Liston Matthews writes [via Ammoland.com]
How many times have you heard a gun-banner say, “We need to have a conversation about _________ (fill in the blank: gun control, gun safety, universal background checks, etc.).” Recently, I read a letter to the editor of my local paper that included a similar statement; “Through civilized dialogue, we can create viable solutions to make our community safer and a better place to live today and in the future.” So, I decided to take up the challenge and initiate a civilized dialogue. Here is the result:
[NB: My statements and questions are in bold, and the other party’s follow. For clarity in reading, the original text is identical to the original, but rearranged in question and answer format. For ease of reading, hyperlinks to referenced websites are associated with the appropriate verbiage in the document.]
Dear M
I read your letter to the editor last week, and was surprised, considering your profession of English teacher, at your usage of the term ‘gun violence’. Usage of that term allocates a quality to an inanimate object that is simply not there. Had you used the term ‘criminal violence’ or ‘gang violence’, your language would have been more accurate. I wonder, do you categorize a stabbing as knife violence? Does using explosives get labeled as ‘bomb violence’?
You mention in your letter that you would like to have ‘civilized dialogue’. In a good faith effort at civilized dialogue, here are some questions for you-
M – Jun 7, 2016
Thank you for writing. I have done a little research to answer your questions. I hope you’ll look at the links I cite.
1. Do you believe that you have the natural right to defend yourself against criminal attack? If so, why? If not, why not?
Certainly. Everyone has the right to defend his or her own life. Interestingly, most “defensive” uses of guns, according to the Harvard School of Public Health, are actually attempts to intimidate others. While I believe that of course everyone has the right to defend his or her life, I do not think that everyone has the right to use a gun to intimidate or threaten someone else.
2. Do you believe news reporters should have a reporter’s license? Why or why not?
What is the relevance of the question? Reporters cannot kill with their words. People can kill with their guns. A more relevant comparison (if that is what you are intending) would be a driver’s license. I will ask you: Do you believe that car drivers should have driver’s licenses? Why or why not?
The relevance of this question is coupled to the fact that reporters have historically been exempt from licensing requirements, in contrast with doctors, lawyers, and many other professions. Reporters claim exemption from licensing requirements because of the First Amendment, which recognizes the freedom of the press.
The handgun carry licensing/permitting process in many states, including Tennessee, has its historical roots in slave codes, which required that slaves have a permission slip (license) from their master before they could carry a firearm. It is an impediment to the lawful citizen, and ignored by the criminal. It amounts to a poll tax on a constitutional right. There are many good citizens of low income who might be able to purchase and carry an inexpensive handgun for personal protection, but Tennessee’s permitting process is cost-prohibitive for them.
3. You state that more than 90 Americans are killed each day by ‘gun violence’. Do you have source documents for that assertion?
The figure from NBC News is 87 per day. You can find it here: I used the 90 per day figure because the organizations in which I volunteer, Everytown for Gun Safety/Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America/Mayors against Illegal Guns, use that figure. I did not research it for the letter. However, 87 per day seems pretty close to me.
4. Of those killed each day with a gun, can you break it down as to how many of those were murder or other criminal act?
I cannot. I’m not sure that information exists, given that there has been little research on gun violence since the mid-1990s, when Congress withdrew funding for gun research at the urging of the NRA. It’s really unclear.
The recent 2012 FBI report indicates about 40 murders/day. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, “In 2012, an estimated 14,827 persons were murdered in the United States. This was a 1.1 percent increase from the 2011 estimate, but a 9.9 percent decrease from the 2008 figure, and a 10.3 percent drop from the number in 2003.”
5. Of those, how many were suicides?
61% of gun deaths are suicides, according to various sources. “Among men, among women, and in every age group (including children), states with higher rates of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicides.”
The CDC reports for 2013 that there were a total of 41,149 suicides, of which 21,175 were listed as firearm suicides. So, about 58 of 113 suicides (51%) per day were committed with a firearm.
While suicides are certainly tragic, if you were able to totally eliminate firearms from the civilian populace, the other 49% would still be there, and I suppose some of those who would have used a firearm will resort to some other method as they do in other countries where firearms are not readily available.
6. How many were by police officers in the line of duty?
Wow, I would be very wary of any statistics on that. It’s a hot topic and I would imagine that death by cop is something that would be suppressed by police departments where possible. The statistical website 538 basically says no one knows how many people are killed by police each year.
About 348 per year, almost one per day, which really doesn’t significantly affect your numbers.
7. How many were lawful defensive uses by an intended victim?
Here is some information from the Harvard School of Public Health.
This report indicates a minimum of 108,000 annual defensive uses, or 295 per day.
So now I would like to ask you some questions, please. As a concerned mother, I am most interested in public safety– things like preventing the accidental deaths of children when they shoot each other or are shot, or preventing impulsive suicides by gun, which are far, far more lethal than suicide attempts by gun [sic] or rope or drugs.
1. Do you think that a man who has been violent toward his wife and children, and who has been served with a restraining order, should lawfully be allowed to carry a gun? Why or why not?
That is the law, and has been the law since 1996, under the Lautenberg Amendment. The chief problem with the Lautenberg law is that it is in effect an ex post facto law. There are many cases of people who pled guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence decades ago, and paid a small fine. They never dreamed that someday in the distant future they would be prohibited from firearms ownership.
