A reason why we are losing

[ericbc7]

This discussion is not going to be decided by logic. You will not be able to convince a mother that has lost her child to gun violence that more gun freedom is the answer. to quote my signature "you cannot by reason change the ill opinion of a man which by reason was not obtained". If we pursue an "all or nothing" agenda we will loose in the long term. if we accept regulation similar to cars we might see a compromise. that said, I hear the "slippery slope" folks that fear tyranny. The fact is we have to live together, the hyper-individualism that is popular now is not a recipe for community or survival. This country is willing to give up freedom for safety (real or imagined) as evidenced by the patriot act and NSA surveillance.
Where does that leave us gun owners? We are in the same nebulous place we always were. We cannot embrace armed conflict with the government. We are the government and must accept compromise if we are to survive. The alternative is increasing polarity and moves us toward dissolution. Imagine if the constitution was changed to allow states to leave the union... we would end up with a fractured loose assembly that has no ability to maintain our standard of living.

I don't know the solution, and more individual freedom and less corporate freedom seems better to me, but we know that a balance is the key.

 

[Mp7]

+1 on the OP.

Maybe there needs to be a giant sticky-thread on how debate works,
and what can be quoted, and how thesis and argumentation work.


("god-given-right" for instance is a blunt instrument.)

 

[Sam1911]

If we pursue an "all or nothing" agenda we will loose in the long term.

We did hear a lot of tremulous calls for "compromise" like that right in the wake of Sandy Hook, when many sunshine stout hearts lost their nerve and felt their knees knocking.

But the truth is we only have the high ground were fighting from now because of a give-no-inch resolve that we've held fast to for decades now. I don't know when the time will come when we have such a commanding hold on gun rights in this country that we need to start "compromising" but it isn't today, for sure! (And if it wasn't in the wake of Sandy Hook? When will it arrive?)

Remember what compromise means in this case: "you have your pie. I'm going to take your pie from you. If you're nice about it, I'll only take half of your pie today." Compromise? How about extortion?

And the fact that the left-unspoken parting line is, "...and I'll be back tomorrow for some more compromise. Seeya then , chump!"

 

[sota]

SAM1911

Concealed carry theoretically possible in every state, and now practically available in nearly every state -- even ILLINOIS, just this year!

The first part of your statement is correct. The second (practically) part is false. It is not possible for "ordinary" citizens to obtain a concealed carry permit in the state of New Jersey. I'd appreciate it if everyone started singling out NJ in this regard. If more people spoke the truth about this in their conversations perhaps it will open peoples eyes to the fact that NJ is still more of a slave state than even NY is.

 

[Sam1911]

Well Sota, the fact that there are a handful of states (MD, NJ ... and?) where it is technically possible, but not realistically possible doesn't make my statement false. It actually is exactly what I said.

That's what the word "nearly" means.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

So, do you have any tips a or a suggestion about how to be a more effective debator?

Step #1: Accept that BAD arguments ARE made in favor of positions you support.

When someone who agrees with you makes a bad argument, don't support those bad arguments!

There are a lot of people making bad arguments in this debate on both sides. The most common response I have seen of others on the same side of the argument is to try and keep the person they agree with from looking bad.

If they make a bad argument, tell them: "Look, I agree with you generally, but that is not a strong argument. Lets focus on our strengths!"

Especially if it is a public forum, take this approach. When people on the fence see that you have an accurate understanding of your own position and understand that not every argument that is in your favor is sound, they will be more likely to respect the opinions you DO hold strongly are not just blind repetition, they are something you actually thought about.

In contrast, when one pro-gun person presents a bad argument and others support them, it presents the picture that all pro-gun folks just blindly accept anything that sounds pro-gun, even if it is a terrible argument. This destroys the credibility of the GOOD arguments.

Sam1911:

"you have your pie. I'm going to take your pie from you. If you're nice about it, I'll only take half of your pie today."

I agree that this is an accurate portrayal of what has happened. Have there been any serious efforts (from either side) that were more along the lines of....

"If you want some of my pie, you can have it, but you have to give BACK some of those other pieces of pie you took earlier."

???

Is that ever a possibility?

 

[jerkface11]

"If you want some of my pie, you can have it, but you have to give BACK some of those other pieces of pie you took earlier."

???

Is that ever a possibility?

