5 ms·

Here is an analogy that might help you understand how the other side is feeling about your "rational gun control" ideas: http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/

by tropo 10y ago

Here is an analogy that might help you understand how the other side is feeling about your "rational gun control" ideas: http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/ http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-comprom... What can you offer them, other than a smaller piece of what is left of the cake? It's not compromise if you don't offer anything.

maxerickson 10y ago
Of course it has been a compromise. Effective gun control means something like no private pistol ownership and tightly limited ownership of long guns with small internal magazines. I mean, this is a political non goal, not nearly enough people agree with it, but let's not pretend that rules about pistol grips on rifles mean anything. It would still be quite interesting to have a referendum on a constitutional amendment that provided clear legal powers for such restrictions. Not because I particularly think it would succeed, just to see the numbers.
- tropo 10y ago
  Heh. No really... what would you give up? Compromise means you have to provide something to the other side. I hope you looked at the link I posted. Suggestion: fixing gun rights to be like driving rights, recognized in every state, so that driving from New Hampshire to Texas with a gun isn't a felony. (imagine if you needed a separate driver's license for each state) Suggestion: allow mufflers on firearms to help prevent hearing loss. We allow mufflers on cars. Suggestion: where carry is allowed, it may be concealed, and non-concealed is never worse than a fine. Got any ideas? Remember, it has to be something the gun owners would actually like. Without giving something up, you aren't making a compromise. You're just taking more of the cake.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    No where is it written that the path forward must be compromise. My argument is that a healthy society would choose to let people have a tictac rather than arguing about cake. The taking away the cake is just a rhetorical framing device to make the argument about taking something away rather than about what is reasonable for society as it exists today. You say I hope you looked at the link I posted. but apparently didn't pay much attention to where I conceded that it is not politically plausible to move to a strict gun control regime in the US (and I readily concede that steps less than a strict gun control regime will not be especially effective in reducing gun violence). I think the first step towards a better situation with guns in the US is to convince people to stop owning them using means other than the law. Then I don't have to compromise with them anymore to get stronger laws.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      >No where is it written that the path forward must be compromise. Well, there you are. Just remember that when gun advocates fight you over every inch of political ground.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        As I said, I support gun control but don't see it as a viable political goal. So I guess I won't be stunned if gun advocates continue to gun advocate.
      - Retric 10y ago
        The long term trend over the last 200 years is gun advocates are slowly losing. As someone that enjoys shooting that does bother me, but don't expect public gun ownership to be a thing in 200 years without some fundamental changes. Personally, I would focus on winnable fights. But, politically having red flag issues tend to get out the voters.
        gozur88 10y ago
        Technology has changed too much to make any sort of reasonable comparison of gun politics today with those of two hundred years ago. Certainly the national mood has shifted toward fewer restrictions on guns over the last generation.
        Retric 10y ago
        If you want recent comparison then while gun technology has changed little, there has been a 10+% drop in private gun ownership from 1961 to now. Though there is some very high error bars on those statistics. Hunting has also become significantly less popular. These really are significant shifts is public behavior. And eventually public attitudes really do influence politics. IMO, advocating for the rights of gun owners is a losing strategy, you need to promote gun ownership.
    - tropo 10y ago

by tropo 10y ago

maxerickson 10y ago

Of course it has been a compromise. Effective gun control means something like no private pistol ownership and tightly limited ownership of long guns with small internal magazines. I mean, this is a political non goal, not nearly enough people agree with it, but let's not pretend that rules about pistol grips on rifles mean anything. It would still be quite interesting to have a referendum on a constitutional amendment that provided clear legal powers for such restrictions. Not because I particularly think it would succeed, just to see the numbers.

tropo 10y ago
Heh. No really... what would you give up? Compromise means you have to provide something to the other side. I hope you looked at the link I posted. Suggestion: fixing gun rights to be like driving rights, recognized in every state, so that driving from New Hampshire to Texas with a gun isn't a felony. (imagine if you needed a separate driver's license for each state) Suggestion: allow mufflers on firearms to help prevent hearing loss. We allow mufflers on cars. Suggestion: where carry is allowed, it may be concealed, and non-concealed is never worse than a fine. Got any ideas? Remember, it has to be something the gun owners would actually like. Without giving something up, you aren't making a compromise. You're just taking more of the cake.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  No where is it written that the path forward must be compromise. My argument is that a healthy society would choose to let people have a tictac rather than arguing about cake. The taking away the cake is just a rhetorical framing device to make the argument about taking something away rather than about what is reasonable for society as it exists today. You say I hope you looked at the link I posted. but apparently didn't pay much attention to where I conceded that it is not politically plausible to move to a strict gun control regime in the US (and I readily concede that steps less than a strict gun control regime will not be especially effective in reducing gun violence). I think the first step towards a better situation with guns in the US is to convince people to stop owning them using means other than the law. Then I don't have to compromise with them anymore to get stronger laws.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    >No where is it written that the path forward must be compromise. Well, there you are. Just remember that when gun advocates fight you over every inch of political ground.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      As I said, I support gun control but don't see it as a viable political goal. So I guess I won't be stunned if gun advocates continue to gun advocate.
    - Retric 10y ago
      The long term trend over the last 200 years is gun advocates are slowly losing. As someone that enjoys shooting that does bother me, but don't expect public gun ownership to be a thing in 200 years without some fundamental changes. Personally, I would focus on winnable fights. But, politically having red flag issues tend to get out the voters.
      - gozur88 10y ago
        Technology has changed too much to make any sort of reasonable comparison of gun politics today with those of two hundred years ago. Certainly the national mood has shifted toward fewer restrictions on guns over the last generation.
        Retric 10y ago
        If you want recent comparison then while gun technology has changed little, there has been a 10+% drop in private gun ownership from 1961 to now. Though there is some very high error bars on those statistics. Hunting has also become significantly less popular. These really are significant shifts is public behavior. And eventually public attitudes really do influence politics. IMO, advocating for the rights of gun owners is a losing strategy, you need to promote gun ownership.
  - tropo 10y ago