More than that, anyone that can’t be trusted with a gun, can’t be trusted without a custodian.***
They should be in prison.
Note, too, that it goes the other way; women such as Carol Bowne in New Jersey, sometimes find themselves in need of a defensive firearm, but law/bureaucrats contribute to their untimely deaths.
2. Do you think that in parks, bars, and other public places where people congregate (legally or illegally) to drink and party, guns should be allowed? Why or why not?
Yes. In all these venues, criminals ignore whatever law might be in effect. In Tennessee, permitted citizen carry of firearms is legal in all the venues you mentioned, with a few exceptions. When these laws were being debated in the legislature, there were multiple editorials predicting ‘blood in the streets’ if passed. Yet, their predictions were wrong.
Beginning in 2008, Tennessee State Parks were no longer designated gun free zones. In 2010, National Parks conformed to State Park law, and lifted their ban. Tennessee allowed local governments to opt-out of the law in 2008, which the City of Knoxville and the Town of Farragut did. Knox County, however, conformed to State Park law at that time, with no change in crime. Local governments were required under 2015 legislation to conform to State Park law, creating uniformity statewide.
Saturday night, we had the largest massacre in the United Since September 11, 2001. That was in a so-called gun free zone. Only three mass shootings have occurred in the US since 1950 that were not in these zones. Tennessee law allows permitted citizens to go into restaurants that serve alcohol (bars are not legally defined in Tennessee), unless the business itself posts against firearms.
3. Do you think that guns should be allowed to be sold informally outside of gun shows, with no background check required? Why or why not?
Yes. First, historically background checks have proven ineffective. Felons and mental defectives have been prohibited by Federal law from so much as touching a firearm or a bullet since 1968. Yet felons who violate the 1968 law by attempting to purchase through a dealer are seldom prosecuted.
In 2014, your organizations backed I-594 in Washington State, which requires background checks on almost all transfers of firearms: ((25) “Transfer” means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.).
What that means that if my friend Alan who lives in Washington State wants to let my other friend Dave shoot his new gun at the range, they must first go to a dealer and have a background check done on Dave; then before Dave can give the gun back to Alan, they must go back to a dealer, and have a background check done on Alan.
Dave can’t load it for Alan. He can’t even hold it until they do the second background check. Is that what your really want? That was Mayor Bloomberg’s legislation.
Universal background checks mean universal registration, which too often has resulted in confiscation. This confiscation has already happened in California and New York).There is no upside to these checks and plenty of demonstrated downside.
4. Do you think that parents who leave a loaded gun lying around should be legally responsible if their child picks it up and kills another child (this happened, as you probably know, very recently in White Pine)?
These types of incidents most often happen among the part of our population that is already a high risk group.
With gun sales skyrocketing, and the total number of guns in the US rising tremendously, childhood firearms deaths are at an all-time low, in raw numbers as well as as a percentage of the population.
5. Do you think that college employees (who may include anyone from the maintenance man to an angry professor who has been turned down for tenure) should be allowed to have guns on campus?
I think that any peaceable citizen should be able to carry a defensive firearm almost anywhere. Exceptions require that the entity in charge of an area/building provide adequate, meaningful, armed security for all. Sterile zones at airports probably come closest to that.
To conclude, I keep seeing over and over that when the bad person strikes, they choose the time and place. Whether it be a run-of the-mill convenience store robbery, collateral damage from gangland shootings, or Islamic terrorism, you are on your own. The University of Tennessee Police will not protect you. The Knox County Sheriff’s Office won’t be there when I am having the worst day of my life.
I am sure the numbers will change now, but a recent report indicates there are an average of 14.3 deaths in a mass shooting when the police are the first ones on the scene with a gun. On the other hand, When an armed citizen is there, the carnage drops to 2.3.
M – Jun 13, 2016
All of your facts and statistics boil down to 1) you don’t think we have a particular problem 2) so you are unwilling to take any action to solve what you see as a non-problem.
I think 49 people dead and over 50 wounded in a matter of hours, shot efficiently by a weapon of war trained on a civilian population, is a problem. You don’t. There is nothing much more to say, really.
Does this mean the dialog is finished?
M – Jun 14, 2016
Well, I guess I don’t see where we can get with it if our opinions are fixed. My sense is that your opinion is fixed. My opinion, after long thought about it, is fixed. Am I not correct about this?
At this point, there was no dialogue to continue. She was correct when she stated, “our opinions are fixed.”
– – – – – –
About the Author:
Liston Matthews is a longtime firearms civil rights advocate in Knoxville, TN. He is involved with the Tennessee Firearms Association, and executive director of the Farragut Gun Club. Visit his website at www.KnoxGunGuy.com.
“your opinion is fixed. My opinion, after long thought about it, is fixed.”
Which is why I will have nothing to do with so-called “dialogues,” which are like masturbation without the payoff. And I want less than nothing to do with idiots.
This times 1000! They don’t want compromise or discussion. They only want it my way or the highway. Dems proved that with the vote last week.
Our side has given to much already and by given I mean taken away by underhanded methods (1986 auto ban). They want a discussion then start from zero. Repeal every existing ban nationwide and start the discussion from there.
+1000 Enough is Enough Im sick of giving an inch only to have it turn into a foot. We get nothing in return!!