Who knows they've never offered anything. The least I would accept is the opening of the machinegun registry and the removal of silencers from the NFA. And I wouldn't give much in exchange maybe a 100 round mag limit.

 

[JRH6856]

"If you want some of my pie, you can have it, but you have to give BACK some of those other pieces of pie you took earlier."

???

Is that ever a possibility?

Probably not. The core of both sides truly believe they occupy the moral high ground and are loathe to surrender any of what they already have to attain what they believe they rightfully should have.

 

[Sam1911]

Probably not. The core of both sides truly believe they occupy the moral high ground and are loathe to surrender any of what they already have to attain what they believe they rightfully should have.

Another realpolitik point to keep in mind is that one only really compromises due to weakness. In other words, to keep the other side from investing whatever it will take to assail you, wear you down, and take possession of your ground -- if they have the resources to do so.

In the case of the gun control movement of late, they appear to have thrown their resources against our defenses and their high-water-mark came and went with them having lost the campaign. (Note, "campaign." Not just a "battle," but not the "war" either, which will likely never really end.)

A compromise might have been tried prior to the big battles of 2013. We might have given up something to get something. They might have offered something to get something from "us." Who knows what COULD have happened? As it turns out, they thought they could seize the moment and drive us before them... and they were wrong. We held, they failed. (Yeah, we had a few casualties. That's war.)

The thing is, compromise would have been better than LOSING.

But WINNING is much better than compromising. And for now, at least, we're definitely winning.

(And the sounds of their lamentations fills the op-ed columns... )

 

[JRH6856]

(Note, "campaign." Not just a "battle," but not the "war" either, which will likely never really end.)

And that is what we can't afford to forget. The "war" will never end. If we somehow expect to scheive a final victory, we will be continually disappointed. Some will even see it as a sure sign we are losing. But, the war will never end. Eternal vigilance IS the price of freedom as is the eternal struggle to attain it.

 

[Mp7]

The question seems to be wether the rift between to factions
(who call each other names similar to "commie" "nazi" or "liberalfascist"
for not being in the same camp )
is already so wide that the majority of debators has accepted
it as a fact, that there will be no consensual solution, ever. Ever.

In that case it`s just a fight. Not a debate.

In that case calling each other "Gun Nut" oder "Commienist"
is sufficient. As nobody will be listening to each other anyway.


Many here and many on the other side of the "fight" are guilty of this.
That`s why there is no debate anymore.

 

[Sam1911]

Perhaps so, but I don't personally value the debate itself. I'm not a political junkie and don't take pleasure in the give-and-take of the political process as a hobby.

My interest is purely in the defeat of gun control and promotion and recognition of the right to bear arms.

Debate on the subject is merely a tool to that end, used as required. As long as our rights are being strengthened, I'm perfectly content for the gun control debate to vanish from the Earth.

(That being said I don't tend to call people names at all. I have more specific, direct, and accurate ways of expressing myself, and I calling names doesn't convince any legislators to vote my way.)

The only consensual solution I'm very greatly interested in is one in which guns are de-regulated and the argument over them fades away as the antagonists on the other side wander off to find other causes to occupy their attention. Give it enough time, and make guns more universally present and neutral (and/or positive!) in society, and the numbers of those willing to really devote money and energy to opposing private gun ownership will dwindle away to insignificance. Call it, "consensus by attrition."

It's already happening to a very great degree. Prior to Sandy Hook, the main gun control champion organization was reported to be all but defunct, and their bubble of renewed popularity is fading fast again. And as we see, there's not enough public support for gun control to make political motion out of it in the most auspicious moment their side had seen in decades.

EDIT to add: We don't really, necessarily, have to reach a consensus, in the classic sense of sitting down at the negotiating table and hammering out a deal with the other side. What we have to do is hold out and outlast them. We have the impetus of defending our rights, defending the real possessions of our guns against very present threats of confiscation and illegality, the preservation of our heritage and tradition and one of, what most of us feel is, the most fundamental facets of our culture that set us apart from the social experiment as practiced in other times and by other cultures. There's a lot of momentum and self-perpetuating energy in that. It is much harder to maintain drive and enthusiasm to be AGAINST something, especially if that something is the possessions and rights of other people who honestly don't cause you any real direct harm or discomfort day-to-day.

