From outside the bubble...


PDA






Titan6
July 19, 2009, 06:57 PM
I found this an interesting read.

Why do you even bother arguing with the gun nuts?

If the store owner is shot, they argue for more guns.

If the store owner shoots back, they argue that more guns are good.

If a gun is involved in a crime, they argue that they need more guns to protect themselves against the criminals.

If crime rates increase, they argue that more guns are needed.

If crime rates decrease, they argue that more guns in homes and carried as concealed weapons are a deterrent, and even more guns are needed to push crime rates down further.

If asked what they would do in a self-defense situation, they claim to be well-trained and sure that they would handle the situation effectively.

If it is pointed out that gun ownership in the home is correlated with increased rates of murder among family members, and increased risk of suicide, they argue that risk exists only for other families, and not for themselves. Or they argue that they are best able to take on that risk, not realizing they are actually creating the risk for everyone in their household,

The gun nuts don’t even acknowledge that the risk of murder and suicide within their family is higher than the likelihood of deterring a crime within their home.

If confronted with the cross-cultural data that show high rates of gun ownership in the USA is correlated with high rates of homicide and suicide, they wave the “liberal socialist” card.

The gun nuts don’t acknowledge that almost every gun used in the commission of a crime starts as a legally purchased weapon, sold though a large, licensed dealer, which is then stolen or sold through channels with weak or no regulations.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing if one of these die-hard 2nd amendment advocates actually said, “yes, I agree that the gun ownership increases murder and suicide rates and makes it easy for criminals to get guns, but now that we are where we are with high rates of illicit gun ownership, I just feel safer and I will stand on that principle” ?

Rather than waiving the “liberal socalist” card and demeaning others who make different choices?

You cannot win an argument with a gun nut because a gun nut is always right in his or her own mind. No data can contradict the gun nut’s belief that guns are good, that more guns are needed, and only criminals mis-use guns.

So stop arguing with the gun nuts.

Educate yourself on the risk of guns in the household. Educate yourself on the 2nd amendment case law and why 2nd amendment cases almost never make it to the Supreme Court. Educate yourself on why a position on gun rights should not be a litmus test for politicians of any party.

But please, stop rising to the bait of the gun nuts. They are not worth your time.

DISCLAIMER:

I learned firearm safety at age 11, when it was time to learn marksmanship at Boy Scout camp. I learned hunting safety at age 13. I cleaned my grandfather’s collection of firearms for years. I inherited some of those firearms. I was also a member of the NRA until I realized their leadership were gun nuts with no willingness to seek middle ground.

We don't get to see this very often around here because.... well it is self explanatory is it not?

It was here with this article:

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/MART191_20090718-234801/280934/

If you enjoyed reading about "From outside the bubble..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bigfatdave
July 19, 2009, 07:04 PM
I learned firearm safety at age 11, when it was time to learn marksmanship at Boy Scout camp. I learned hunting safety at age 13. I cleaned my grandfather’s collection of firearms for years. I inherited some of those firearms. I was also a member of the NRA until I realized their leadership were gun nuts with no willingness to seek middle ground.So the author thinks gun owners are arrogant and think the (skewed and stretched) statistics don't apply to their own households ... and yet is a firearms owner who obviously doesn't think those same statistics apply to their household.

Logic FAIL

c919
July 19, 2009, 07:07 PM
NRA.... No willingness to seek middle ground....

Ok. Right........

AKElroy
July 19, 2009, 07:17 PM
Open a Thread dealing with the issue of "reasonable" gun restrictions and you will find many IN THIS FORUM holding many of these views. Some allow thier actions to be driven in such a way as to not offend individuals such as the author of that peice. Cannot be done---If you own a gun & disagree with them on any level, you are offensive and must be defeated.

JImbothefiveth
July 19, 2009, 07:21 PM
If confronted with the cross-cultural data that show high rates of gun ownership in the USA is correlated with high rates of homicide and suicide, they wave the “liberal socialist” card. Well, if it wasn't true the author would be able to say why it's not true.

