A reason why we are losing

[Nom de Forum]

iMagUdspEllr,

I salute and appreciate your attempt to improve the techniques to fight the good fight.

I can not agree with you that we are losing.

I think you are laboring under a false assumption about the "gun community" Your statement,

Every time I interact with the gun community I meet argumentative, stubborn, and ignorant people that can't stand not having the last word at any cost..

is incorrectly limiting. It should read "Every time I interact with the (Fill in the blank_____________) community I meet argumentative, stubborn, and ignorant people that can't stand not having the last word at any cost."

People are people regardless of what "community". You probably already know that, but I think you may currently be a little emotionally compromised by the disagreement from the majority you are getting in another current thread. Try to remember that me and some of the rest of us may be sobs, but we are sobs on your side that probably agree with most of your views.

 

[sayak]

I do not agree that we are losing.
If we cannot communicate with anti-gun folks, it is because we cannot reason with them. They are emotionally driven rather than logical.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Get them to bring that to the table, and I'll let you know. Don't just put out feelers for folks willing to "compromise", and then bring a different item to the table than what was promised, which has been common for the antis. Actually bring that exact deal to the table, and then we'll talk.

Yeah.... pretty sure unless one of us is secretly a US congressman, nothing is being brought to the table on the basis of us yakking it up here on THR.

You can't even discuss the possibility of what might or might not be acceptable to you? Why not?

 

[Nom de Forum]

I do not agree that we are losing.
If we cannot communicate with anti-gun folks, it is because we cannot reason with them. They are emotionally driven rather than logical.

Then you need to use emotion to communicate with them. Make them empathize with your pain. It is not like many of the pro-gun folks aren't emotionally driven rather than logical.

 

[JRH6856]

You can't even discuss the possibility of what might or might not be acceptable to you?

What would be acceptable to me is a Constitutional amendment shielding firearms and items necessary to their designed functioning (to include magazines and ammunition) from interstate commerce regulation.

Given its position as an amendment, the 2nd amendment should already do this, but apparently it needs to be made crystal clear.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Well, that is great that you want a huge victory for the pro gun side w/o giving anything up. Not very useful in a discussion about regaining ground through compromise.

 

[splattergun]

@splattergun: The problem is that if we make bad arguments they can catch us in bad arguments and then write story after story and do show after show about how we are evil, cruel, stupid, conspiring, malicious conspirators that want to kill babies. 'They will do anything to hold onto their death machines!' That is the issue.

My point is, that very few people on every side of the issue even KNOW how to debate! Is the discussion supposed to be limited to the professionally trained mouth-fighters, just to please you, or do we common plebes get to exercise our right to speaking our minds, too?

 

[Sam1911]

Well, that is great that you want a huge victory for the pro gun side w/o giving anything up. Not very useful in a discussion about regaining ground through compromise.

Oh! Holy cow, is THAT what this thread is about?

I was thinking it was about how we didn't compromise and instead just WON and that was a good thing.


...

And about how to debate ... And about whether psych testing will screen out mass murderers... And about getting the last word ... And about whether we're losing or not. ... And probably a bunch of other stuff.

 

[JRH6856]

Well, that is great that you want a huge victory for the pro gun side w/o giving anything up. Not very useful in a discussion about regaining ground through compromise.

Not interested in compromising the protection of fundamental core rights. I'm more interested in strengthening the protections and finding solutions to your perceived problems through other means.

 

[jerkface11]

I like how I suggested a 100 round limit and it's already been cut in half. Give an inch and they'll take a mile.

 

[readyeddy]

I give you folks credit for debating the cause. I just don't have the energy, or probably the skill the OP talks about. fyi, my opinion is that the battle, besides being a legal battle in the courts, is mostly PR, like a political campaign, so it comes down to TV ads and other mass media outlets.

 

[Walkalong]

You can't even discuss the possibility of what might or might not be acceptable to you? Why not?

I cannot answer a make believe question. You either missed my point, or have no interest in it, instead trying to move the focus.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

We're definitely winning.

I think that part of the problem the OP was talking about is that we can be impatient.

I'll be honest, I think that's part of my problem. Most of us here are well outside the mainstream when it comes to how far we'd like to roll back gun control. It can be easy to become frustrated that the process isn't moving as fast as we'd like, or even potentially going in the other direction at times.

This leads to how sometimes I'll hear a politician talking about gun control, and I agree with him in principle, but to my ears, what they're saying is painfully moderate. But, that's how a democratic society works.

The trick is making our positions sound like the more responsible ones.