No difference than how the left wants to have an open dialogue on race relations. You’re White so you’re wrong. With guns it’s ‘you’re wrong and I am right’.
The fact that she admitted up front that she was a (the?) member of all those known anti Second Amendment groups was a clear giveaway that nothing said in the discussion was going to change her mind.
“Which is why I will have nothing to do with so-called “dialogues,” which are like masturbation without the payoff. And I want less than nothing to do with idiots.”
Actually, no. Coming here and preaching to the TTAG choir is more like masturbating. What went on above was simply a good ole fashioned waste-o-time
While there may not be an immediate change in opinion, I have seen two people change their views outright and one accept correction. I have also seen a fourth shift to a live and let live position.
The motivators were:
1) discussion about the history of gun control and actual incidents of violence versus perception;
2) my mother after learning that two of her children are safely and happily in gun-owning families;
3) positive response to learning the history of the AR; and
4) a coworker who accepted a range invitation after friendly debates/discussions and had a good time. From gun grabbing to gun indifferent.
It can happen, but we are all examples to others 24/7 and have a responsibility to be good examples.
Damned facts..
Shit on facts. Mommy emotions rule.
Yep, that is not too dissimilar to my conversations with the more civil hardcore anti-2nd amenders. I lay out the facts with precise numbers and references. These facts disprove the anti-2nd amendment folks propaganda. The anti-2nd amendment folks are unmoved even though their beliefs were soundly disproven. Then, they say the illustrious “we agree to disagree” BS, which I find rather stupid since I present facts without offering opinions.
The anti-gun side has no intention of honoring an agreement to peaceably disagree. If they really did agree that it was okay to disagree, they wouldn’t keep trying to force burdensome and confiscatory anti-gun laws down our throats.
Bob,
Your facts and figures don’t matter to the overwhelming majority of gun-grabbers because they don’t care about facts and figures for anything. Emotions rule their brains. Their “discussions” are nothing more than verbal diarrhea that they hurl at you in an attempt to browbeat you into agreement.
In future discussions, I recommend that you only offer one set of “facts and figures” and that is Vermont’s overall violent crime rate as well as the violent crime rate where the attacker used a firearm. It is perpetually the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd lowest in the United States even though anyone over the age of 16 can legally carry a handgun or rifle openly or concealed without any government screening, licensing, or permitting … and no government screening, licensing, or permitting is necessary for Vermonters to purchase firearms (other than a federal background check to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer). This example alone tells us that “lax gun laws” or “easy availability of guns” has absolutely nothing to do with violent crime whether or not the attacker uses a firearm.
Remember, facts and figures are unimportant to most gun-grabbers. Rather, emotions are paramount in their decisions. Think about emotional arguments like, “Why are you pro-rape? What kind of monster condemns women to rape?!?!?”
Caution: when you get into emotional arguments such as how gun-grabbers are pro-rape, I suggest that you wear laboratory grade googles — they will protect your eyes when the gun-grabber’s head explodes from the emotional overload.
No compromise.
Exactly. The point of these ‘dialogues’ is to illicit compromise. When it comes to our rights there should be no compromise. The compromise between food and poison is food with some poison added. You might survive but why add any poison?
That’s kinda how I picture the sort of “dialog” in which I’d like to be involved.
Except, of course, in reality I brace for the inevitable “F*ck you, ammo-sexual gun-nut!” or some other intellectually weak ad hominem slur I seem to see most on-line conversation terminate with. Glad to see someone get a more polite result.
Insulting and resorting to ad hominem attacks is the intellectual equivalent to running out of ammo and throwing the gun, no pun intended! 🙂
That’s how you know you’ve won.
It is undoubtedly true (at least to us, grin) that the facts are on our side. The issue isn’t facts, it’s how people value those facts.
X number of people kill themselves. I say that’s their choice. They say we have do do something.
X number of people are killed by guns. I say that 80% of them have prior felony convictions, thus are probably living a criminal lifestyle, and that is also their choice. I wish I could care, but I mostly don’t. They say we have to do something.
X number of children accidentally shot while handling a gun they should be able to access. I am sad, and say that the parents should have done more (rarely do I think they should be criminally prosecuted). They say we have to do something.
I value personal rights (and responsibility) and liberty more than I value the deaths of innocents, or certainly more than the deaths of criminals. They will call me a monster because they value – at least they SAY they value – people more than anything. We are basically speaking different languages. I frankly think they are full of sanctimonious bullshit and what they really want, more than anything else, is safety and a release from their ever-present fear and they are more than willing to infringe any right as long as it delivers some semblance of safety, which at the end of the day doesn’t even exist.
She moved on to easier pastures. As expected. At least she was civil.
It’s difficult to have a conversation when the parties speak different languages and live in different universes. The premise of each side’s case is so alien and irrational to the other that it’s almost hopeless. It devolves into spewing contrary statistics and facts at each other and nothing gets accomplished.
I live in another country and I originally speak another language, so I’m an Alien, and somehow I still understand pretty well what is said on TTAG… and I share the same opinion. So I think it’s more a question of logic, reasoning and “common sense”, you know the thing that everyone is always talking about but don’t seem to have anymore 😉
But you aren’t a “MOM”!!!