Here's the question: When has gun control reduced crime or suicide? There has been stuff like project exile that reduced crime, yet that was better enforcement.

orvpark
July 19, 2009, 07:29 PM
exactly

The NRA is the middle ground.

Old Fuff
July 19, 2009, 07:29 PM
Their idea of "middle ground" is to pass more restrictions and give back nothing. While they trumpet statistics that have been discredited, they refuse to notice published news accounts where the availability of a firearm has saved good people and thwarted criminals. They often call for more legislation when it is obvious that the proposal will have little impact on crime because it can’t effectively be enforced against those who commit crimes. They bemoan the death of “children,” but use a 20 year-old gangbanger to pad the numbers they cite. Put bluntly, this individual is a fraud.

Titan6
July 19, 2009, 07:33 PM
Here's the question: When has gun control reduced crime or suicide?

Not in the UK that is for sure, the rate of self harm has steadily increased since the bans were enacted.

Titan6
July 19, 2009, 07:39 PM
A bit later he says:

There already is middle ground. The gun nuts simply do not acknowledge this.

For example:

Ownership of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns is highly regulated, even though those weapons meet the criteria of milita-relevant weapons, and hence should not be restricted under a literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Interstate sales of modern firearms through mail order has been banned since 1968.

Many states have statutes restricting the sales of guns to persons under age 21—federal statutes apply only to licensed dealers, whereas some states extend this to unlicensed sellers.

Some states enforce waiting periods on guns sales, as well as allow local law enforcement to limit concealed weapon permits to those with a legitimate law enforcement purpose (eg., bounty hunters, private detectives). Some staets also allow local municipalities to pass gun control ordinances that are stricter than state law.

In once case, the DC handgun ban, the Supreme Court overruled the local ordinance, but even in that case it was a split decision (5-4) and the Court upheld the District of Columbia’s authority to require handgun registration. The Court also upheld common restrictions on gun ownership by felons, mentally ill persons, and prohibitions on automatic weapons, etc. Furthermore, the Court stated that the Heller ruling should not be interpreted broadly—in doing so, the Court defined that there is a broad “middle ground” within which state and local authorities and lower courts may exercise discretion.

Also, gun owners who are merely transporting firearms across jurisdictions cannot be held liable for violating more restrictive regulations within the local jurisdiction. The federal law creates ‘save haven’ that most would agree is reasonable when exercised by a law-abiding gun owner, but not a safe haven for illicit transportation of weapons that would not be legal for the transporter to hold within their home jurisdiction.

If that is not “middle ground” then I don’t know what would be.

But rather than acknowledge a middle ground, “whiteeagle” cites Ben Franklin’s quote. That quote often appears on the email signatures of gun nuts.

Now do you see why I say do not argue with gun nuts? There is nothing there to argue with—no compelling logic, no well-reasoned position, just a simple, self-righteous belief in folksy sayings, and a complete disregard for the middle ground.

THE DARK KNIGHT
July 19, 2009, 07:40 PM
Reasonable Gun Regulation:
Being able to apply for your permit to purchase a childproof .22lr or .410 shotgun once every 6 months after fingerprinting, registration, 30 day waiting period after a background check and 3 letters of reference. Also displaying your permit to purchase .22lr or .410 shotgun micro-stamped ammunition 50 rounds per year.

AK kind of guy
July 19, 2009, 07:44 PM
If it is pointed out that gun ownership in the home is correlated with increased rates of murder among family members, and increased risk of suicide, they argue that risk exists only for other families, and not for themselves. Or they argue that they are best able to take on that risk, not realizing they are actually creating the risk for everyone in their household People who want to harm themself or someone else will do it with whatever means they have why dont people rally against kitchen knives and asprin they are in far more homes than guns and can easily kill ones seilf or somebody else if used in a inproper way

Tommygunn
July 19, 2009, 08:06 PM
Sounds an awful lot like the author is sore that their argument isn't simply accepted without debate.