Finally, we don't have to compromise anything. Many people seem to think that being in the center is compromising, but that's not true, it's simply being inconsistent. In politics, your positions can change, and they can shift, but your views can stay the same. You can advocate moderate positions that move the debate closer to your true goals, and remain internally consistent. That's how we win.

Most people don't come to hardcore pro-gun positions (or any issue really) without a lot of reading and studying. We do a valuable service here by providing a place for people to do that reading.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Not interested in compromising the protection of fundamental core rights. I'm more interested in strengthening the protections and finding solutions to your perceived problems through other means.

You say you want to strengthen rights, but when offered a proposal that, on the whole, strengthens rights you dismiss it. That legislation would be a MAJOR win for gun rights, but in your desire to "not compromise" you won't even accept a good deal. Not sure how those views are congruent.

Sam1911, I think this illustrates one reason it is hard to have these conversations, which was the original topic of the thread. I've had pro-gun people say they wouldn't be n favor of blatantly pro-gun measures because of the slightest sniff of gun control attached.

The strategy you discussed as winning IS winning (holding the line, preventing new legislation), but it has not produced any favorable federal legislation in a long time that I know of. Compromise would be a way to start taking back pieces of the pie. But, if the pro-gun community is like JRH, they would vote out anyone who they viewed as compromising, even if they got back a big piece of the pie for gun rights without giving up much.

What is the winning strategy for getting back rights that have been under attack for 100 years? You AREN'T going to get them all back in one fell swoop. Just doesn't happen. Problem is, the anti gun crowd is happy to chip away at rights, seems like the pro gun crowd is reluctant to chip back.

I like how I suggested a 100 round limit and it's already been cut in half. Give an inch and they'll take a mile.

You said you WOULD accept a 100 round Iimit. No reason to ask a question you already answered, so of course I made a proposal that is a bit more strict.

I cannot answer a make believe question. You either missed my point, or have no interest in it, instead trying to move the focus.

Apparently I did miss the point. To me it seemed like you were unwilling/unable to answer a pretty simple hypothetical question.

I would have no problem answering that type of question, don't really understand why you can't.

 

[DT Guy]

There is more than pragmatism in this fight, and that's what you will never get, Pizzapinochle.

Some of us view this not as a political game, but a struggle of right and wrong, justice and injustice. "Trading" is not an option for the more idealistic amongst us, regardless of what benefits it might bring.

Larry

 

[JRH6856]

You say you want to strengthen rights, but when offered a proposal that, on the whole, strengthens rights you dismiss it. That legislation would be a MAJOR win for gun rights, but in your desire to "not compromise" you won't even accept a good deal. Not sure how those views are congruent.

According to Scalia in Heller, the protection by the Constitution of certain enumerated core rights necessarily takes certain legislative options of the table. IMO, compromise regarding the exercise of those rights is one of those options. I might favor increasing the penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a crime, but that is a restriction of use. Use of arms is not protected by the Constitution and is subject to legislative restriction. We can probably find some common ground there. Keeping and bearing arms is protected and should not be subject to compromise.

 

[JohnKSa]

I see. Arguing is entertaining. I can see that. Debate is actually more entertaining to me. Because both sides actually understand each other and can examine and constructively critisize each other's points instead of digging at each other.

Well, one man's argument is another man's debate. However, I didn't say that arguing was entertaining. I said that the fact that humans tend to be "argumentative, stubborn, and ignorant people that can't stand not having the last word" is, among other things, the reason that discussion forums are interesting and entertaining. If no one were willing to argue, or if everyone were instantly willing to give up their point of view, or if everyone were informed and no one were ignorant, there would be hardly any point at all to having a discussion forum. If you did have one, it would be a pretty boring "place".

'That's just how things have always been.' isn't really an acceptable excuse to maintain the status quo instead of improving.

What makes you think I'm trying to make excuses for the human race or that I'm in favor of maintaining the status quo? My point was that based on your comments, the reason that pro-gunners are losing is because they're human and share traits common to people everywhere.

If you can find a way to change the nature of humans for the better, I'll be the first to recommend you for a Nobel Prize. I'm certainly not in favor of maintaining the status quo.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Keeping and bearing arms is protected and should not be subject to compromise.

But it is already compromised. NFA and the restriction on producing new full autos for civilian ownership is a much bigger compromise to the right to bear arms than a 50 round magazine limit.

Is trading one bad compromise for a BETTER compromise not a win?

I feel like i am offering a trade in apples. You have 6 apples. I offer to give you 6 more apples in exchange for TWO of your apples. You would have a total of 10 apples after the trade, but you are so worried about giving up two apples that you won't trade, even though you really want more apples and the end result is you getting more apples.