So, I see this as a waiting game, at its core. Hold the line, be steadfast and die-hard. Watch the old guard anti-gun politicians die off and be forgotten. Recognize that there is unlikely to be a new guard that picks up that orphaned and dead-ended mantle and is willing to tie their political fortunes to it. We may never drive the last nail into the coffin of gun control, but I do think we'll see the day when the issue has faded to share the fortunes of alcohol (and maybe now marijuana?) prohibition as a has-been cause.

 

[JRH6856]

Many here and many on the other side of the "fight" are guilty of this.
That`s why there is no debate anymore.

There is a hardcore contingent on each side for which the gun control/gun rights issue is their primary focus. They are true believers in their cause and are unlikely to be swayed by any argument.

But there is a much larger segment of the population for which it is a secondary concern if it is a concern at all. Other issues are more important to them than guns and their political position on guns is probably determined by entirely by these other issues. They support parties and politicians based on these other issues and however they stand on guns just comes along with it. These are the people who might be swayed by argument if you can get them interested enough in the gun debate to listen.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

The least I would accept is the opening of the machinegun registry and the removal of silencers from the NFA. And I wouldn't give much in exchange maybe a 100 round mag limit.

Really??

If there was a bill that said:

-ALL newly manufactured detachable magazines are limited to 50 rounds
-Newly manufactured fully automatic firearms can now be added to the NFA registry
-Silencers are no longer an NFA item and can be purchased as an accessory with no background check/tax stamp

You wouldn't jump at that?

I sure would. 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?

 

[Mp7]

Please show me a single internet thread in which this "debate"
is conducted in such a grown-up way, that the real-life analogy
would not be as immature and ignorant as a fistfight in a schoolyard.

i mean people talking about arguments, instead of throwing sh.... at each
other while no even reading what the other wrote .....

On a friendly BBQ occasion, grown up people can talk calmly about
their stantpoint.

One idiot gun-owner, or idiot-anti at the BBQ
will spoil it for all others though.


(Some peoples personalities just seem to be like that.
I do not even think the topic guns makes it special.
They would fight for or against flowers, just call someone stupid.)

 

[Sam1911]

Please show me a single internet thread in which this "debate"
is conducted in such a grown-up way, that the real-life analogy
would not be as immature and ignorant as a fistfight in a schoolyard.

Well, not to put ourselves on any sort of pedestal but, we try really hard here at THR. That might not be saying a whole lot -- we take an awful lot of anger for stifling folks' more vitriolic comments -- but we do try to shepherd our debates here to be as adult and respectful as possible. And to be as closely based on fact and reason as our members can maintain. But few folks come to a gun-rights forum to argue the "anti" side, and those that have had the stomach for that and have come here to debate the issues have tended to reach the point of frustration, anger, and insult very quickly. That isn't a fair comparison as the sample of those on the opposing side who would come here and launch their arguments probably could not be considered "representative" of their peers. One hopes.

But maybe the problem is that you're asking too much of human beings in (relatively) free conversation. Do you believe there has ever been a time, or a place, where average folks got together to debate things they were passionate about and yet maintained civility while accomplishing something productive by their efforts? I'm not sure that I do.

Looking back at the history of folks who even got a chance to express their views in shaping their own laws and society (itself far from universal) I seem to see a lot of bombast, abuse, propaganda, deceit, coercion, ridicule, etc. And that's in the halls of the various governing bodies, to say nothing of the general public discussion! And I can't seem to find examples of dispassionate debate leading to well-considered social change.

I think humans are a little "messier" than that in how we make up our collective mind to change the world.

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

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

@JRH6856:

You misunderstand me. I think that situation is good (forcing the antis to do damage control).

I was wrongly under the impression that we were losing. I was viewing things from my perspective. I was mostly observing what people were saying on neutral websites on the internet (YouTube). It seemed that there were far far fewer pro-gun people than anti-gun people. There seemed to be more, 'I don't care, just stop the killing.' people than pro-gun people. I wasn't closely following court decisions because I don't know a good way to follow stuff like that.

So, to be clear, I'm not saying that just because there is opposition I think we are losing. I was just legitimately under the impression, based upon talking to people individually in a neutral place, that our side is in the minority. But, I was wrong.

