect the most pro-gun President since JFK.

bjt2n3904 10y ago

> my genuine desire to take some sensible measures to reduce violent crime How is a database a sensible measure? Even in your example (like on TV), the crime has already been committed. We see this in the real world too. After the Pulse massacre, they looked up the gun. Sure enough, it belonged to the shooter, who passed background checks, took training courses, and went through psych evaluations. All of the above (frequently touted) measures were completely ineffective at preventing or even mitigating the disaster. I too have a genuine desire to stop mass shootings, but the genuine-ness of my desires doesn't necessarily mean effective-ness.

onetwotree 10y ago
This is the kind of thing that deserves study and debate. But when study is cut off from federal funding, and debate constantly suffers from a lack of trust, we're really screwed.
- hga 10y ago
  This so called study still has plenty of dollars chasing it, with Bloomberg's billions now stepping up to the plate, the problem is with that "so called" detail. The major medical journals such as the NEJM are quite willing to publish self-evident garbage, like Kellerman's infamous one that only scored a successful self-defense use of a gun if it killed the perpetrator, which we're not legally or morally allowed to intend, nor is the common outcome (about a 1/4th chance of a handgun round to the torso killing the target, and most are never shot at, few are hit, and fewer hit in a vital area). I for one think e.g. the the CDC has one job, one that it's manifestly been failing at as has become obvious with the lab screwups and the Ebola response, and which we may now be seeing with Zika. As for the lack of trust, the gun control side does not hide its desire for confiscation; how is the other side supposed to have any trust in its good will?