America's Great Gun Game--a new book on gun control

[Danus ex]

A professor and friend of mine, Dr. Earl E. McDowell, has just completed a book on gun control: Americas Great Gun Game: Gun Ownership vs. Americans Safety. Find it at Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Great-Gun-Game-Ownership/dp/0595430325/ref=sr_1_1/104-5615943-4895165?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187812014&sr=1-1

I present this here to expose THR readers to a well-researched and thought-out argument for gun control, instead of the passionate whining and misinformed arguments we normally find. I also wish to distinguish people who are anti-gun from people who are pro-gun control. For example, McDowell supports licensing and registration of all firearms, but does not want to take them all away from us. This is a tremendous difference, and one that reminds us that firearm ownership is not a simple, black and white issue.

If you're interested in this debate, as I know THR readers are, and you wish to learn the "other side's" arguments in greater detail, I recommend you pick up this book, read it critically, and discuss it here or elsewhere. There's no better way to enhance your understanding of an issue than to step outside your perspective and study others' perspectives.

 

[coyote_jr]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say exactly zero copies of this book get purchased by any THR members.

 

[SG Merc]

The title of the book alone showcases the authors misguided notions as far as I'm concerned.

"Gun Ownership vs. Americans Safety"

For me that sets the tone that the author will be using. I have nothing against opposing viewpoints, and am not trying to be hostile towards your friend, but I have no time for those who disregard the role that firearms play in a free and safe environment.

Maybe if the issue was illegal weapons and their role in destroying the safety of Americans I'd be more compelled to listen.

 

[Trebor]

Maybe if the issue was illegal weapons and their role in destroying the safety of Americans I'd be more compelled to listen.

How about: "Maybe if the issue was CRIMINALS and their role in destroying the safety of Americans I'd be more compelled to listen."


Blaming "Illegal weapons," is still blaming the tool, not the person who misuses the tool.

 

[SuperNaut]

"Gun Ownership vs. Americans Safety"

Even the sub-title of the book is a classic correlative based fallacy.

 

[jfh]

here's the entire Amazon 'Editorial Review:'

Book Description
More than 30,000 American deaths are caused each year by firearms, and more than 230,000,000 guns exist in the United States today. America's Great Gun Game: Gun Ownership vs. Americans' Safety presents two sides of the gun issue- the gun control advocates, the silent majority; and the gun rights supporters, the vocal minority. Author Earl E. McDowell urges the silent majority to become the vocal majority as he tackles the controversial topics of gun control and concealed carry laws.

Unlike other volumes on the gun issue, America's Great Gun Game challenges the National Rifle Association's interpretation of the Second Amendment by citing the opinions of Supreme Court justices, the president of the American Bar Association, state and federal legislators, and former U.S. presidents. McDowell traces attempted presidential assassinations and presents a detailed account of the gun movements from 1922 through 2000, assessing which side won the gun game for each movement. Gun Game is unique, as it also reports statistics on how guns affect women and children and which women's and children's organizations support gun control.

America's Great Gun Game presents McDowell's thoroughly researched argument in favor of stopping the proliferation of guns throughout the United States and the increasing need for federal gun control legislation.

About the Author
Earl E. McDowell, PhD, is a professor at the University of Minnesota. His master’s thesis, A Study of the Rhetorical Events Leading to the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, provides background information for America’s Great Gun Game.

There's nothing in that review that convinces me that his arguments are more than yet another intellectualized and rationalized plea for registration, criminalization, and eventually confiscation.

Jim H.

 

[USMC6177]

"Gun Ownership = Americans Safety"

I fixed it for ya.

 

[Danus ex]

Two things:

1. Thank you to those who entertain, and don't automatically reject, the idea of reading this. McDowell's beliefs about firearms don't align with my own, but that doesn't mean I won't hear his arguments. Still, I expect no success on this forum.

2. Note that Amazon's review as well as the teasers on the cover are politically charged and spun to grab attention.

 

[I LIKE IT!]

Sorry but it sounds like your friend is thinking too hard on the matter, it's common sense that guns are neutral, registration is stupid and criminals will always be around so long as we live in a free society. Tell your friend nice try, but he needs to go back to school and the range.

 

[coyote_jr]

1. Thank you to those who entertain, and don't automatically reject, the idea of reading this.

Anyone here even entertain the idea?

 

[SuperNaut]

I'm perfectly willing to read it, but not buy it.

 

[hso]

Danus ex,

If you want a reasonable debate on your professor's book you should post it's contents here so that it can be debated. Consider that sales of his book won't be impacted (no sales are likely to take place from THR members) and a logical critique of his work may serve both him and us.

Ignoring the constitutional issue, please note that as a professional in the field of safety I can find no statistical correlation showing firearms to have an impact on violent crime or suicide therefore there is no public safety argument for any regulation of firearms.

 

[REOIV]

McDowell supports licensing and registration of all firearms, but does not want to take them all away from us.

When I see statements like that it makes me think hell we should have people register and license other rights. Like privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to a speedy trial, right to a jury of my peers, right to vote regardless of gender or race etc etc.

