Some ideas about taking control of gun control

[hso]

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.

 

[RX-79G]

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.

Our message is that guns are an expedient solution to threats against liberty, but we talk about guns as if they could "do no wrong". That might make sense to us, but to those who view guns as vulgar and loud pieces of steel, our aesthetic is completely unappealing. It would be much better for the pro-gun's broad message to lack any glorifying and paint firearms as more of an unfortunate necessity, like taxes and a standing military.

I would like to see non-gun people take the POV that it is good that their neighbor owns a gun, even though they do not. And I would like that to be because they see us as shouldering a slightly unpopular burden, rather than because we are addicted to toys.

That's why I think media that makes the burden of using a gun the focus is so much more sympathetic than the action films that gun owners love.

 

[JSH1]

We also have our own culture which is extremely difficult to get past.

(At least) Two items within gun culture and the gun rights movement turn a lot of people off.

1. The idea that we want guns to overthrow the government. Most people aren't looking to overthrow the government and don't see any reason that anyone would want to. We come off as dangerous nutjobs hovering way to close to people like Timothy McVeigh
2. The idea that any gun law is a slippery slope to total gun confiscation.

 

[entropy]

Some ideas; infiltrate the opposition.
Debase their argument by persuasively dividing them.
Egg the more militant (how ironic is that?) of them to over the top hysterics, causing them to appear paranoid about their opposition. Encourage violence amongst said extremists.
They seem to think it's working on us...........

 

[cdk8]

Why would people interesting in furthering a pro-gun agenda do that?

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.

 

[RX-79G]

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.

 

[cdk8]

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 think a lot of people see it as more of a gun issue than a mental health issue, and at least some people seem to consider gun control to be the primary or only option in reducing the frequency and severity of these events. When a mass shooting happens, the news immediately talks about the guns used, usually much more than they do the shooter. Then the discussion turns primarily to gun control, and focuses heavily on whatever firearm was used during that event.

No, not all events are predictable or preventable, but there are patterns, signs, and indicators in a considerable number of events. Holistic threat assessments are becoming common, utilizing standardized warning signs and behaviors. There is a new field developing on the recent topic of leakage. We have concealed carry because you can't prevent every shooting, it saves millions of lives every year, and once an event starts there is no going back. We have data showing that shooters frequently target gun-free areas, and I think it would be pretty easy to show how the expansion of gun free zones or limitations on concealed carry will increase the number of these events.

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?

 

[jr_watkins]

I don't agree that "we" are losing. Firearm sales have skyrocketed in the last 10 years and carry permits are issued in the large majority of America. As important, carrying a firearm is no longer perceived as an evil fringe thing, but rather almost common place (thanks to the reality that blood hasn't filled the streets as predicted by this media you speak of) . The number of firearm supporting businesses have, and are, popping up everywhere building firearms, firearms support hardware, clothing, ammunition, and training equipment. Attendance at high end firearm training schools are at an all time high.

Just because the media says something, does not make it so. I think the nation is aware of this, at least everyone I interact with is.

If "we" are the true minority, Donald J made a huge mistake declaring he supported the 2nd amendment. I guess we will see how the election actually turns out (not just how the media predict it will turn out).

Movies?....Come on Man. What does have impact though, is celebrity endorsement. The add industry is based on this. If celebrities are seen pro gun, that helps our case. I wish it weren't so, but celebrity opinion caries a huge amount of weight.

 

[RX-79G]

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?

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.

Movies?....Come on Man.

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'.

Celebrity endorsements are another kind of partisan activity. What I was suggesting is media that has no partisan appearance, but increases the understanding of our viewpoint by depicting the difficulties, without attempting to glamorize gun ownership.

No one in the US currently has any reason to sympathize with gun owners. We appear to be people who put our enjoyment of inanimate objects and our fear of hypothetical tyranny ahead of concerns about violence. We could really use some non-macho depictions of the responsibility we shoulder and the discrimination we face. That will make a far greater impression than the next Ted Nugent.