Being a SUPERMOM is the most important job ever created. And that means protecting Sarah-Grace and Lawson from everything that could possibly negatively affect these perfect children. Including guns. Or they aren’t PERFECT MOMS.
A perfectly illustrated example of feelings versus facts.
Which is why I also refuse to engage in “meaningful dialogue” anymore.
“1) you don’t think we have a particular problem. 2) so you are unwilling to take any action to solve what you see as a non-problem.”
Sure we do. That’s why we carry. Don’t you?
“suicides by gun, which are far, far more lethal” ANY method of suicide can be just as lethal. It all depends on the intent.
True story. Guy comes at me with a crowbar when I accidentally stumble on his attempts to break into a store after hours. I show him my revolver and he scampers. No shots fired and cops not involved cause I had no permit.
Was this a DGU or was I trying to intimidate someone with my gun? How would this person interpret what happened?
Was it a DGU or intimidation with a gun? Yes.
The most successful DGUs involve nothing more than intimidation. The less successful ones involve firing bullets at someone.
Yeah, I thought that was really telling when she talked about DGU’s actually being intimidation (with that words intended to have a negative connotation), implying that those who carry guns are simply bullies, and that crimes (the kind that would warrant “intimidation” from the intended victim) don’t happen.
Clearly she was unaware what a gun is used for or how self defense plays out. The idea is to intimidate a threat, which she cannot comprehend.
I would have you arrested for illegally carrying. What a racist, broken record.
All of your facts and statistics boil down to 1) you don’t think we have a particular problem
– There are problems, but the solutions proposed by the anti’s won’t fix any of the problems, and when pressed they admit it but claim something must be done.
2) so you are unwilling to take any action to solve what you see as a non-problem.
– An individual citizen has little power in these regards. If the powers that be actually enforced the laws on the books then the problem would be less. Reducing gun free zones would probably help as well.
Good grief, Omer… all the “laws” already on the books are no different than all of the newly proposed “laws,” just a little ragged around the edges. They are all impotent to actually prevent people from harming each other, but are used endlessly to make people helpless to defend themselves.
The “law” that matters doesn’t need to be written anywhere:
No human being has the right (authority) to initiate force against another human being under any circumstances, nor to delegate such aggression. Every human being has the absolute right (authority) to defend themselves and others against the initiation of force.
The application of that to life in general is not always easy or perfect, which is why human beings communicate, negotiate and engage in arbitration. If they are smart.
“shot efficiently by a weapon of war trained on a civilian population,”
… is where we see that actual facts never really would have mattered.
Why trying a dialogue when they don’t even want to look at facts?
We obviously know it won’t be any dialogue, it will just be a way for them to deliver their “emotional feelings” and “personal opinions”, and nothing more.
Also, correct me if I’m wrong (because I never really paid much attention to be honest, but it could be interesting to know for further “dialogue”), they claim there’s 87 persons that die every day from a firearms. But there’s 58 of them that are suicide by using a firearm. And pretty much 1 is the result of police shooting. So technically, there’s 28 homicide per firearms per day… when there’s 295 defensives use a day…
So, there’s technically 10 times more defensive use than homicide per firearm, which even include all homicide, including the 80% we estimate from gang wars and criminal activities. So for any person that is murdered in the US by an offensive use of firearms, 10 persons are saved by a defensive use of firearms.
Am I right or did I miss something?
No, you are absolutely correct.
Fruitless is the key word! It seems the more gun control is being discussed in the moment, the less the anti-gunners want to acknowledge facts. It’s almost like facts are invisible to them. I’ll give them a fact and they squint their eyes in concentration/confusion and say- I don’t understand!?!?.
I actually think they are fact-blind!
You’re debating with a woman who fears and hates guns and the people who own them, so yes, her opinion of the matter is fixed.
Now, this is what caught my eye: “What is the relevance of the question? Reporters cannot kill with their words. ”
Really? Reporters can’t kill? Now that’s just rich. She must have forgotten about Joseph Goebbels and Julius Streicher, but being a good little Nazi at heart herself, she couldn’t possibly comprehend the irony. Hell, I’d say reporters have killed millions, maybe tens of millions, all over the world in the last hundred years and change. With guns, no less!
It is a brutal truth that the political situation at hand will only be resolved with either Mr. Matthews’ death or hers. The sad part is that she has made that same political situation inevitable, not Mr. Matthews. But she undoubtedly feels the other way around, neglecting to consider the logical fact that Mr. Matthews is not forcing her to buy a gun but she is forcing Mr. Matthews NOT to buy a gun.
Tom
If she found herself in a public place where a deranged person was attacking people with a knife she would toss that anti gun attitude real quick
The problem is these people have been conditioned and raised to fear guns. The media, schools, politicians, and Hollywood have all brainwashed the past few generations to fear an inanimate of object. That somehow a gun, by itself, sitting on a table is dangerous and will kill whoever goes near it. That’s the equivalent to getting nervous walking through a parking lot because you think a car will randomly start itself and run you over. If you set a gun by itself on a table and did an experiment where you let people into the room to see it I bet nearly half of them would freak the hell out and lose their shit. This condition can be undone in some people. We can help by inviting our friends and coworkers who never shot before to join us on the range. Education is the key to success!
