Head of Moms Demand Action defines "assault weapon" as 10+ rounds fired in 1 minute

[Pizzapinochle]

BarnBWT

Finally have a few minutes to give a proper response.

This… “Too many on both sides are content to see the other as green, two-headed monsters worthy only of being slain” … is definitely the case.
BUT, I have noticed a difference between the two sides. [NOTE: I’ll use the terms “pro-gun” and “anti-gun” to describe the two sides, even though “anti-gun” is WILDLY inaccurate.]

Take me for instance. A couple years ago, I didn’t care one way or another about guns and the laws around them. Something happened (don’t remember what) and I decided to research it and form an opinion. At the time, I was not a gun owner, but enjoyed shooting on occasions that I had the opportunity and had taught riflery to kids at camp in the past. I am now a gun owner (got a real job to buy ‘em, which was really the only thing that ever kept me from owning in the past) and looking to expand my collection.

So, when I started looking at the laws and such around guns, I came at it from a pro-gun view. I liked guns, didn’t fear them, was not ignorant of them, or ANY of the stereotypes that most of the people on this thread have assumed about anyone who holds an “anti-gun” view.

When I explored the issue and found facts on my own and read quite a bit (mostly pro-gun reading) I reached conclusions on a variety of issues. In MOST cases, I agree with the pro-gun side.

So…

To jbrown50 and Robert

when you anti-gun folks say that you want to ban "Assault Weapons", you're saying that you want to ban all guns

I can not recall a single instance where the banning of a single type of firearm has lead to the reduction of violent crime.

Actually, I am opposed to banning any guns.

Additionally, I am opposed to NY style licensing and restrictions on legal gun owners. I am opposed to magazine capacity limits, I think law-abiding citizens should have access to their choice of tools for self-defense, I am in favor of concealed carry, I wish I had the money to buy an AR style rifle because they are fun to shoot, I believe that an armed population is much harder to oppress than an unarmed population, I think suppressors should be sold for $50 as safety equipment instead of treated like the ultimate tool of the gangster assassin, etc. etc. etc.

BUT, I also think that universal background checks and a traceable database of sales would give law enforcement an effective tool for prosecuting straw purchases and the other methods that criminals use to arm themselves. Implementing these laws would not disarm criminals entirely, but it would make it more difficult and costly for them to get their hands on guns. At the same time, these laws would have a negligible impact on the ability of law-abiding citizens to own firearms and use them for whatever purpose they desire.

When I talk to “anti-gun” people and explain this, they say “Well, I disagree with you on some of those points, but view you as an ally”

When I talk to “pro-gun” people and explain this, they say “Gun control can’t work because it is a fact that laws only apply to those that would abide by the law and the only reason for gun control is to control people and nothing you say is right. You are emotional and scared of guns and your only interest is in disarming law-abiding citizens. If you would just look at the facts you would realize how wrong you are…”

So on and so forth. Generally, I am viewed as THE ENEMY. This, despite the fact that I have probably done as much to convince some “antis” I have talked to that on some issues (example: AWB or magazine capacity regulations) that regulation does not really make sense. But, I am the enemy to the “pro-gun” people, because I don’t buy in to every single thing they say.

Truth is, if the “pro-gun” side wants to have a chance, they need people like me as allies. I am the kind of person who wants real compromise that could EXPAND gun rights for law abiding citizens while, at the same time, doing more to protect law-abiding citizens by making it more difficult for criminals to arm themselves.

I came to this site based on the “High Road” mentality it claims to support. But, for the most part, I have not seen anything new from most of the members. Instead, I see a lot of this:

If you're talking about informing people that actually want to learn the facts, etc and get them to reconsider their views so they'll come over to our side, sure.

Essentially…

“Oh yeah, we want to have reasonable discussions based on facts and logic, as LONG AS THEY ACCEPT OUR VERSION OF FACTS AND LOGIC AND AGREE WITH US AT THE END OF IT!!”

Which helps no one.

My interest is in figuring out how to ACTUALLY make a change (BTW, I hold a degree in political science, I am working on a masters in public administration, and it will surprise me greatly if I don’t end up in a position with significant influence on public policy at some time in the future) that helps both sides. I want to figure out if it is possible.

In my time working on this issue, I have consistently found the “pro-gun” side to be more reactionary and unreasonable in their views on the issue. This thread is a PERFECT example.

If you read the comments on this thread, you would think that the MDA lady had made a significant policy announcement or something like that.

What really happened was she made a poorly worded post on twitter in response to someone elses statement. She later clarified her statement, and that was the end of it. She was not trying to redefine assault weapons to “maintain the vagueness of the term is so that you can apply it to any weapon, in the future, that you feel needs to be banned.” She just made a poorly worded comment.