For the most part, our "celebrities" are a joke in the regular world. Charleton Heston was an amazing man, but now he's the "cold, dead hands" guy.

 

[Malamute]

I don't think were losing, for a number of reasons.

Yes, the main media is biased in general, but,...weve got WAY more concealed carry than 15, 10, even 5 years ago, and it keeps opening up with more states going permitless carry, and even Illinois has come around with carry permits. Theres been large amounts of new gun owners when the ban scares have come up, the carry classes and new shooter/gun owner classes have been very busy with new people, after the night club shootings, there has been more people in the LGBT community choosing to not be helpless victims, and seeking training for gun ownership. Theres also been free classes offered by a number of trainers for the people in these groups that are seeking training and new gun owner info.

Its been a mixed bag, but nowhere near an avalanche of losing ground. More positive than negative in my estimation.

 

[RX-79G]

We aren't universally losing, but we never express hope of removing restrictions, and we keep talking about receiving new ones. Over the long haul, how is that not "losing"?

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.

 

[barnbwt]

We aren't universally losing, but we never express hope of removing restrictions...

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.

Just curious; how certain were you of UBCs or AWBs after the Newtown shooting?

...and we keep talking about receiving new ones.

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?

Over the long haul, how is that not "losing"?

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.

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.

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.

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. Worse than the NFA, in fact. Their entire purpose is to impede commerce, and the only commerce the feds have even a fig-leaf of legitimacy meddling in is at the inter-state level --UBCs are entirely intra-state, and clearly beyond the fed's authority. The NFA/GCA that underpins the whole licensing scheme is based around Interstate Commerce Clause arguments, because that's the only way around the evidentiary requirements an appeal to crime control would carry. This glaring, obvious problem with their ambitions is glaringly absent from their arguments, since they have no intention of passing it or enforcing it in accordance with constitutional bounds; a far more dangerous precedent than the usurpations of the NFA.

If we've decided to finally go through that looking glass, then SCOTUS loses all its legitimate authority as a part of our social contract, and we are entitled to discount their opinions on all manner of subjects going back to Miller & live with the consequences (or not). The contract once broken becomes available for re-negotiation (so to speak)

TCB

 

[RX-79G]

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?

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

The point of UBC's is to enforce the existing laws on prohibited persons. Gun people like to talk a lot about having unenforceable laws, and UBCs are supposed to allow more enforcement against prohibited persons. There are lots of ways of constructing a UBC to achieve that goal, and it would make some sense for the non-absolutist pro-gun lobby to make sure they are getting that UBC built so it puts no burden on legal gun owners.


This thread is not about UBCs. If you'd like to discuss AWB and UBCs more, please start a new thread.

 

[UltraT]

Going back to the OP,
For the average person who doesn't think about guns often, I like to start with some basic principles. Self defense is a universally accepted idea. OK now, don't you want the most effective tool for self defense, a gun? You can bet that a bad guy could definitely have one since there are millions in the US.

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

 

[RX-79G]

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

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.

Just terrible.

 

[UltraT]

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.

 

[RX-79G]

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.

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.

If there are good gun stats, put 'em up.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

For a pop approach try this: https://www.amazon.com/War-Guns-Yourself-Against-Control/dp/1621575802
John Lott, "The War On Guns", Regnery, 1 Aug 2016.

