Originally Posted by Xer H

The main reason people have a hard time considering planned "gun control" policy now is that they don't trust the people who would create and enact that legislation. They know the past position these people have had on the subject and can tell the "we're only talking about controlling, not banning" message now is just that -- messaging strategy. Scripted right out of a DNC newsletter.

As you may remember, I'm all for strengthening regulations and treating guns just like we do automobiles -- registration, proof of a user's knowledge and ability to use safely, continual updates on skill and ownership, etc. But I have so little faith in Washington's ability to create wise regulation that I'm opposed to anything they attempt to do. Once they fix regulation of the financial sector, once they stop being bought out by corporations, once they start listening to the people they're sworn to represent, THEN I may trust them to put restrictions on our Constitutional rights.

But then, as I pointed out to a friend the other day, the reason our country hasn't reached the point of Egypt is that our government knows a majority of Americans are armed. They don't dare push us too far.

I don't trust the Washington politicians either, but a major factor that makes the USA different is that we still have elections. I doubt that the armed citizens are a big part of their calculations. They just want to be reelected.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I didn't misquote you, and I didn't call you a name. I paraphrased your position perfectly accurately and used an adjective to characterize that position. And I'll leave the responsibility for what you said on you, not your whole generation.

Oh, then I guess you're FOR letting Wall Street and the "Too Big To Fail" banks continue to do what they've done. Because, if you'd been "perfectly accurate," that's exactly the position you'd be stating.

Do me a favor -- put me on that famous Ignore List of yours. Then we won't have you weighing in on a perfectly sound discussion.

Originally Posted by radind

I don't trust the Washington politicians either, but a major factor that makes the USA different is that we still have elections. I doubt that the armed citizens are a big part of their calculations. They just want to be reelected.

Very true. But, as Justin (IIRC) stated, elections are what they are. And, increasingly, the pols with the biggest corporate-backed war chests are the ones getting elected. That's why one of my tenets is that our politicians need to start listening to The People they're sworn to represent. Not the corporations who pay for them to get reelected.

I have been told that if I want to persuade a group of people to adopt a policy, my most effective arguments are in order: strong emotional arguments, strong arguments establishing my credibility as an 'expert' and lastly, a very distant last, arguments based on logic and fact.

If this is so, I am unlikely to persuade anyone on this forum to change their mind from their current stance regarding gun control as I will not attempt to make an appeal either to your emotions or my credibility.

I think the reason many of us express dismay at the partial inability on either side to listen to reason arises from the fact that most arguments we have heard are not an attempt at reason but an attempt to motivate constituents, who often are already sympathetic to viewpoints being expressed by the presenter, to take some action to help support / oppose a politician. Reasoned arguments make poor commercial sound bites.

Also, many have confused correlations for causality. It is true that the United States has a higher firearms / population ratio than many nations and a higher number of murders / population ration than many nations but this is not necessarily causal. Israel and Switzerland have much higher firearms / population ratio than does the United States but lower number of murders / population (In 2008, United States at 5.4 / 100,000 and Israel at 2.4 / 100,000 and Switzerland 0.7 / 100,000).

There is an interesting correlation between homicide rates and offenders between the ages of 14-24. Starting in the mid-1980s, these rates start to rise and peak in the mid-90s before starting to fall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homoffendersbyage.svg

Now it could be that McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986 (aka Firearms Owners Protection Act) set the stage for increasing gun violence by loosening firearms regulations and this wasn't brought back under control until the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act of 1993, the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban of 1996 (aka The Lautenberg Amendment) tightened gun regulations. However, this time-frame also correlates fairly well to when Gen Xers are passing through those age groups. The earliest Gen Xer was 14 in 1975, when the homicide trend starts to rise, and the latest Gen Xer was 24 in 2005 when homicide rates for 14-24 year old group come back to their mid-1980s levels. It is also interesting to note that the homicide rates for all ages older than 24 are falling, for the most part, across that time frame.

The violence as a function of gun regulation argument also fails to explain why the homicide rates for states with lax gun regulations are so low. The 15 lowest state homicide rates per 100,000 in 2008 are:

North Dakota: 0.5
New Hampshire: 1.0
Utah: 1.4
Idaho: 1.5
Hawaii: 1.9
Wyoming: 1.9
Minnesota: 2.1
Oregon: 2.2
Maine: 2.4
Montana: 2.4
Iowa: 2.5
Massachusetts: 2.6
Wisconsin: 2.6
Vermont: 2.7
Rhode Island: 2.8

This is not to say that lenient gun regulations correlates with lower homicide rates. There are several states with lax gun regulations that have high homicide rates. I suggest that correlation between gun control/regulations and homicide rates is extremely questionable.

There is much to learn about the causes of violence. The debate on how to best counter violent tendencies in the United States would be better served sans the emotional myths currently used as arguments.