@fiftybmg: That is an ad hominem. It is also highly opinionated without anything to support it. This is how you sound to me (yes, this is an ad hominem... sorry) 'Best leave all that thinkin' stuff to people with degrees.'

Please try to actually respond to my argument instead of just saying, 'What you said is ridiculous. Get out of here.'

@ericbc7: And, people like yourself irritate me in a unique way. We didn't just compromise on a substantial number of fronts. They got what they wanted and we got nothing in return. We already have background checks. We don't have to pass a background check to buy a car. Now, (and I'm sure this will cause disagreement) if private gun sales required background checks that would contribute to mitigating gun trafficking. But, registration like on a car? Why? The objective is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It doesn't matter who has the gun, what type of gun it was, or when it was purchased. It only matters that whenever a gun is transferred that the person receiving the gun isn't a criminal or a lunatic. You don't need registration to accomplish that.

And, then you start to talk about how being a hive-mind is okay (sorry for the exaggeration I hope you get my meaning). I don't care what stupid people are willing to give up for whatever reason. Every US citizen can decide to melt their guns tomorrow and I would not do the same.

We can't embrace armed conflict with the government at this time. Furthermore, the majority of the military isn't going to shoot American citizens over gun ownership. It seems to me that the government has chosen the police force to be its enforcers whenever they decide to go full tyrannical (military members can't have guns on base but police officers can keep their gun on them at all times). The liberal entities in the government can't do what they want until they indoctrinate the majority of the population to believe that guns need to go.

Balance is not key. Right is key. And, the only way to objectively show what is right is through sound debate that is based upon fact and logic. If we decide not to worry about justifying our position in an objective way then it is just our opinion versus their opinion. People don't usually want to pursue this path if they want to get their way because it requires you to be correct. It requires you to legitimately justify your position. But, for reasons I have already said, they win the emotion game every time. If we want to talk about not just stopping future gun control, but repealing current gun control measures, we need to show that our way is the right way.

e.g. If we want school staff to be able to arm themselves in order to protect themselves and the children they teach we have to show that isn't just what we want... but it is the right thing to do.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

While I agree that at times it would be best to be a bit more tactful in our approach, you can't be surprised when emotions run high with this issue.
Both sides are often fueled by emotions.
One side is using the emotions of violence and innocent victims and the other side is emotional about constitutional rights being violated, infringed upon and at times downright ignored.

I'm guilty of coming across as a jerk at times too depending on the situation.

If someone is simply uneducated and is under the impression that these measures actually do help, I will be more than happy to engage in calm and factual debate.
If someone simply thinks gun control measures should be put in place because of their insecurity or because we don't "need" all these weapons, then I am not polite and I do not owe any courtesy at all to that person. If someone is wanting to take away my constitutional rights so they will sleep better at night, then screw them.

And we're not losing by the way.

 

[jerkface11]

Yes I'd say no to a fifty round ban. And if I had said 50 to start with you would be saying 30 now.

 

[greyghost01]

You cant use logic when dealing with illogical people. For sake of a better name to call people who are against guns I will call them Liberals. In trying to reasonably discuss the issues with them, You cant, You cant explain reasoning or logic to them as they are not capable of understanding this issue at all. What is more important in this war is the voting if we don't get this issue solved we will never win period. If they can count 170% of the vote you cant beat that and If nobody questions how they can come up with 170% how do you expect to win its illogical the same as liberals. We need leaders on our side that are just as dirty and mean as they are. They own the media so we have no voice. That is our problem if we are mentioned at all, Its always in a bad light, And we are made fun of just like God, the constitution, etc
Nobody brings up the fact of how stupid they are for kicking a kid out of school for a GI joe gun or a pop tart, Its the accepted stupidity on there behalf that we cant seem to over come.

 

[Tirod]

We're not losing - as the record plainly shows.

That arguments against lawful gun ownership are emotional seem common, yes. A response in kind isn't the preferred method, anymore than sending family members of your church to picket servicemen's funerals isn't the best way to protest against the homosexual lifestyle.

It becomes the focus of the opposition, and they play up the negatives at every opportunity to continue spreading the idea that any other viewpoint is equally bad.

The problem is that EVERY American does have free speech, and can say whatever they want. It's why we can laugh at the "shoulder stock thingy", or "ghost" guns, or even the source of Gabby Giffords flawed logic.

