4 ms·

Your mistake is that you've brought reason to a gunfight. The NRA's response would be to say that banning handguns is a slippery slope to taking all the guns.

kbenson 9y ago
Yeah, I understand the NRA's expected response, but that doesn't account for the other side not attempting the argument. Unless they do and I just don't see it.
- barry-cotter 9y ago
  The NRA has the response it has because banning pistols as a prelude to banning or licensing all guns has already been tried. They're not idiots, many of them have lived through most of the history of the gun control movement, some have lived through all of it. Also, they can read. They know the aim is banning all guns. The '60s NRA was willing to meet gun control people in the middle. Now they're not because they've learned that the gun control people are not willing to stop there.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    > They know the aim is banning all guns. But it's not, for all people, and framing the discussion that way is very disingenuous of them. I don't want to ban all guns, I just want to address the problem (because I do think there is a problem), so not everyone wants that.
    - barry-cotter 9y ago
      There is a coalition of gun control people. Some of them want to ban or heavily restrict handguns but don't care much about long guns. Some of them want to ban all guns. The ones who want to ban handguns don't appear to object to banning all guns. If they do object it's not a priority and they're politically irrelevant.
      - kbenson 9y ago
        That doesn't seem to be a very helpful point of view. You also didn't support it in any way. Would you take me saying the reverse without requesting evidence for that opinion? e.g. There is a coalition of gun rights people. Some of them want absolutely no restrictions whatsoever. Some of them are accepting of some controls on certain types of guns. The ones that are accepting of certain types of controls don't appear to object to shutting down any control of guns. If they do object it's not a priority and they're politically irrelevant. Is it possible your view on this is colored by the narrative that's been presented by people with a vested interest? It wouldn't be the first time that a loud minority controlled a narrative and thus the issue. It's easy to believe there are no moderates, or they constitute a minority, if both sides think the other side is unreasonable and reaching too far, as that can cause people to vote against the perceived agenda of the other side rather than for what they themselves really want.
        barry-cotter 9y ago
        I think that what you wrote is basically accurate. There was previously a potential lasting bargain where handguns would have been heavily restricted and long guns not so much. The trust and belief in the good faith of the opposing side is now gone on both sides. It is absolutely possible that my views on this topic have been coloured by people with a vested interest, i.e. people who care about it. I don't believe there are no moderates, nor that they constitute a minority. I think the immoderates care more, spend more and are better organised so they have a disproportionate effect on what happens. Given the choice between getting 80% of what they want and 5% people will choose the first, avoiding defeat at the hands of the enemy has a higher priority than actual perfection.

kbenson 9y ago

Yeah, I understand the NRA's expected response, but that doesn't account for the other side not attempting the argument. Unless they do and I just don't see it.

barry-cotter 9y ago
The NRA has the response it has because banning pistols as a prelude to banning or licensing all guns has already been tried. They're not idiots, many of them have lived through most of the history of the gun control movement, some have lived through all of it. Also, they can read. They know the aim is banning all guns. The '60s NRA was willing to meet gun control people in the middle. Now they're not because they've learned that the gun control people are not willing to stop there.
- kbenson 9y ago
  > They know the aim is banning all guns. But it's not, for all people, and framing the discussion that way is very disingenuous of them. I don't want to ban all guns, I just want to address the problem (because I do think there is a problem), so not everyone wants that.
  - barry-cotter 9y ago
    There is a coalition of gun control people. Some of them want to ban or heavily restrict handguns but don't care much about long guns. Some of them want to ban all guns. The ones who want to ban handguns don't appear to object to banning all guns. If they do object it's not a priority and they're politically irrelevant.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      That doesn't seem to be a very helpful point of view. You also didn't support it in any way. Would you take me saying the reverse without requesting evidence for that opinion? e.g. There is a coalition of gun rights people. Some of them want absolutely no restrictions whatsoever. Some of them are accepting of some controls on certain types of guns. The ones that are accepting of certain types of controls don't appear to object to shutting down any control of guns. If they do object it's not a priority and they're politically irrelevant. Is it possible your view on this is colored by the narrative that's been presented by people with a vested interest? It wouldn't be the first time that a loud minority controlled a narrative and thus the issue. It's easy to believe there are no moderates, or they constitute a minority, if both sides think the other side is unreasonable and reaching too far, as that can cause people to vote against the perceived agenda of the other side rather than for what they themselves really want.
      - barry-cotter 9y ago
        I think that what you wrote is basically accurate. There was previously a potential lasting bargain where handguns would have been heavily restricted and long guns not so much. The trust and belief in the good faith of the opposing side is now gone on both sides. It is absolutely possible that my views on this topic have been coloured by people with a vested interest, i.e. people who care about it. I don't believe there are no moderates, nor that they constitute a minority. I think the immoderates care more, spend more and are better organised so they have a disproportionate effect on what happens. Given the choice between getting 80% of what they want and 5% people will choose the first, avoiding defeat at the hands of the enemy has a higher priority than actual perfection.