"There is never going to be a unanimous agreement which will silence the most die-hard voices, so if that's what he seeks by using the word "consensus" (i.e.: everyone pretty much is happy and there's no more struggle over this), he'll be eternally disappointed."
By 'consensus' these folks (and us) typically mean 'general agreement among the folks I interact with,' which is to say each side. Which is why 'consensus' so often translates into domination.
When no one you know voted for Richard Nixon, it's hard to come to a consensus amongst your peers that he was correctly selected to become president. However, there is a great sense of justification amongst the Tricky Dick voting crowd. Consensus through victory and/or domination --same as it ever was.
"Instead, they fear the slow erosion of their rights, a fear that is animated in no small part due to the Australian experience on this front."
...and about a dozen or so other historical examples, not to mention
a solid century of identical progression towards disarmament in this country. And daily examples of the mask slipping and prominent politicians or even private citizens either A) openly demanding disarmament (EJ Dionne just a day ago), or B) asking for 'more' than they said would satisfy them previously (the current infatuation with background checks, when 'bans' were the previous preferred cure-all)
"If you look to Aus and Britain for ANY example of gun control policy, you are completely and irretrievably hoisting the black flag and will be seen as the enemy. Of course, this could be simply received as a strategy point, educating anti-gunners that they should avoid that talking point so as to keep their arguments "reasonable" sounding."
To be fair, if an anti-gunner can avoid an "Appeal to Tyrannical Injustice" in order to support their argument, they are empirically more reasonable
"I have never, ever met a gun owner who actually believed that more guns would make people safer on the whole"
I have never, ever, met a murderer --they don't exist.
"These are people who believe in their right and obligation to control their own fate by carrying a firearm to protect themselves and those around them, even if that might disadvantage those who choose not to."
That I rise to the challenges and risks of the world, and take it upon myself to bear the implements which can challenge them, it cannot
possibly bear upon a random third party in any way, whatsoever. Unless, of course, they seek to engage me in single combat.
I think there is a lot of projection in our author's statement here, in that he experiences another's advantage as his personal disadvantage. The same logic underpinning such failures as communism and fascism. "Greed" is when you desire more for yourself than is proper; "envy" is when you simply desire that someone else not have what you crave. But what is odd is that his envy of other's self-defense could be resolved so readily, so simply, by a nearly brain-dead simple device of steel that doesn't cost half a damn...if only he could permit others the opportunity to do so along with him (by repealing gun control laws)
"But there has always been a tension between what is good for the individual and what is good for the collective."
I fully believe this author fails to realize the individual he his trading away for The Greater Good is himself. In his mind, it's always some other unknown guy, someone so unimportant he'll never even meet him, who can be incrementally sacrificed until nothing remains.
TCB