 

[barnbwt]

"Then you need to use emotion to communicate with them. Make them empathize with your pain. It is not like many of the pro-gun folks aren't emotionally driven rather than logical."

The problem is we 'feel' different 'pain,' and ours isn't the sympathetic kind.

Column A has; tragedies, community moral outrage, senseless violence, shocking gore, the children, the children, THE CHILDREN!!!!!!

Column B has; personal moral outrage, disdain/disgust towards our tyrannical system, a desire for "change" (i.e. revolution), a desire for freedom (i.e. anarchy), and a desire for trust/faith in free Americans (i.e. naiveté)

The people promising to save will always be seen as more sympathetic than the stern voices telling others to help themselves (or even worse, do nothing in response to terrible events with no solution). Human reasoning*/cognitive dissonance does not tolerate "no solution" being the solution to anything, even if that is the correct one. It's hard to argue with "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" Utilitarian rhetoric without getting in to the nitty-gritty person-level issues that urgent emotions have no patience for. "Damn the torpedos, man, we've got to do SOMETHING!!!!"

Hard to form a proper rebuttal to such butt-headedness

TCB

*not 'logic'

 

[Ed Ames]

You say you want to strengthen rights, but when offered a proposal that, on the whole, strengthens rights you dismiss it. That legislation would be a MAJOR win for gun rights, but in your desire to "not compromise" you won't even accept a good deal. Not sure how those views are congruent.

Where is this major win you mention?

All I saw was a variation on the old saw (attributed to various people) which ends, "...now we're just haggling over the price."

The reality is that magazine capacity restrictions are illogical and functionally irrelevant. It takes less than a second to swap magazines. Lower capacity magazines are smaller so you can carry more of them. Capacity limits have never saved a single life, and they will never save a single life. All they do is raise costs and inconvenience for shooters, 99.999% of whom are law abiding. Magazine capacity restrictions are not something anyone on either side of the debate really care about, except for their role in a larger effort to gradually restrict the exersize of a constitutionally enumerated right.

Same goes for the registry. It should be reopened (or eliminated altogether) because reopening makes sense. I suspect it will be, because it is especially unfair to young people who are priced out of the MG market by the fixed supply. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

It isn't in anyones interest to accept a new restriction that we know is ill conceived and will not have any positive benefit, in exchange for anything. The best thing we can do, for our own positions and for public safety, is to insist on common sense changes such as eliminating the archaic restrictions on noise polution prevention devices. Not in trade for anything, but for the benefit of all.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Some of us view this not as a political game, but a struggle of right and wrong, justice and injustice. "Trading" is not an option for the more idealistic amongst us, regardless of what benefits it might bring.

This is essentially what all people who eventually resort to the most despicable means use to rationalize their actions. Translate it into Arabic and it will be much like what the 911 terrorists professed. You have to express these sentiments to your opponents and supporters without appearing to be a dangerous, ideologically driven, non-empathetic fanatic. Convey the message gently and unthreateningly. Everybody please remove their "From my cold dead hands..." bumper stickers if you want to reduce the fear of our opponents to the apathy we can expect at best.

I might favor increasing the penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a crime, but that is a restriction of use. Use of arms is not protected by the Constitution and is subject to legislative restriction. We can probably find some common ground there. Keeping and bearing arms is protected and should not be subject to compromise.

Sounds reasonable. The problem is many of our opponents see the mere "keeping and bearing" as use of arms. We have to force them to take this off the table by accepting trivial compromises that somewhat sate their hunger to devour gun rights. We can compromise on many things, many of which will be inconvenient but actually trivial, if ultimately we have a quid pro quo that protects our ultimate right to keep and bear arms. The attitude that fight for all and surrender nothing is too dangerous a strategy.

 

[barnbwt]

"Is trading one bad compromise for a BETTER compromise not a win?"

Okay, in politics, there are three basic states of being for each side; winning, losing, and stalemate. "Compromise" really only occurs during the latter, a shuffling of deckchairs when no real territory is to be won, so the legislators can look like they are doing something. While winning, the winners justify their route of the opposite team as a "compromise," often throwing them a few token bones so they might not be compelled to turn to desperate measures to defend themselves or inflict damage on the opposite team (i.e. keeping it "cat and mouse, not cat and missile" ). Likewise, the losing team attempts to shore up its less enthusiastic elements by couching the loss as a compromise, since that is seen as less negative. Keeping the group unified in the face of defeat this way is the only way future victories can be ever won, so it serves a very real purpose.

But it's not a compromise unless both sides get what they don't want and neither side loses future standing. If the deal is "better" for one side, it's not a compromise, it's a victory, and before the deal is inked (and only then played off as a compromise rather than a defeat or rout) the negotiating parties will be under no illusions as to the beneficiary.