If it is pointed out that gun ownership in the home is correlated with increased rates of murder among family members, and increased risk of suicide, they argue that risk exists only for other families, and not for themselves. Or they argue that they are best able to take on that risk, not realizing they are actually creating the risk for everyone in their household.

Like the infamous "43 times more likely to be killed with a gun in the house than by an intruder ..." argument .... in which the statistic gatherers included all crack houses, meth houses, and other similar activities together .... I mean, gee whiz, if you don't live in a crack house, or a meth house, or bring similar unsavory characters into your home, then why would you expect to have a higher chance at being shot by a gun?

Of course, ignore that millions of people have firearms in their homes and no one is murdered or accidently shot ... go figure ....

Or ignore Criminologist Gary Kleck's studies, that indicate that between one and two million law abiding people use firearms to successfully defend themselves every year ...
go figure.

So stop arguing with the gun nuts.


So it's OK to complain that the ... ahem, "gun nuts" denounce their "opponents" as "liberal socialists" (eewwww, that horrible "name-calling") but, of course, the term "gun nut" is perfectly OK.


ARGH!

Zane
July 19, 2009, 08:44 PM
f it is pointed out that gun ownership in the home is correlated with increased rates of murder among family members, and increased risk of suicide, they argue that risk exists only for other families, and not for themselves. Or they argue that they are best able to take on that risk, not realizing they are actually creating the risk for everyone in their household,

I'm assuming this is referencing one of the famous Arthur Kellermann studies.

The author is somewhat misquoting the conclusions. Kellermann argued that a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an assailant. As the vast majority of the deaths in his study were suicides, thus having a gun is more likely to lead to suicide.

The study does not support this conclusion. More over, if you look at suicide rates in the US compared to European countries with restrictive firearms laws, the rates are very similar. While the US is higher than many, it is certainly not at the top.

The methodology is flawed. As self defense is very rare and death by suicide is very high, in comparison, you could probably show that pepper spray ownership or going to karate classes puts you at higher risk of death than successfully defending yourself from an attacker.

Kellermann's other study showed, that after adjustment for other confounders, a gun in the home increases the risk of homicide by 2.7 times. What are the other confounders? Drug use, a criminal in the home and history of fights in the home. Basically, all things that would make a person prohibited from having a gun in the home. Additionally, many people killed in the home were killed by people who don't live there. Thus the correlation of the gun seems to be more a marker of violence than the "cause" of violence.

The gun nuts don’t acknowledge that almost every gun used in the commission of a crime starts as a legally purchased weapon, sold though a large, licensed dealer, which is then stolen or sold through channels with weak or no regulations.

Lots of stuff gets stolen and resold. That means we shouldn't have potentially dangerous things that could get stolen and resold...like cars. Knives? Pipes? Spears? Bow and arrow? Puppies?

You cannot win an argument with a gun nut because a gun nut is always right in his or her own mind.

Don't think the antis are much better. They just use garbage data to make themselves think they are right.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing if one of these die-hard 2nd amendment advocates actually said, “yes, I agree that the gun ownership increases murder and suicide rates...

No data actually supports that, so I have nothing to admit, on the score.

This is the key to destroying an anti. Learn the ins and outs of their data and then destroy it. That leaves them with nothing but their feelings.

Animal Mother
July 19, 2009, 10:59 PM
You cannot win an argument with a gun nut because a gun nut is always right.

There, I fixed it for him. :neener:


Seriously though, I don't understand why we have to meet a middle ground with these people. I don't have to meet a middle ground with racists, bigots, fascists, or other deprivers of liberty, why in the world should I meet a middle ground with this person?

I am absolutely convinced on the rightness of my beliefs and I will not be swayed otherwise.

After all, the relevant constitutional amendment which guarantees my liberty reads as follows:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 20, 2009, 12:41 AM
I am very pleased that this person is espousing a "don't argue with the gun nuts" approach - if he/she convinces a few other hoplophobes to keep their yammering libtard pieholes shut, we'll all be that much happier. Sounds win-win to me.