Finally, I found it instructive to review a couple of Wikipedia articles related to the topic and I think the forum's discussion might be better informed by them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Correction. Nowhere in the Constitution is there the slightest distinction between black and white. The Constitution does recognize free people, people held to service for a term of years, Indians, and "all other persons," which is a euphemism for slaves. The founding fathers, great men that they were, did not write a constitution specifying any kind of caste system, even though they knew one existed in some of their territory. Nor did they distinguish between men and women: restrictions on women's suffrage were state restrictions, and some were lifted well before the passage of the 19th amendment. The founding fathers considered the militia to consist of all free people, not all adult, male white people.

And yet, at times when men brought their fire arms to church so they could drill the militia after the religious ceremonies, the militia was white and male. In the South, especially, a primary purpose of the militia was to suppress slave revolt.

The founding fathers knew full well of their caste system, though they tiptoed around it in writing the Constitution. I couldn't be bothered tiptoeing around it at this point. I'd as soon speak plainly. I'd tell it like is is rather than emphasize an area where the founding fathers were avoiding speaking clearly.

Do you have any evidence suggesting the militia was not biased to an absurd degree towards male only? I was under the impression that as a professional historian you would value fact. I've heard a lot of wild distortions as part of the gun debate, but the notion of a 19th Century militia in skirts is a new one to me.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I've heard a lot of wild distortions as part of the gun debate, but the notion of a 19th Century militia in skirts is a new one to me.

Hmm.... is a kilt a type of 'skirt'? That might have happened, back in the day.

Originally Posted by RyanJH

I think the reason many of us express dismay at the partial inability on either side to listen to reason arises from the fact that most arguments we have heard are not an attempt at reason but an attempt to motivate constituents, who often are already sympathetic to viewpoints being expressed by the presenter, to take some action to help support / oppose a politician. Reasoned arguments make poor commercial sound bites.

The discussion has become partisan. If one is attempting to promote any position other than one of the partisan positions, partisans on both sides develop a profound inability to listen. Each side has a collection of facts which will support their opinion, and a talent for ignoring the facts that the other side is fond of quoting.

I find the problem is incredibly complex. It is very difficult to find material on the subject that isn't an attempt to support one of the two partisan world views.

One question is whether laws disarming the law abiding enables violent crime, or whether populations which suffer from a lot of violent crime will pass strict gun control laws. Either half of the above proposition might make reasonable sense. They both feel right to me. I figure if there is truth on both sides, you might get a spiral of violence, with increased regulation resulting in a stronger ganger gun culture, which prompts stronger regulation, which enables the gun culture, and around and around she goes. There are example cities like Washington DC and Chicago where the problems of guns and violent crime are at their worst, and where gun control laws end up their strongest.

But the problems of race, poverty and drugs are also strong in those cities. I would expect that regardless of gun control policy, cities that currently have high violent crime rates would still have high violent crime rates. Gun control regulations are just one variable in a complex situation. Passing gun laws is easier than seriously addressing the problems of race, drugs and poverty.

Both partisan factions have what seem like rational fact based positions. Alas, the facts are selective. Facts have more importance or less depending on whether they support or conflict with one's values. The problem is akin to the economic debate or the global warming debate. Those who are values committed to a position can close their minds to evidence that conflicts with their values.

I applaud attempts to bring more statistics into the discussion. Lotsa luck, though. Some in rural areas see guns as part of a tradition that is ancient and honorable. Their traditions work well enough in the areas where they live. They do not see a reason to change their values, let alone the sort of traumatic emotional experience necessary to induce values change. Those in urban areas are more likely to see slaughter and death. Slaughter and death are things that ought to be stopped, perhaps must be stopped. It seems clear and plain that taking away the shooter's weapons is the obvious thing to do.

But reality is a lot more complex than that, and strong values make it very difficult to look at such ephemeral and ambiguous things as facts.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Do you know the difference between 'automatic' and 'semi-automatic' (and between both as opposed to, I guess 'manual')?

Very simply, it's like this:

Justin, I'm not going to read this post. I simply could care less. None of these weapons should be allowed, period.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

If a culture might be roughly defined as a bunch of people who share similar values and world views, consider the difficulty in these forums of convincing anyone of any stripe of changing their world views and values.

Broadly, the red rural values work reasonably well in rural environments. There is no reason for them to change. Cultures have a tremendous amount of inertia. I would not expect values shifts in individuals unless their values have blatantly failed in an emotional way. If red values are 'old fashioned' the rural environment is also 'old fashioned.'

A couple of points. First, rural environments are much different from what they were years ago. There is simply no need for anyone to hunt for food, or to control animal populations. And there are better ways I have seen reports on to keep coyotes and such from attacking cattle or other ranch animals. You are right that values don't change easily. But if assassinations of public figures aren't enough of an emotional experience to change peoples ideas about guns, I'm not sure what the hell would be-- unless it is one of your own family or yourself that gets shot with a gun by someone who shouldn't have one.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Most states already require a permit to carry a concealed weapons. Only two (Alaska and Vermont) allow concealed carry without a license.

That's not what I saw on a recent TV report. Only 13 states require these permits. Arizona was not one of them.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Justin, I'm not going to read this post. I simply could care less. None of these weapons should be allowed, period.

