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

[Juna]

I am interested to hear some intellectual and objective opposing views instead of the usual, illogical, deceitful, and emotional garbage that is broadcast by the "pro-gun-control" groups. That said, from the title of the book alone and from your statements about the author's views, it seems this book may reduce the emotional aspect but will perpetuate the illogical aspects of the gun control argument.

I will certainly read and objectively critique the book if you post it on here, but I will not support him financially by buying it. I'll entertain any argument, but it sounds as if his cannot hold water, even if it may be less emotional than others.

In fact, I'll start with his title (Americas Great Gun Game: Gun Ownership vs. Americans Safety). It says a lot and is hardly objective; in fact, it's quite inflammatory. It starts by equating either guns or our right to keep and bear arms [RKBA] (or both) with a game, when both are very serious issues not to be taken lightly. The second portion of the title (the part after the colon) exhibits a clear bias that has our IIA RKBA set in direct opposition to Americans' safety as though the two are mutually exclusive and diametrically opposed. Yet, you assert that he is not "anti-gun" but rather "pro-gun-control." His title, in and of itself, opposes that statement by implying that one is either pro-safety/anti-gun or pro-gun/anti-safety. If he is not anti-gun, then by his own assertion he is anti-safety.

Next, we move to his notion of supporting registration and licensing of firearms but opposing their confiscation. This is analogous to a WWII era Nazi (or even a non-Nazi German citizen) supporting "registration and licensing" of Jews (e.g. requiring that they wear the Star of David on their sleeves) but opposing genocide. What other reason is there for registration and licensing? There is always an end game. Confiscation is always preceded by registration (e.g. post-Katrina New Orleans). The author might not use that registration information to confiscate our arms, but others gladly would. Moreover, criminals do not and will not register their firearms or obtain a concealed pistol license prior to carrying them, so both of those are irrelevant when it comes to crime or safety (as are all gun control laws, according to criminology research). I'm curious to see if he can come up with any logical reason for registration.

Again, I welcome any intelligible, factual, logical, and defensible position from the anti-gun/pro-gun-control side. (I equate 'anti-gun' with 'pro-gun-control' because by acknowledging that an inanimate object needs to be controlled exhibits the fact that you believe that said inanimate object has inherently bad properties and/or powers). One could argue that any of our numerous Constitutional rights should be controlled, and maybe one could even make a logical argument to support that control. However, that would not justify infringement of that right or any other right under the Constitution. That fact alone makes all gun control arguments irrelevant.

Again, I gladly welcome any civil discourse with anyone from any background and any belief system. We do, in fact, take THR here.

 

[Librarian]

One wonders if Dr. McDowell believes the Amazon review is, in substance, a fair representation of his work. Just to pick part of a paragraph:

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.

1. The NRA seems to have a position; that is is also shared by the United States Senate, Professor Lawrence Tribe, and other legal scholars gets no emphasis here.
2. We've already seen "the opinions of Supreme Court Justices", most notably the one published in that peer-reviewed journal Parade Magazine.
3. I wonder which former US presidents he may feel have applicable opinions; I myself prefer Thomas Jefferson.

It is difficult to anticipate that a work so described covers any new ground or provides even relatively neutral treatment to the issue.

 

[GunTech]

What is the point of licensing or registration? You cannot force criminals to register, and you cannot charge them for failing to do so (see Haynes vs. State of New Jersey - registration violates protection against self incrimination). Therfore, the only people who can be forced to register are law abiding citizens. Why register them if the intent is to fight criminals - unless the real reason is a prelude to gun sieizure?

 

[Zoogster]

It is a black and white issue. You either don't infringe, or you do. Once you play the line in the sand game the line changes every few years, legitimizing the issue as one government can and should control. That is contrary to the very ideals of the 2nd.

I really think some people should move to one of the many other nations on earth that are exactly what they want to turn America into already. Places that people still flock to America from, because they want to enjoy the freedom, not the governmentaly sanctioned attempt at utopia.
It is not that hard to relocate and people would have exactly what they want.

 

[Doggy Daddy]

Danus ex
I also wish to distinguish people who are anti-gun from people who are pro-gun control.