YOU DO NOT LICENSE BASIC RIGHTS.

Any one seriously suggesting we should do is suspect.

What happens when someone abuses those lists?
What happens if they don't allow you to register anymore?
What if the fees for a license become too much for an average citizen?

All guns must be registered and licensed to me reads the same as:
All Jews/Gays/Blacks/etc must be registered and licensed.

We don't force people to register knives, bats, bows, chainsaws, swords, machetes, blow guns etc. Why should guns be so different?

I will look over the book for sure but sadly I don't think his stance is valid.

 

[jmark127]

Reoppycock

It may well be poppycock, andI do believe it is poppycock, but wouldn't it be better to have an understanding of how these people think? Wouldn't you have a better chance of winning the debate with that understanding? Without some understanding, all you have is confrontation and resistance.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Quote:
McDowell supports licensing and registration of all firearms, but does not want to take them all away from us.

YOU DO NOT LICENSE BASIC RIGHTS.

I believe the gentlemen has iterated the most basic issue of this debate.

Brad

 

[Danus ex]

hso

Excellent. I'll pass the offer along, as Dr. McDowell did express interest in joining the forum and participating in any debate when I told him I was going to mention his book here.

In all honesty, though, do you think THR is ready to debate maturely with an "anti"?

 

[Clipper]

Well, they seem to be debating maturely with you...

 

[jfh]

...debating 'maturely' with an anti:'

Well, I can appreciate your concern. I certainly would be willing to--but I suspect that it is an impossible activity as an unmoderated debate.

It seems to me that THR, with OV's current attempt to elevate the level of political discourse, is embarking on a Great Experiment that well eventually fail. Any debate here with the membership-at-large will reflect on the general understanding of the general issues by the general population. And my generalization on that phenomena is that it will NOT responses of a similar nature to the intellectualized and well-posited polemic Dr. McDowell's book appears to be.

With some moderator effort, it might be accomplished--or, perhaps a meaningful debate can occur on the a priori assumptions of the two positions.

Under any circumstances, he ought to register here and make himself available; minions don't get respect. Some of us might read it--I am sure the Hennepin County Library system will have it--and I do like to stay up to date on what the enemy is thinking.

Jim H.

 

[trueblue1776]

Gun Ownership vs. Americans Safety

The title says it all, he assumes...

 

[armoredman]

No, thank you for the offer. I do unofficial studies of those most likely to commit murder, those incarcerated for the deed, and have discovered a direct relation between the avilablilty of firearms and the likelihood of murder being done - armed victims die less. Criminals are cowards, and by definition, violate the law. No argument possible there. Therefore, how can an action already deemed unConstitutional, for a criminal, (registration), have any effect on any but the lawabiding?
Thank your friend for his efforts, and direct him to the excellent works by Professor Gary Kleck, and Professor John Lott.

 

[Brad Johnson]

In all honesty, though, do you think THR is ready to debate maturely with an "anti"?

"Ready to"? Danus, we've been debating with them for decades. The information is out there with history as the affirmation. That someone in a "learned" position both academically and socially would forward yet another "not for gun control but for registration" scheme proves two things beyond any doubt:

A) Some people are incapable of logically analyzing the issue based on unskewed raw data, both current and historical.

B) Being in academia doesn't necessarily mean you are intelligent.

Brad

 

[KBintheSLC]

You say... "McDowell supports licensing and registration of all firearms, but does not want to take them all away from us."

I say... Why would he want licensing and registration then?
Is he intending to use this information to write more "great" books? I highly doubt it. The only practical/foreseeable use of this information is to find and confiscate guns during a time of civil unrest (AKA: New Orleans '05). It is times like this when good citizens need their guns most.

I was born in Eastern Europe during Soviet control. Like most of the dictatorships of the past, they successfully dis-armed their populous. Up until 1990, you could not find a single gun on the streets... you could also disappear into thin air if you dared to question the authority of a KGB official. PS... people still got killed by criminals. The difference was... most of those criminals had badges of some sort.

The quote above is reminiscent of the rhetoric of that time.

 

[Poper]

Danus ex

I believe you will find may of the members of this forum are highly educated, reasonable and willing to debate in the true sense of the word. An inflexible lecture from any all knowing authority will do very little, if any, good. If your friend is indeed willing to debate and accept honest critique, I am sure the Moderators and Members would appreciate the opportunity to present ideas and data, too.

Debate we welcome. Lectures? We have had too many already, thank you.

Bring on the debate!

Poper

 

[average_shooter]

Is the image of a single-action revolver on the cover supposed to be a historical reference to the "wild west days" that the anti's always fear will manifest with the passing of concealed carry law, but never do?

 

[Danus ex]

I've passed along the offer to join THR and debate and discuss this book to Dr. McDowell. I hope he accepts, but I can understand if he doesn't--it'd be one man debating an army.

jfh, perhaps this debate, if it takes place, could act as a litmus test for Volk's new forum order. People like yourself, hso, Poper, and several others in this thread prove that a civil debate is possible here, but it's those few bad apples that tend to spoil things...