CPRC is deliberately geared for academic minds. Don't knock Crime Prevention Research Center -- it may be the best thing going for our side, from an academic standpoint. And it's not just "John Lott's Website":
"CPRC was founded by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., an economist and a world recognized expert on guns and crime. ..."
Staff listings include:
"Dr. John E. Whitley is an economist and public policy expert. Whitley was Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation at the Department of Homeland Security ...
"William M. Landes is the Clifton R. Musser Professor Emeritus of Law and Economics, and Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. ...
"J. Scott Armstrong is a professor at the Wharton Business School of the University of Pennsylvania. He is internationally known for his pioneering work on forecasting methods. ...
"Arthur Z. Berg, M.D. is a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association and former member of the APA Violence Task Force. ...
"Tim Groseclose is the Marvin Hoffenberg Professor of American Politics at UCLA. ...
"Jonathan M. Karpoff is the Washington Mutual Endowed Chair in Innovation Professor of Finance at the University of Washington Foster School of Business. ...
"Joyce Lee Malcolm is the Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University Law School. ...
"Scott E. Masten is Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy in the University of Michigan Stephen M. Ross School of Business ...
"Carl Moody, Professor of Economics, William & Mary. Professor Moody has published extensively on the relationships between guns, crime and imprisonment ...
"Paul H. Rubin is the Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Economics at Emory University, and Editor in Chief of Managerial and Decision Economics. ...
more at http://crimeresearch.org/about-us/
Board of directors also includes Sheriff David Clarke of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin and Ted Nugentmusician, author, outdoorsman and kill'em'n'grill'em BBQ chef extraordainare.

 

[RX-79G]

Academics don't appear to think much of Lott et all's research. Or of Lott pretending to be his own adoring student.

These so-called academic pro-gun people need to put their big heads together and put up a website that is actually useful to someone other than the people who can poke holes in their studies.

But really, this whole statistic thing isn't effective. What we are combating is not the anti-guns stats but the frequent news reports of murder.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

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.

 

[RX-79G]

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.

Do you understand that academia does not have any impact outside of confirming bias?

Lott and company are the heroes of the pro-gun side because we have virtually no academics on our side to refute anything or offer statistics in support. But their popularity in our ranks is not reflected in the outside world.

 

[barnbwt]

"Academics don't appear to think much of Lott et all's research. Or of Lott pretending to be his own adoring student."
Actually, it's more accurate to say anti-gun folks think that (animosity toward Lott is a classic tell of a devout anti-gunner; no one outside of gun politics knows who he is). The man's findings have many skeptics, but have largely withstood stubborn efforts at debunking, and remain the most diligent academic research effort on the topic to date.

"Lott and company are the heroes of the pro-gun side because we have virtually no academics on our side to refute anything or offer statistics in support."
In case you haven't noticed, academia is a thoroughly broken appartus when it comes to political issues, anymore. Pro-gun papers don't get published, and followup research grants are not given by the Joyce & Melinda Bloomberg Foundation. Rather, guys like Lott get protested frequently, and often as not get run out of the school by hostile directors before they can publish anything noteworthy.

Oddly enough, such hostility is not present in the scientific & technical schools, certainly not to anywhere near the same degree. Economists are typically the only academic field we see unbiased or even friendly research efforts.

TCB

 

[RX-79G]

Pro-gun papers don't get published, and followup research grants are not given by the Joyce & Melinda Bloomberg Foundation

So pro-gun people are both not in academia and are all poor?

 

[barnbwt]

-Poster suggests a quality source of data-based talking points
-RX replies "whatevs it's just Lott" and some nonsense about a confusing website
-Poster replies it's academically oriented, offers a more convenient alternative, but stresses importance of academic approach/findings
-RX replies academics don't respect Lott because of an ancient Yelp scandal, suggests Lott's findings are not convincing (ignores more convenient alternative)
-Poster replies Lott is peer reviewed and increasingly respected & cited
-RX replies that academics like Lott are unconvincing because so many are transparently anti-gun

So RX, you've said that facts/stats don't matter, and have been adamant that emotional bumper-sticker arguments don't work. What's your suggestion?

Ah, here it is;
"These so-called academic pro-gun people need to put their big heads together and put up a website that is actually useful to someone other than the people who can poke holes in their studies."
Seems like that is what sites like this and countless others have plenty of, and seems like hole-poking is the only thing you've been doing here, recently. Or am I missing some hidden suggested course of action, besides an appeal for Universal Background Checks, in your posts?

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

So pro-gun people are both not in academia and are all poor?

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)

And you'd have to be delusional, a fool, or lying to claim academia is not hopelessly biased against anything having to do with firearms at this time. Just see any campus carry movement anywhere for examples.

TCB