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.
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.