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

Okay, so we've established that he is, indeed, an "anti".

From what I've read here, the THR citizens are more than ready and capable of debating with anyone. The problems arise when the opposition presents beliefs, hopes, ideals, and stoned revelations as "facts" with no supporting evidence other than their say-so.

I expect no new arguments from your friend.

 

[benEzra]

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.

Why do you consider that to be a "tremendous difference"? Sarah Brady doesn't want to outlaw all guns, just the ones she doesn't like. Even the VPC doesn't, and they are arguably the most extreme serious anti-gun group in America.

The gun issue in 2007 isn't about whether or not we're "allowed" to own 19th-century-style deer rifles or high-zoot skeet shotguns; the vast majority of gun owners don't hunt and don't shoot skeet. The gun issue is primarily about self-loading rifles, defensive-style shotguns, handguns, and full-capacity magazines. Anyone who wishes to restrict the lawful civilian ownership of such is anti-gun by any reasonable definition.

So my question would be, where does your friend stand on the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, pre-1861 magazine capacity restrictions, and handgun restrictions?

He is undoubtedly aware that all rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides annually, I trust...

 

[CU74]

Step 1 - Registration
Step 2 - Confiscation
Step 3 - Subjugation
Step 4 - Annihilation

Factual? Review the history of Russia, China, NAZI Germany, Cambodia, Sudan......... You decide.

 

[def4pos8]

I went through the whole licensing/registration garbage while in Germany serving Uncle Sugar.

The German weapons law was written by ---- Adolph Hitler. Occupation forces modified it during 1954. It was made more restrictive in response to the Red Army Faction atrocities circa 1980.

If you want to continue to be a Citizen, support our Right to Arms guaranteed by the Second Ammendment. If you decide to be a Subject, move to any other sovereignty on the planet, with the possible exception of Australia.

 

[Tom Servo]

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.

REOIV touched on this well: the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right. It is not to be interpreted, regulated or subject to the opinions or whims of anyone.

As much as we hope for a ruling in our favor when DC vs Parker reaches the SCOTUS, it's not the court's job or right to make those kinds of decisions.

Nobody in government has any right to meddle with the Bill of Rights, and should they seek to, they should be booted out of office.

This is what even those "in the middle" miss. The Bill of Rights is not negotiable. It is not up for interpretation. It is simply a list of unalienable, absolute rights. Every time we trust the government to tailor or infringe upon them "in our own best interests," we're giving up our freedoms.

The battle over the 2A isn't about statistics, permits, or crime. It's an illustration of how out of touch this country has gotten with its founding purposes.

(Edit: sorry, but it's been a long day, and this was the last thing I really needed to read about :banghead

 

[Stevie-Ray]

It's one I won't be reading.

 

[Australian Shooter]

If you license a right, then it is not a right.

 

[Soybomb]

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

Those are my feelings as well. I will not pay for the priviliege or reading more of the same biased, deceptive, statistically invalid methodology based studies that I always read from gun control proponents.

If he truly believes he can bring something new to the table I would challenge him to post a little bit of his best arguments for gun control, registration, etc. I would certainly look at them and respond.

 

[bumm]

I felt just a bit uncomfortable judging your friend's book without reading it, but if the title is any indication, and the Amazon description is accurate, I've heard it all before, and it has all been done before. If Amazon's description of your friend's book is inaccurate, then he should contact them quickly and have it corrected.
As has been pointed out, historically, licensing and registration have often been followed by confiscation. We'd be fools to go along with such a scheme. Even when confiscation hasn't occurred (yet) as in Canada, gun registration has proven to be a totally ineffective, expensive, generator of bureaucratic paperwork.
It would be wonderful if your friend would show up in this group for a discussion of his ideas. I think most highroaders would be civil and decent. However, I sincerely doubt he'd win anyone over. His ideas are simply nothing new. We've heard it all before.
Marty

 

[hso]

Danus ex,

He has more of a chance here than anywhere else, don't you think?

Certainly there are the inevitable immature individuals that would enter into the mix, but that's the case whether here or anywhere else. At least here there would be a chance to engage mature individuals in debate.