By her responses and seeing she’s in Tennessee even though I’m in N.J. I’m certain I’ve tangled with this dopey broad more than once online. She’s an ideologue as are most Liberals/Progressives thus a lost cause, there is no possibility of engaging in an “intellectual discussion” with her or anyone of her ilk, the best we can hope for is that she is both “infertile” and/or had her adoption.applications “denied”.
btw:
When I tangled with her I slammed her with the list of elected officials belonging to “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” who have been convicted of felonies including kidnapping, rape, child molestation etc. THAT brought an abrupt end to our conversation.
For them “dialog” means, “do as I say and shut up”. Only their opinion matters. Your’s is an ignorant opinion, has no validity, and should be dismissed.
Great exchange though I feel it falls short at our insistence to stand firm on the expanded background checks. I understand the slippery slope philosophy though I also understand perception. I think the NRA (and others) are holding on to this one too tight and it would be a good concession with little overall impact on the average firearm enthusiast. The argument that there are so few sales like this will be immediately lost and used against us if an incident should happen using a gun bought at a gun show or through a personal sale. This is a battle for public opinion, especially support from the moderate non-gun owner. We keep preaching to ourselves when what we need to do is start showing non-firearms owners that our decision to own is just as valid as the decision not to own and more importantly that we are not fanatics but concerned citizens – not just for our own safety but also for others.
Speak for yourself Shannon. Not one more inch.
This. “Maybe if we let Hitler have part of Czechoslovakia he will leave rest of us alone!” Enough concessions. NRA is too soft, not too unyielding. We have to take initiative in this fight and start getting back what tactics of appeasement lost us since thirties.
You my friend are ignorant, ignorant of the (Sol) “Alinsky Method” of achieving a goal, demand a 100%, settle for 33.33% come back a second time demand a another 33.33% and when you get it come back for the last 33.33%. It’s ALL in Sol Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals”, get a used cop off Amazon and while you’re at it get copies of “Rule For Patriots” and “Rules For Conservatives” too they both explain in detail how to interpret and defeat Alinsky’s disciples.
btw:
Thanks for being a “Surrender Monkey” it’s because of people like you who have succumbed to the propaganda and acquiesed to “the Left’s” prior demands that we’re in the position we are in now.
“I feel it falls short at our insistence to stand firm on the expanded background checks.”
What don’t you understand, JBB?
The *only* way you can have effective ‘Universal background checks’ is if a database is created where *all* guns and their owners are maintained.
That has *always* led to CONFISCATION*.
They did it in Cali and NY state. They said “Nobody is going to take your guns!”.
Then they passed laws outlawing AR-15s. Those owners who did not turn them in are now un-convicted FELONS.
JBB, it is none of the government’s damn business what guns you own if you are not a criminal.
The very same as it is none of the government’s damn business what web pages you view, what books you read, etc.
Convict me of a felony and THEN take my firearms.
Catch me as a felon with a gun and THEN charge me.
Do you see how that should work?
This is not a battle for ‘public opinion or public perception’…it is a war being fought for Individual Liberty and self-determination -vs- those collectivists and statists who would limit and control everything one does regardless of no harm or intrusion being caused to anyone elses Life, Liberty or Property.
The battle over Liberty’s Teeth boils down to the collectivists and statists striving to obtain a government monopoly of force.
A pondersim:
‘There is no Left or Right. There is only Tyranny and Freedom.’
That overall assessment aside, you can take your insidious hissing for gun-control/people-control and add copious amounts of extra coarse sand to it, then pound the whole unholy mix directly and vigorously up your ass.
[I really do appreciate the insults in response to my cordial attempt at a conversation – I will assume you are just being emotional.]
I argue this topic daily with different anti-gun people. We already have background checks expanding them to private purchases and gun shows is, by our own admission, a very small number of transfers. I agree there should be no registration, however, finding out if a buyer is a felon is reasonable and something we should all want – the less chance for these people to misuse a weapon provides less ammunition for our opponents. We are constantly battling a negative. It is hard to prove that an armed person stopped a mass murder and it is rare the DGUs are reported unless a shot is fired. Thus our stance is harder to defend. We are already at a political disadvantage why make it worse. (And let’s not play games here, if you are truly worried about the government knowing if you have guns you wouldn’t be posting to this site. Unless you are gifted at the use of Tor I am pretty sure they know you own guns.)
This is not a “war” – this is a debate and public perception is very important. NY lost the debate and Cali is losing the votes because non-gun owners who were undecided are now buying into it more gun control. Your use of the word “war” is part of the problem as it paints a picture of gun owners as unbalanced. Shannon Watts can act crazy and people dismiss it as concern about lost lives. When you yell “from my cold dead hands” after a mass killing it is quite a different response. If the left had a clue they wouldn’t try to debate, they would just come to these sites and extract a large majority of the “unbalanced” responses that make it to this board to show the swing deciders what some of the “gun owners are like”.
I am sorry but sometimes we are our own worst enemy. Sometimes you have to be smart enough to know when to use discretion and look like the more reasonable party to the masses. Sometimes you have to be a politician. Every time someone goes on a killing spree legal owners look bad – especially when we do nothing.
Your whole argument holds no water because you naively think you are dealing with antigunners in good faith. These are manipulative liars you are dealing with. When will you take a stand? When they pass another AWB? When they ban ALL guns? When they begin confiscation? If not now, when?