I don’t see that kind of reaction as often or as emphatically/energetically from the “anti-gun” side. Not saying it isn’t there, but
Don’t know if any of this matters (and it is really long), but I hope there are some other folks who read this and maybe change the discussion a bit.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

On another topic, BarnBWT, your analysis of urban population and gun control is pretty spot on and, unless something changes, is a roadmap for what will happen in the gun control fight over the next few decades.

Cities and large population centers will enact increasingly more strict local gun regulations to try and protect themselves from crime.

Rural areas, where the strict laws are not necessary, will maintain lax laws.

Criminals will go to rural areas to procure weapons, then bring them to the cities to commit crimes against an unarmed urban population.

Bad news for everyone.

UNLESS there are laws passed nationally that make it uniformly difficult (rural or urban) for criminals to procure guns (See UBC and traceable database) while at the same time rolling back restrictions on law abiding gun owners in urban areas that have become too restrictive.

THAT is the best of both worlds. Armed, law abiding population with a criminal population that struggles to find equivalent weapons. But, no one on either side is moving in that direction that I can see.

 

[316SS]

When I talk to “pro-gun” people and explain this, they say “Gun control can’t work because it is a fact that laws only apply to those that would abide by the law and the only reason for gun control is to control people and nothing you say is right. You are emotional and scared of guns and your only interest is in disarming law-abiding citizens. If you would just look at the facts you would realize how wrong you are…”

So on and so forth. Generally, I am viewed as THE ENEMY. This, despite the fact that I have probably done as much to convince some “antis” I have talked to that on some issues (example: AWB or magazine capacity regulations) that regulation does not really make sense. But, I am the enemy to the “pro-gun” people, because I don’t buy in to every single thing they say.

You may be a swell person (I assume you're not a two-headed green monster), but you may also be a more dangerous enemy to my political goals that the head of Moms Demand Action, because "they" can point to you and say "Look! Even this gun owner supports background checks and registries!" My state has UBC and registries, and I live with the real possibility that the state will one day decide all gun owners are evil ("Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in!"), and they know what I have and where I live. Do you think we should be allies because you only advocate some of the policies I oppose, but not all?

 

[Mike1234567]

You may be a swell person (I assume you're not a two-headed green monster), but you may also be a more dangerous enemy to my political goals that the head of Moms Demand Action, because "they" can point to you and say "Look! Even this gun owner supports background checks and registries!" My state has UBC and registries, and I live with the real possibility that the state will one day decide all gun owners are evil ("Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in!"), and they know what I have and where I live. Do you think we should be allies because you only advocate some of the policies I oppose, but not all?

Don't fool yourself. Don't think for one minute that there's no federal registry for all firearms bought through FFLs. FTF sales are a different animal.

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

UNLESS there are laws passed nationally that make it uniformly difficult (rural or urban) for criminals to procure guns (See UBC and traceable database) while at the same time rolling back restrictions on law abiding gun owners in urban areas that have become too restrictive.

Pizza, there is a flaw in your theory. Criminals don't normally procure their guns through lawful means. They buy them off the street or steal them.

And I don't want to hear the tired old quote "more gun laws will mean less guns on the street". We already have 20,000 gun laws and the criminals have no trouble getting guns.

Another gun law will mean absolutely nothing to the criminal element, and won't prevent even one crime.


Make no mistake, the anti-gun politicians want to disarm everyone, and it's not our safety they're looking out for.

 

[316SS]

Don't fool yourself. Don't think for one minute that there's no federal registry for all firearms bought through FFLs. FTF sales are a different animal.

I'm not fooling myself, and I think that what you suggest is likely. That's why "Universal Background Checks" are so nefarious, because legal FTF transfers go away (long since happened here in California).

To advocate for UBC accepts the premise (obviously, to me, flawed) that the government can now, and into the future, be trusted not to abuse the information collected.

Edit: I realize I'm way off topic, so enough out of me on this.

 

[Robert]

Actually, I am opposed to banning any guns.

You will forgive me if I remain skeptical.

UNLESS there are laws passed nationally that make it uniformly difficult (rural or urban) for criminals to procure guns (See UBC and traceable database) while at the same time rolling back restrictions on law abiding gun owners in urban areas that have become too restrictive.

Criminals do not follow the law, that is why they are criminals. How then do you figure that more laws will do anything other than to restrict law abiding citizens?

Another gun law will mean absolutely nothing to the criminal element, and won't prevent even one crime.

Exactly.