 

[camslam]

Why waste my time or money on this book? I can hear or read the premise of this book every time I listen to a news report about guns on any mainstream media outlet, or I can read the same tired arguments everytime I read a letter to the editor or some other article in any number of papers.

It isn't that I'm not interested in what the other side has to say, but after following the gun debate closely for about 7 years, I am yet to hear any new argument that has any logic regarding the idea of gun control.

I keep waiting and challenging my liberal friends to come up with something that actually has impact. I guess I'll just keep waiting.

 

[canopy2k]

I wonder if the author, prior to a debate, would allow us access to free copies of the book, or in alternative, post some relevant facts?

c2k

 

[Tommygunn]

The problem I have with registering guns is I have absolutly no idea just why that would reduce crime. What mechanism is there in registering guns that would cause crime statistics to diminish?
None.
During the 1960's, officials in New York City argued for gun registration. The progun side responded, "that would only lead to confiscation." The government of NYC responded; "no, we promise we won't do that; we only want to do this for law-enforcement reasons, to help cut the crime rate." And the law was enacted.
In 1991, a generation later, and under another mayor (Dinkins, I believe) New York City banned the possession of certain types of semiautos and long guns. And, guess what? In order to assure compliance, those old registration records were used.
Unfortunatly, in the subsequent years, people moved out of the city, and there were cases where a family would be eating breakfast at home, only to have a Emergency Services (SWAT) NYPD team bust in their door doing a "dynamic" entry, and demand to know where the guns were.
A scene sorta like what one might expect from Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or even present day China ... maybe Venezuela, now too.
One government may make a promise ... a future administration may not consider itself bound by said "promise." And there goes our rights.
Your professor may sincerely believe he has a good argument. But ultimatly while his word may be good, it's not his word I worry about, it's the government's word.
And I've seen from historical example just what it is worth.

 

[cbsbyte]

This reminds me of the old saying " Never judge a book by its cover". If we really interested in debating the author wouldn't it be best if we actually read his work? Oh that's right... on THR we just attack people because that is what they deserve, since we can't come up with intelligent rebuttal.

 

[Rem700SD]

Here's a concept. Have the author make a case for the opening of the registry that was closed in '86! Remember that registered guns are safer guns! That's an argument I'd like to hear

 

[ROMAK IV]

I can't speak for Dr. McDowell, but if you were to ask every gun control advocate, none would admit to wanting to take away all the guns, with the exception of those in the Violence Policy Center, they are quite honest about their intentions. They would ban guns as an unsafe product, ban them again as a medical epidemic, and ban them thrice as a national security threat. Registration and licensing are for the purpose of resticting or controlling the ownership of firearms. These people are relentless. Guns are already registered and many places like large cities, are already licensed. Guess what? The places like DC, NYC, LA, wjere you have to have a license to get a gun, you're not going to get a gun, unless you have political connections. There is also the intergenerational thing. In 1934, the idea of using the federal government's ability to tax, as a means to keep certain classes of firearms was wriiten into law. In 1986, all new firearms covered by the 1934 act were banned from sale. That is why it's so hard and expensive to even get an old machine gun. Over the years, people get used to the idea of not being allowed automatic weapons, like those who grew up in NYC have gotten used to not being allowed any firearms at all, or rather "handguns". Guns have already been required to be registered for 39 years, and "we" have gotten used to it. I am also surprised and dismayed by the number of gun owners, even here, that see backgound checks as not only acceptable, but "good". These "laws" do not now nor have ever been a factor in reducing crime, they jsut make it possible for confiscation, "someday". Both licensing and registration as they exist today, are abused and have been abused by government. Remember the Washington DC, "snipers"? A hotline was set up for concerned citizens to report suspicious activity to the authorities, and ultimately the two perps themselves called in. Then some official of Maryland got a great idea! Hey, he thought, we want to confiscate guns, but we can't without "probable cause" and an active investigation, and we have caught the snipers, why don't we go ahead! And so they did. They even formed a trask force with federal police to follow up on calls where neighbors had reported on their neighbors owning guns. And so they picked up guns where ever they could.