Cause that is their goal and you are naive to think that they are stopping at universal background checks (ironic because every mass shooter passed a background check!! Swell job that system did!). If you are for universal background checks then you are ipso facto for registration and confiscation because THAT will happen when it is made law nationwide.
It is people like you for why we have all the federal gun laws on the books because you thought appeasement would make them go away. Guess what? They aren’t going away until all the guns are gone. Then when they achieve that they will go the UK route and ban knives like they are doing over there now.
You need a reality check with the kind of people you are dealing with. Appeasing them only makes you a sellout in our eyes and a weak milquetoast to be manipulated by the antigunners. You are in a lose-lose situation.
You are factually a gun-controller, simply one who attempts to mask it in the mantra/dogma of ‘reasonableness’.
Being a gun-controller is directly akin to pregnancy or to virginity…one either is or one is not, there are no degrees in fact.
Also, this is indeed a WAR being waged against Liberty, in this exemplar, firearms.
Arrayed against the Constitution, the BOR and Liberty itself there are physical forces, strategies, specific and contingency plans, planned offensives, troops/armed enforcers, war-planners, intelligence services and yes, there are even regular casualties who are killed, wounded and taken prisoner.
You can self-delude about the war if you want and you can try to be ‘reasonable’ and ‘compromise’ and to ‘appease’ in a desire to appear ‘sane’ to the insatiable-insane forces opposing Liberty, but, then, all you end up with is your factual collaberation with the enemy, being seen as a Quisling or as being akin to a Tory.
Rock-solid principles and unwavering stances taken in open, unapologetic defense of essential and fundamental Liberty, well, it seems that in your stage of gun-controller mindset, this equates to extremism and appearing unreasonable and insane.
Oh well.
Get passed into ‘law’ what you think you can. Continue working toward advancing the government monopoly of force. Work on abrogating Liberty whilst trying to peddle to others that you are actually defending Liberty (lo f’ing l).
Doesn’t matter, because you are aligned with the opposing forces and could never be trusted to be in a foxhole (analogously) with any thinking Liberty-principled man…
Bottom line is, regardless of what you and your fellow gun-controllers and predatory govt brethren think or do, I will not comply. I will not obey. I will defend my essential fundamental Liberty.
Crazy man, huh?
I am simply puke-sick of the whole clown-circus and the dog and pony feces. I call it what it is and call people what they present as… and I will not debate, give in, compromise or comply with ceding control.
It is just that simple.
As a Washington state resident, let me say that there’s nothing to be gained by being “reasonable” on UBCs. If they get that, they’ll just be back for the next piece the next time around.
There is no compromise. The goal is total civilian disarmament, however long it takes. If they could do it in one step, they’d do it. Since they can’t, they’ll do it in small steps.
I am sorry but this battle will ONLY be fought in the courtroom of public opinion and we have already lost CT, NY and soon CA – which will be a poster child if all their laws pass. While screams of “my cold dead hands” and “molon labe” sound tough on the message boards the authorities are smart enough to “not come and get them” (NY for example). They will pass the laws, limit future purchases and let the current owners die with their firearms, realizing they never had to breach a door to do the damage and achieve the goal.
This is a political battle and we are not playing the political game.
I actually had a good conversation on youtube comments of all places with someone who supported the message in Sen. Booker’s video here https://youtu.be/f6gsR1g6jSI The commenter is from Florida, and not some European like I initially expected. How well do you think I did?
BVB: …who is disagreeing with this? Other than those who can’t think with a sound, rational mind.
_______________
Me: Americans who recognize this for the attack on basic rights and due process that it is.Nobody wants to allow terrorists to buy guns, but it will not be done at the cost of the rights of the law-abiding. There’s a way to do this without using secret lists and closed tribunals.
______________
BVB: Since I’m assuming you’re one of those people, what would be the situation in which you would be okay with laws being passed to stop possible terrorists from buying guns?
I’ve heard all of the objections before, but can’t recall ever hearing what your solution would be as far as enacting gun laws that don’t encroach on American’s 2nd Amendment rights.
______________
Me: If you start denying rights to people who are merely suspected of a crime, then you have murdered due process. People with suspected terrorist ties/tendencies would have to be monitored, and action taken when they do break laws. Sadly, this can only be reactive. They have to have broken a law before the authorities may act. Otherwise you’re opening the door to action against all ‘potential criminals’ which could be anyone that someone with power doesn’t like.
______________
BVB: But what harm could enacting a gun law that stops people who maybe shouldn’t buy a gun actually have? I’m not talking about detaining people indefinitely, throwing them in jail, or anything like that. I’m talking about stopping them from buying an assault rifle until we are sure whether or not they mean us harm.
______________
Me: Firstly, you can’t buy an assault rifle without an in-dept background check, a ton of money, and a 7-12 month wait.
Secondly, you don’t take away or delay a person’s right based on suspicion. If you have reasonable proof, you go to the authorities, yo go to a judge, and you use due process. If an individual can’t be trusted with a firearm, then they shouldn’t be trusted out in public at all.
Me: “And a common sense law like not allowing people who have been diagnosed with mental illnesses own a firearm. Or people who have proven to have a criminal/violent background.”