HeavenlySword
July 20, 2009, 01:07 AM
sadly, too many people think like that.

WTBguns10kOK
July 20, 2009, 01:22 AM
I wish someone could do a candid camera show where someone pretended to attack them or their children, magically introduce an airsoft/paintball gun for their defense and see how many of them find they actually possess a survival instinct.

happygeek
July 20, 2009, 02:18 AM
Yeah, just another idiot talking about guns and violence in the states while somehow forgetting about gangbangers and the War on Drugs. When will people wake up and realize that gangs that make their money from selling drugs are to blame for much of the violence in this country? Making drugs illegal didn't solve the issue or stop criminals from having/selling them. What makes them think that making guns illegal would have any better result? Here's some simple logic for any politician: when you ban something that is in demand you create a black market. Black markets tend to breed violence, since the only way to settle a dispute in a black market is through violence. They even teach this principle in college economics classes, at least they did when I was there. It was true in the 1920s with prohibition and Al Capone, it's just as true today with drugs.

On a side note, maybe I should start saying that free speech should be illegal and complain that those pesky first amendment supporters are unwilling to compromise on a middle ground with me ... :banghead:

TX1911fan
July 20, 2009, 04:23 PM
So, in his second post he acknowledges that there is already a "middle ground"? Then why do we need any more regulation or compromise? If we are already at the middle ground, why doesn't he shut up? Why keep harping for more regulation? That must mean he doesn't like the middle ground and wants to move from it . . . which is exactly why we oppose virtually ANY new gun law. We know which way they are trying to go.

oneounceload
July 20, 2009, 04:53 PM
With a few minor changes, that could be turned around to say something along the lines about not wasting time arguing with the gun CONTROL nuts - that there is already a middle ground, etc., etc.

BullitHolz
July 20, 2009, 05:22 PM
Consider the fact that he SHOWS his obvious bias by referring to the so-called "gun nuts" right off the bat and henceforth there CAN BE NO MIDDLE GROUND with him in the first place, it simply can't exist with an attitude like the one he demonstrates.

This whole idea of a "middle ground" is bull anyway, sounds good but most of the politically senstive subjects are not suite to a mile groun argument. Think of it like subjects about religion or pregnancy or abortion...these are black an white by their very nature. You either beleive in god or you don't, you either are pregnant or your not, you either kill a fetus or you don't.

It's THE IDEA that there can be a "middle ground" is where many of these problems come from IMO. The old idea that "you can have your cake and eat it too". The entire premise is simply incompatible with the very "real" world we live in and is the root cause of most of our problems.

CoRoMo
July 20, 2009, 05:23 PM
...demeaning others who make different choices?

I've never quite seen such a hypocritical statement as this. Talk about calling the kettle black.


There already is middle ground. The gun nuts simply do not acknowledge this.

This guy has bought into the fallacy that the anti-2A crowd is only interested in finding a compromised middle ground, and that it will stop there and everyone will be happy. He's obviously never heard them speak for themselves.

bigfatdave
July 20, 2009, 08:55 PM
On a side note, maybe I should start saying that free speech should be illegal and complain that those pesky first amendment supporters are unwilling to compromise on a middle ground with meOr start arguing about the Third. "If you think that the Second Amendment is outdated and irrelevant, how about we house these nice young men in your home for the next decade or so?"

cchris
July 20, 2009, 11:32 PM
Arguing with this guy would be no different than feeding the trolls on here. His mind is made up, so no matter what you say, you're wrong.

I must add a tidbit about the "suicide rates" portion. In the 70's in the particular area I work, a portion of the suicides were committed with a small-caliber firearm or shotgun. As the years passed, the increase in painkillers made them a much more chosen alternative to firearms, and the number of suicides via the more painful path (firearms) decreased.

If you enjoyed reading about "From outside the bubble..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!