Whether we like it or not, our fellow travelers in this sphere of life aren't always as well spoken or keep as calm about the idiocy hurled at us. And it's not just about guns, it's about religions, or politics, or even what brand car you drive.

And, it should be more than obvious, the male of the species DOES compete for the last word. He IS emotionally charged by nature to compete, and there is a continuous struggle for dominance.

If the calmer heads didn't prevail, and we let others go on about what they prefer to do, we'd already be getting over a shooting war over gun rights. Connecticut would never have happened. There would be no SAFE act. The smoke would have already cleared and the incident over.

There's your emotionalism run amok. BUT - it hasn't happened, regardless of the baiting on both sides, because the ones with a clear head about it still keep talking to each other.

We aren't losing the war, and they aren't winning. If anything, we are continuing the push back begun after the 1934 NFA was enacted, and things are much much better now. We've shown the registery closing was flawed, and when the time is right, it can and will be opened again. Same for silencers - and strangely enough, the medical profession is likely our ally in that, along with the environmentalists. The rest of the world knows that noise suppressors are a better deal and it's the US who's backward about it. If we really believe suppressors are wrong, then the whole concept of having them on cars should be included, eh? Same inventor and same pretext - keep the noise down.

How's that for progress? Almost every car owner in America has a "silencer," and it IS mandated.

Frankly, what I find disappointing are those who say we are losing. Seems to be a defeatist attitude and certainly doesn't reflect an accurate view of the long term. I don't disagree that the natural competitiveness of the male keeps us on our toes, but if we were still married to our first wives and still the only father of our male children, then maybe the young males who don't know their boundaries wouldn't seem so numerous.

If 70% of young men in America don't learn respect by having an older male to smack them on their pointy little skulls (like my Dad did,) then no wonder it seems to be a problem. And who's fault is that?

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Yes I'd say no to a fifty round ban. And if I had said 50 to start with you would be saying 30 now.

I am curious about the rest of you.

If there was a bill that said:

-ALL newly manufactured detachable magazines are limited to 50 rounds
-Newly manufactured fully automatic firearms can now be added to the NFA registry
-Silencers are no longer an NFA item and can be purchased as an accessory with no background check/tax stamp

Would you vote YEAH or NAY?

 

[Sam1911]

You cant use logic when dealing with illogical people. For sake of a better name to call people who are against guns I will call them Liberals.

Well, you're going to have to come up with something better than that. Especially here. We don't do "liberal" bashing here nor do we do liberal-vs.-conservative or Democrat-vs.-Republican thing either. Plenty of folks who think of themselves as "liberal" one way or another, are staunchly pro-gun-rights. And plenty of "conservatives" will sell out RKBA to get whatever else they want. All are welcomed here, and we don't accept blanket labeling.

In trying to reasonably discuss the issues with them, You cant, You cant explain reasoning or logic to them as they are not capable of understanding this issue at all.

What an oddly defeatist attitude. Many of us know "liberal" and even once-anti-gun people who've been swayed by reason and experience to come around to the pro-gun viewpoint.

YOU may not be capable of reaching other people with your persuasive skills (as Harry Calahan said, "A man's got to know his limitations..."), but don't claim that others cannot.

What is more important in this war is the voting if we don't get this issue solved we will never win period. If they can count 170% of the vote you cant beat that and If nobody questions how they can come up with 170% how do you expect to win

Are you suggesting that the major problem we face is VOTER FRAUD? Oooohhh kay. That's an interesting opinion.

They own the media so we have no voice.

Eh, the mainstream media is less and less important as time goes on.

Nobody brings up the fact of how stupid they are for kicking a kid out of school for a GI joe gun or a pop tart, Its the accepted stupidity on there behalf that we cant seem to over come.

I can't agree with that either. Those absurd over-steps are getting national -- even international -- attention, to a degree that we couldn't command even a decade ago. The information age has given us quite a wide reach to get our views heard.

 

[Walkalong]

If there was a bill that said:

-ALL newly manufactured detachable magazines are limited to 50 rounds
-Newly manufactured fully automatic firearms can now be added to the NFA registry
-Silencers are no longer an NFA item and can be purchased as an accessory with no background check/tax stamp

Would you vote YEAH or NAY?

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.

 

[DHJenkins]

What's this "we" stuff?