Which mental illnesses? Who decides which are severe enough to allow chilling of rights? something like 40% or more of the population have some sort of diagnosable mental illness. The vast majority do not become violent as a result.
People who have proven to have a criminal/violent background are already denied the right to purchase or possess a firearm. Convicted felons and certain other violent offenders most certainly lose their gun rights. This is achieved via due process.
______________
BVB: There are mental illnesses that do not allow the person to be able to think rationally, or make people unaware of their actions, or able to distinguish between real and fake. Common sense situations where you would say “You know…I think that person should not be able to buy and own a firearm because they could easily hurt themselves or others.” I’m not talking about the flood of other mental illnesses that don’t impair people’s ability to think rationally.
So due process was enacted and those people can not purchase a gun. Great, all for it.
But as others have pointed out, there are people who will obtain a gun illegally if they so desire. Terrorists are definitely one of those people.
As I’ve said, the Terrorist Watch List is a mess. But for the sake of argument and because I’d like to finish this, lets say we were able to filter down that list and really get it to 99% accuracy. Would you support a gun law that stopped people who were on that list from obtaining a gun?
______________
Me: “There are mental illnesses that do not allow the person to be able to think rationally, or make people unaware of their actions, or able to distinguish between real and fake.”
These people should be under supervised care. So with that in place, they’re really not going to be buying firearms.
99% accuracy? Good. What recourse do the 1% false positives get? Are they owed recompense? They should be.
______________
BVB: They should be but there are plenty of people who are either not being properly treated or have not been diagnosed. That is a massive problem that needs to be fixed in itself.
And yes, I’d imagine there would be some sort of recompense. If they have to go to court to fight it then they’ll have all their court dues, lawyers fees, etc..paid for. Something like that.
______________
Me: Sounds all right, then. and yes, many mentally ill are not being treated properly. There’s such a stigma with some mental diagnoses that many would prefer to avoid treatment altogether. I’d prefer to not have my rights infringed as a band-aid in lieu of actually treating the real problem, which is fixing the sorry state of our mental health treatment and the attitudes towards mental illnesses.
______________
BVB: Again agreed. We’ve come a long way since Electric Shock Therapy to solve seemingly everything, but there’s still a long way to go. Mind you we still have a lot to learn which is part of the problem.
Either way, I appreciate your input on all this. I know the original discussion is not something we’re just both going to agree upon, and my apologies if I seemed to brush aside some of your points. I do respect and understand plenty of the arguments against putting these laws into affect, so it’s nice to see (even in a hypothetical situation) that people on the other side can as well.
And oddly….I now want to go to the range. lol
Sen Cory “Closeted NYC Gay” Booker/Booger? You should’ve asked him about Booger’s violent gangbanging pal “T-Bone”, yes “T-Bone” (that’s the name he, Booger, came up with) and how “T-Bone” died in the senator’s arms (probably from HIV/AIDS) after being targeted by rival gang members or so the story goes (though Newark P.D. has NO record of a “T-Bone” in their gang index). Google this “Fairy” Tale it’s entertaining as hell.
My answer to the 99% comment would be:
If you can prove with 99% certainty that someone is a terrorist, every judge in the country should be willing to give you an arrest warrant. In that case, all of the people on your 99% list will be in jail, obviating the need for this law.
I long ago ceased to even attempt ‘dialogue’ with anyone who advocates for restrictions or abrogation of my Liberty, including the Liberty to keep and to bear arms.
I simply have assessed over a period of decades that such collectivists are naught but domestic-enemies and that they will never cease their efforts to get not only private restriction/bans, but to seek government to do the restricting they desire…ending in a government monoploy of force.
Such collectivist-gerbils only desire the appearance/sham of dialogue if and when they can gain a compromise to destroy some Liberty and move the ball further down-field toward their end goal.
I ain’t playing the game.
Liberty is never gained by giving up any portion of Liberty. To believe so seems utterly insane. All that occurs is that some portion of Liberty is lost.
What I do is to clearly and with brutal honesty and scathing directness make it clear that they are domestic-enemies of Liberty and of the Constitution and that I will not…give…one…single…inch…period.
I make it clear that I will not comply regardless of what they manage to get enacted and that any effort to actually/physically abrogate or remove my essential fundamental Liberty will be defended against as necessary.
Fuck them. Fuck compromise. Fuck dialogue. My Liberty is not open for discussion.
That is all.
Very well said, except for one thing. You discussed the collectivists have an end goal. I don’t think collectivist so ever have an actual end goal. They just want to move us down their end of the field forever.
We gotta stop using the anti’s construction “killed by guns…” as well as “gun violence.” It’s “killed *with* guns”, or “killed *using* guns”. Keep the agency on the people, and “violence” however it is done.
M saw where the conversation was going – that defensive gun usage exceeds homicides + suicides each year. And? Subject Change! Defensive mechanisms engaging!
http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
There seems like a lot of disconnect in this, dialogue? It started out with the first few questions as connected, but then I lost track who was who and what was the question and what was question. I’m sorry, but this didn’t make any sense to me.
I agree with everything that this writer posted. Except this. He clearly dodged the question.
Yes, I agree every year those numbers are decreasing, but she asked if the parent should be penalized for negligence of leaving a firearm with a child who kills another child.