 

[Steve499]

Debating this issue would be like a debate between a baptist preacher and a Muslim cleric. Both sides are convinced of their own righteousness, so only really listen to their own arguments. It might be fun to watch but if anyone gets their mind changed by it, miracles walk the earth.

For example...... The antis are WRONG.

If they want to come to my side, I'll welcome them with open arms and call them brother. I wouldn't, on the other hand, take even a baby step in their direction. ( They're just wrong, you know!)

 

[Librarian]

This reminds me of the old saying " Never judge a book by its cover". If we really interested in debating the author wouldn't it be best if we actually read his work?

I agree that a detailed discussion would need to start with that - but it strikes me that the author has some control over the text posted at Amazon, at least the option of posting his own clarification. The book seems to have been available there since July, so he has had around 6-7 weeks to add anything or correct anything in the Editorial Review. Forgive me for saying it, but that review is 'same old, same old', and if the author does not add anything he gives the appearance that he approves the description.

We could at least hope the book is well written - If I have the right UMN links, he's a professor of rhetoric.

 

[Rudy Kohn]

Danus ex, will any of Dr. McDowell's findings be published in any journals (or have they already)? I ask this because many people have (effectively) free access to college computers, which often have access to various political and social journals. Perhaps those interested could freely read a bit of material similar to his book in these places, that is, if Dr. McDowell doesn't want to post excerpts from his book here.

On a different note, I don't deny that it is possible that someone wants registration and licensing but not confiscation, but the problem lies with those who do want confiscation. In such an environment, it seems likely that the registration supporter might stand idly by as the confiscator takes the next step, aided by the data collected by the more commonly supported "common sense" legislation.

The question,then, is not how little he supports confiscation, it is how vehemently he opposes it, or how he proposes to enact registration without generating the concurrent serious risk of confiscation.

If I have some time and can get a hold of some material, I'd be happy to look at it, but I don't think I'll be buying the book. I decided not to spend any more money on my counter-point reading after I bought a book by a certain professor of linguistics . (Also, I'm a graduate student in physics, which is the career equivalent of a 5-or-6 year oath of poverty.)

 

[Leanwolf]

DANUS EX - " For example, McDowell supports licensing and registration of all firearms, but does not want to take them all away from us."


No, not just yet. But you can bet your last bullet that just as soon as they are all registered, McDowell and his Marxist Socialist inspired comrades will be out on the steps of the Capital Building demanding that guns be "rounded up" from the worker peasants and confiscated, using the registration forms .... all at the point of Big Brother's and Big Nanny's guns!!

Obviously your good buddy McDowell is either as naive as a six year old child, living in his sheltered Ivory Tower there in good ol' extremely left wing U.of Minn., or, he is just another smug, self righteous, disingenuous elitist, who kowtows to all the other left wing liberal elitists in his peer group who demand eventual gun confisication. They all think exactly alike, brains in lock step.

You would think that a professor with a Ph.D. would at least be educated enough to understand basic English grammar, which would give him the knowledge to actually diagram and understand the Second Amendment, but... alas, he can't even comprehend independent clauses as opposed to dependent clauses, modifiers, etc.

Oh well, nothing new with the gun grabbers. Same ol' same ol'.

L.W.

 

[Monkeybear]

1. How dose licensing guns affect crime? Do the criminals have to license theirs too? How do you get them to do that? What is the point to licensing them? I absolutely agree that licensing is the first step to removal.

2. What dose this mean? I always thought that a woman with a gun and the skill to use it need fear no man, can't say the same about other forms of protection that rely on physical strength. Seems like a tactic for creating an emotional response rather than a intellectual one.

Gun Game is unique, as it also reports statistics on how guns affect women and children

To me, the ones that want to remove guns from our hands are cowards. They are afraid. Afraid that there of the bad people in the world and afraid to fight back. Rather than admit to their insufficiencies they would rather disarm us all and place us all at the mercy of others so when the bad man enters their home they can look at each other and say "what can we do? nothing, he has a knife/bat/gun/just a big guy. maybe the police will come." because they don't have the guts to say "NOT IN MY HOME! NOT MY FAMILY!".

The lack of intestinal fortitude to take responsibility for their safety and the safety of their family is one of the few unredeemable failings a law abiding citizen can have in my eyes.