The culture conflict is a large part of what we have to contend with since the population shifts to those with no positive experiences associated with firearms.
We also have our own culture which is extremely difficult to get past.The culture conflict is a large part of what we have to contend with since the population shifts to those with no positive experiences associated with firearms.
We also have our own culture which is extremely difficult to get past.
Why would people interesting in furthering a pro-gun agenda do that?
I don't think anyone believes that mass shootings are caused by guns. People believe that mass shootings have mental health causes, and those causes are mysterious, hard to predict, hard to detect once the shooter starts planning and hard to stop when they take action.Because mass shootings are not about guns. They are about people. People who are unwell, have destructive habits that have nothing to do with firearms, and people who will harm other people using any means possible, regardless of legality. In many cases, there are major signs of trouble long before they go on a spree killing. And in many of those cases, there have been several major failures to identify a problem and/or take corrective action before things spiraled out of control. An examination of these cases will illustrate how illogical it is to expect gun control to stop these events, and how someone in that mindset will circumvent every single law you throw at them. Ultimately, if someone feels we need more gun control because of these spree killings, they need to reconsider their position and take a more holistic approach, involving psychiatric care, community involvement, parenting, and preventive action that comes about long before it reaches a point where firearms are involved.
When President Obama blamed gun owners for a mass shooting, he focused on 30 seconds of time, ignored the several years leading up to it, and offered a simple solution to a very complex problem. That mindset is driving gun control ambitions, and is why such gun control initiatives will fail.
Not too long ago, the Cochrane Review concluded that there is no reliable evidence to demonstrate that smoking bans are reducing smoking prevalence. However, smoking rates are decreasing, demonstrating that it is more about people than it is the tobacco, and how heavier regulations and bans do not necessarily result in a desired outcome coming true.
I don't think anyone believes that mass shootings are caused by guns. People believe that mass shootings have mental health causes, and those causes are mysterious, hard to predict, hard to detect once the shooter starts planning and hard to stop when they take action.
Any honest depiction of mass shooters is only going to demonstrate that many reasonable people would have missed whatever signs, and that relying entirely on prevention is not going to stop them. Which immediately raises the question "if mass shooters can't be prevented, can the shootings be prevented by limiting access to weapons".
So I don't see why pro-gun people would spend money illustrating just how difficult it is to prevent mass shooters. It is only damaging to our cause.
I don't see how a dramatic presentation could be expected to make so many widely varied points in a way that people would emotionally carry. You can't use a single piece of media as a Swiss Army knife.Wouldn't showing a potential for the combination of taking behavioral identification initiatives months or years before a shooting happens, eliminating gun free zones, and expanding concealed carry offer an alternative to stricter gun control to those who believe gun control to be the answer?
Yes - movies. Movies, TV, etc are all media. The man running for president has convinced a large segment of the US population that he's famous because he's a good businessman. In truth, he is in the business of being famous, and his wealth comes media and branding of his name, not being good at real estate or any other traditional 'business'.Movies?....Come on Man.
You're using that "we" word again, RX. I'd say we were pretty confident about rolling back current gun laws before Hmmm-Hmmm conveniently screwed up the entire presidential/congressional election cycle & threw all our hard work into flux just as we arrived to clash i-ron with The Beast in an epic battle of heavy metal and politics. Hearing Protection Act, condition-less reciprocity of concealed carry licenses, federally-enforced shall issue, and so on. Considering how there was NO pro gun legislation offered since the 80's, it was a pretty ambitious menu. I suspect there's a little less appetite for rolling back import/manufacturing restrictions than you'd think simply because a) most people are unaware of them, and b) the market for firearms has adapted well and the vast majority of gun owners' needs are essentially still met at the federal level. That is to say, what qualms people have day-to-day largely stem from state-level AWBs or licensure, and not 922r and the Norinco ban.We aren't universally losing, but we never express hope of removing restrictions...
Is that not exactly what you've been peddling recently? Compromise on UBC's or some such, in the hopes the anti's will get bored & go home, content at last with victory?...and we keep talking about receiving new ones.
Oh, so you do get it after all; forget what I said. Glad to see you've finally realized that absolutist, stubborn, obstructionist opposition to any and all gun control is the only way to realize a win.Over the long haul, how is that not "losing"?
Okay, forget what I just-just said, and remember what I said before that. So if UBC's are inevitable and represent a tangible loss for our side, explain just why we should offer them up. If your reasoning is that we could get some benefit in so doing, explain how/where such negotiation will take place, and with whom. FYI, the reason we won't get an AWB is because it'd be a multi-billion dollar perturbation of the civilian firearms market at this point; we're too big to kill, anymore. The AWB first passed when ARs were rare and extremely expensive, the NFA when machineguns cost about as much as automobiles & had to be 'stolen' from armories to show up in street crime.In the coming years, we will probably not get another assault weapons ban. But we probably will have a UBC. Net gain? Nope. Status quo? No. Its a loss.
Not really. I was using the CCL model, where we put a restriction on ourselves to gain a benefit, and then the use of the restriction led in some states to Constitutional CC.Is that not exactly what you've been peddling recently? Compromise on UBC's or some such, in the hopes the anti's will get bored & go home, content at last with victory?
Well, of course not. Did you read the OP of this thread? I think that absolutists are, by definition, self limiting and go extinct. It's like being a Shaker.Oh, so you do get it after all; forget what I said. Glad to see you've finally realized that absolutist, stubborn, obstructionist opposition to any and all gun control is the only way to realize a win.
Well, that's a theory. So what you're saying is that I should be able to grow and sell opium in my state because I wouldn't be engaged in interstate commerce? Prohibited persons lose that right through interstate firearms laws, even though no commerce need take place.What's darkly hilarious about universal checks is that they are a flagrantly unconstitutional policy, with absolutely no justification to be carried out at the federal level.
What a horrible website. It just appears to be Lott's website, and you have to download stuff to even look at it. It is extremely ineffective if you can't read a single claim right on the site.If they start to get into accident and death statistics or assault weapons bans then you have to start giving them good statistics like those from crimeresearch.org
But it is horrible compared to the ease of finding anti-gun data on those websites. It isn't good for short attention spans, and it gives the appearance of trying to hide something.It is Lott's website. I guess ymmv, I haven't had trouble navigating it in the past or having to download things. I'll take another look.
EDIT: Yes the data is in downloadable files, that makes sense for raw data, but the important parts like his interpretation and such is under the research tab and is in the articles written. I haven't analyzed every piece of his data or anything like that, but so far it looks to be good stuff.
Do you understand that academia does not have any impact outside of confirming bias?Moody at one time was cited as a critic of Lott. Now he contributes to CPRC.
There has been a sea change in assessments of Lott since 2002-2003, with more favorable academic reviews, outside of Media Matters, Mother Jones, and other such partisan sites.
So pro-gun people are both not in academia and are all poor?Pro-gun papers don't get published, and followup research grants are not given by the Joyce & Melinda Bloomberg Foundation
Yes. Obviously. Billionaires generally weren't born & raised in the countryside, but in long anti-gun crime-infested hell holes like Chicago & NYC where they mature to do business (pure coincidence, to be sure). Also, those who do value individual liberties like RKBA are generally less inclined to insert themselves in the affairs of others politically (which is why even the few Republican billionaire sugar daddies aren't particularly pro-gun so much as interested in fiscal/social mores issues). The result is a more humble base less intrinsically-motivated to take on the opposition (few join the NRA to 'change the world' so much as to defend what they have)So pro-gun people are both not in academia and are all poor?