"Well, one man's argument is another man's debate"
I'll have to disagree with you on that one

 

[Nom de Forum]

"Then you need to use emotion to communicate with them. Make them empathize with your pain. It is not like many of the pro-gun folks aren't emotionally driven rather than logical."

The problem is we 'feel' different 'pain,' and ours isn't the sympathetic kind.

Column A has; tragedies, community moral outrage, senseless violence, shocking gore, the children, the children, THE CHILDREN!!!!!!

Column B has; personal moral outrage, disdain/disgust towards our tyrannical system, a desire for "change" (i.e. revolution), a desire for freedom (i.e. anarchy), and a desire for trust/faith in free Americans (i.e. naiveté)

Sorry but you've got your columns incorrectly labeled and incomplete.

Your "Column B" is actually Column C. Column B contains many people in between the extremes of Columns A & B. These are the ones we sway to support or remain apathetic. The knee jerk Column A types don't have the numbers to win if we influence the majority of Column B.

The people promising to save will always be seen as more sympathetic than the stern voices telling others to help themselves (or even worse, do nothing in response to terrible events with no solution). Human reasoning*/cognitive dissonance does not tolerate "no solution" being the solution to anything, even if that is the correct one. It's hard to argue with "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" Utilitarian rhetoric without getting in to the nitty-gritty person-level issues that urgent emotions have no patience for. "Damn the torpedos, man, we've got to do SOMETHING!!!!"

Hard to form a proper rebuttal to such butt-headedness

TCB

*not 'logic'

I agree, it is hard, but it isn't impossible. It takes sophisticated presentation and persuasion. Waving flintlock muskets over our head and shouting "From my cold dead hands" is not going to work. Don't worry about "Human reasoning*/cognitive dissonance does not tolerate "no solution" being the solution to anything" most people tolerate it everyday when rationalizing religious belief with the facts of everyday life, and especially scientific discovery. We don't need them to love us or even understand us, we need them to not hate us. People holding philosophical/religious beliefs that should make them the enemies of their neighbors are frequently friends or at least courteous with their neighbors.

 

[JRH6856]

Is trading one bad compromise for a BETTER compromise not a win?

At best, it is less of a loss. But a loss none the less. You asked what I would accept. I told you. If you don't like it, be glad it's not my decision alone.

We have to force them to take this off the table by accepting trivial compromises that somewhat sate their hunger to devour gun rights. We can compromise on many things, many of which will be inconvenient but actually trivial, if ultimately we have a quid pro quo that protects our ultimate right to keep and bear arms. The attitude that fight for all and surrender nothing is too dangerous a strategy.

The attitude of compromise all and gain nothing is a bit too dangerous as well. And it seems the definition of "trivial" might be important here. I think jerkface's offered compromise of agreeing to a 100rnd mag limit might be trivial enough to be acceptale. Apparently Pizzapinochle does not.

The amendment I said I would accept is something I find acceptable. It may not be the only thing acceptable to me but it is something I will always seek. What do you want in return? Limitations on use? OK, let's work on defining use and try to find some common ground. Anything else? Make a proposal, don't just ask me what I will surrender first.

 

[barnbwt]

"Yes, we lose something (super massive magazines that very few people use and are pretty unreliable), but the gain would be much greater.

In my mind, that bill would be a HUGE win for the pro-gun side, but you are saying you would oppose it?"

I'm sorry, but I take visceral exception to this. I usually try to refrain from personal engagement on forums, let alone personal attacks, but this is too much. You would rather accept an admittedly flawed, illogical, and pointless measure over something effective --just because it gores your ox less than the other option? This kind of mentality is exactly how we've gotten as bad as we are. If gun owners of this country had demanded the Banner's present real, defined, proven strategies and measures to reduce the "plague of gun violence" in the first place before yielding anything, they would have never been able to chip away at our margins the way they have.

Back in the day and up till now, they wouldn't dare touch people's hunting rifles and shotguns, but the (now) NFA, home/personal defense, and sport (not hunting) crowds were fair game --because "very few people" used those items, and the remainder didn't care that their fellow sportsmen were now subject to arbitrary and capricious laws, and whatever machinations were surely to come later.

I won't even go into gun building; suffice it to say you'd flip your lid if you learned the kind of stuff builders have to put up because their fellow Americans didn't care about guns being assembled from foreign parts, or that guns are both too simple and too varied to be classified intelligently, or that machine guns & silencers, short barreled rifles & shotguns, were too scary to warrant a single thought about unintended consequences before the ban was rammed through.

TCB