I would have said “yes”. It is debatable what the penalty should be, as destroying a family unit and sending dad (or mom) off to a prison may not be in the best interest to the child, but there should be a penalty, and not just with firearms, but other items as well. A father is responsible for his child. As a result, a father is also responsible for unethical activities his child performs.
The writer performs an elaborate song and dance reply to the response above. I would have said this:
Yes. It doesn’t matter. If a professor or maintenance man is going to kill someone a sign that says “no guns allowed” isn’t going to stop them. The idea that everyone is so impulsive that they will shoot someone the moment they get angry falls into the “blood in the streets” meme that never happened. It is vastly more likely that they will select the time and place when their victim is most vulnerable and their risks are at their minimum to perform such.
“M” likes misdirection and writhing the discussion in attempts to get out of the corner the writer out her in.
Writer asked if you have the right to defend your life, not what the Harvard school of public health has to say about intimidation with guns. It’s almost as if she wants to redirect the conversation away from the present topic – like here:
And the obvious subject change (likely in response to the writers direction on DGUs).
Sure they can! They can promote topics and legislation that divides a country between gun control advocates and pro rights people. Which may or may not result in a civil war complete with dead bodies. Haven’t you heard?? The pen is mightier than the sword. Unless you don’t know how to use it, then things could backfire on you.
Notice 1st amendment and 2nd amendment rights are rights?? She tosses away the first and brings up a non enumerated right carrying with it the burden of governmental control that most people have already accepted. In my personal opinion – no, we shouldn’t have drivers licenses. Or in the very least – we shouldn’t deny a license to anyone. Is the cops going to permit me to ride a horse on the highway, or a carriage in the street? In the old days you didn’t need a car. In today’s environment you need one to survive. The likelihood of you scoring a job next to your home, a grocery store, and others is pretty slim. But maybe it’s just me?? I like more rights – not less.
Victims of Press (and Law Enforcement) harassment:
Robert Wayne O’Ferrell – 1989 Mail bombings (Judge Vance and Atty. Robinson)
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-01-26/news/mn-731_1_civil-rights-attorney
Richard Allensworth Jewell – 1996 Olympic Park bombing
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/us/30jewell.html?_r=0
Both were fully exonerated and the true perpetrators brought to justice. Both suffered from “Press Violence”.
Writer never said that anywhere. In fact, in the very first statement the writer indicated it was a “criminal violence” problem. Not a “gun violence” problem. But I speculate, she needed to make this claim so she could escape the conversation.
Time to toss out that anecdote, last word, and usual 2A hating talk points.
Please name me a single war the semiautomatic SIG MCX was used in? Is there any military, anywhere, that uses the semi-automatic SIG MCX??? Weapon of war – it is not. Can it be used as a weapon of war? Sure – just like any other gun.
49 people dead and 50 wounded in a number of hours???? You mean like 3 hours? The number of hours the bars inhabitants had to wait for law enforcement to respond??? News flash for the firearms ignorant – That is not very efficient. In 3 hours he could have amassed 49 deaths with a bolt action 22 plinker. What is that – one shot every two minutes?
No ones opinion is fixed. At all. Utimately, this boils down to the illusion that is lived and the core beliefs they live by. Beliefs like – the government represents us and is looking out in our best interests? I don’t need to be prepared because the likelihood is low and the cops will arrive shortly to help me? I would rather feel safe than free? These laws don’t affect me so it is in my best interest to invoke them for safety’s sake since I have nothing to lose?
When their core beliefs change – so will their opinions on guns.
Democrats and Republicans/Libertarians (outside of D.C.) have such strong convictions to issues that are totally opposed to the other side. Gun rights/control. Murdering the unborn/Freedom over my own body. The government is the solution/self reliance. Constitution as document to preserve individual freedom and constrain government/a living document whose meaning must be reinterpreted according to changes in society.
About an even split, numerically, Democrats cluster on the Left coast, North East, and major urban areas. Conservatives rural and suburban.
I truly fear it’ll come down to a second Revolution/Civil War. I doubt we can peacefully divide the country into the Free States of America and the People’s Democratic Republic of America. But I’d bet $100,000 that 20 years later the FSA would be far more prosperous and just plain filled with happier folks than the PDRA.
Admitted he was a lying propagandist at question 3 and lost me. I was halfway lost at question 2 where the answer was nothing but a false equivalence fallacy.
The only arguments they have are fallacies and false assertions.
Regarding the licenseure of journalists, given the events of the Rwandan Genocide (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/dec/04/pressandpublishing.radio), I think it needs to be considered just as seriously as gun licensure.
During the lead up to and during the genocide, Ethnic Hutus were encouraged to murder their Ethnic Tutsi countrymen by radio and newspapers.
“Reporters cannot kill with their words.”
Hey now, don’t forget that the Benghazi attack was a direct result of a mean youtube video. Those poor triggered Muslims had no other choice but to make their oppressed voice heard. Right, Hillary?
Well, I guess I don’t see where we can get with it if our opinions are fixed.
Well, I don’t see how the examples you have provided – the accurate ones – should convince me. They seem like non sequiturs.
Why not walk me through the reasoning from any one of them to any proposed solution. At least we’ll see where our conclusions start to diverge.
This works on my Windows eight laptop. The best function about this software is that you could just search
and download the game that you want on their database.
Comments are closed.