And there we have it.

Are there any further questions?

Originally Posted by RyanJH

I have been told that if I want to persuade a group of people to adopt a policy, my most effective arguments are in order: strong emotional arguments, strong arguments establishing my credibility as an 'expert' and lastly, a very distant last, arguments based on logic and fact.

If this is so, I am unlikely to persuade anyone on this forum to change their mind from their current stance regarding gun control as I will not attempt to make an appeal either to your emotions or my credibility.

I think the reason many of us express dismay at the partial inability on either side to listen to reason arises from the fact that most arguments we have heard are not an attempt at reason but an attempt to motivate constituents, who often are already sympathetic to viewpoints being expressed by the presenter, to take some action to help support / oppose a politician. Reasoned arguments make poor commercial sound bites.

Also, many have confused correlations for causality. It is true that the United States has a higher firearms / population ratio than many nations and a higher number of murders / population ration than many nations but this is not necessarily causal. Israel and Switzerland have much higher firearms / population ratio than does the United States but lower number of murders / population (In 2008, United States at 5.4 / 100,000 and Israel at 2.4 / 100,000 and Switzerland 0.7 / 100,000).

There is an interesting correlation between homicide rates and offenders between the ages of 14-24. Starting in the mid-1980s, these rates start to rise and peak in the mid-90s before starting to fall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homoffendersbyage.svg

Now it could be that McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986 (aka Firearms Owners Protection Act) set the stage for increasing gun violence by loosening firearms regulations and this wasn't brought back under control until the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act of 1993, the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban of 1996 (aka The Lautenberg Amendment) tightened gun regulations. However, this time-frame also correlates fairly well to when Gen Xers are passing through those age groups. The earliest Gen Xer was 14 in 1975, when the homicide trend starts to rise, and the latest Gen Xer was 24 in 2005 when homicide rates for 14-24 year old group come back to their mid-1980s levels. It is also interesting to note that the homicide rates for all ages older than 24 are falling, for the most part, across that time frame.

The violence as a function of gun regulation argument also fails to explain why the homicide rates for states with lax gun regulations are so low. The 15 lowest state homicide rates per 100,000 in 2008 are:

North Dakota: 0.5
New Hampshire: 1.0
Utah: 1.4
Idaho: 1.5
Hawaii: 1.9
Wyoming: 1.9
Minnesota: 2.1
Oregon: 2.2
Maine: 2.4
Montana: 2.4
Iowa: 2.5
Massachusetts: 2.6
Wisconsin: 2.6
Vermont: 2.7
Rhode Island: 2.8

This is not to say that lenient gun regulations correlates with lower homicide rates. There are several states with lax gun regulations that have high homicide rates. I suggest that correlation between gun control/regulations and homicide rates is extremely questionable.

There is much to learn about the causes of violence. The debate on how to best counter violent tendencies in the United States would be better served sans the emotional myths currently used as arguments.

Finally, I found it instructive to review a couple of Wikipedia articles related to the topic and I think the forum's discussion might be better informed by them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States

Oh, don't confuse the gun-haters with pesky facts.

I told Eric a couple times that ND has very low crime rates, but that went right over his head.

Originally Posted by Xer H

The main reason people have a hard time considering planned "gun control" policy now is that they don't trust the people who would create and enact that legislation. They know the past position these people have had on the subject and can tell the "we're only talking about controlling, not banning" message now is just that -- messaging strategy. Scripted right out of a DNC newsletter.

Gun control has never "led to a ban on all guns", so your statement is based on nothing.

As you may remember, I'm all for strengthening regulations and treating guns just like we do automobiles -- registration, proof of a user's knowledge and ability to use safely, continual updates on skill and ownership, etc. But I have so little faith in Washington's ability to create wise regulation that I'm opposed to anything they attempt to do. Once they fix regulation of the financial sector, once they stop being bought out by corporations, once they start listening to the people they're sworn to represent, THEN I may trust them to put restrictions on our Constitutional rights.

The "constitutional right" is an American anomaly. It has nothing to do with the facts about guns. Your statement amounts to advocacy of anarchy. But one only has to read the news for one day to know that we need governments to regulate us. These governments are only as good as the people elected to them, so they aren't perfect. But they are based on rule of law and 3 separate powers, and so are a hell of a lot better than anarchy. If the people would take responsibility for their government, instead of being apathetic, or wanting to shut it down as Republicans and Libertarians do, it would work much, much better. I say, stop opposing anything Washington wants to do, and instead focus on electing someone other than yahoos to run it. People failed that test miserably in November 2010, which also means in any event there won't be any constructive legislation out of Washington anyway for at least 2 years. So you have nothing to worry about anyway.

But then, as I pointed out to a friend the other day, the reason our country hasn't reached the point of Egypt is that our government knows a majority of Americans are armed. They don't dare push us too far.

The situation is far, far different in the USA. Our country is divided. The Egyptians are virtually united in their opposition to Mubarik. About 30% of the American people know that the wealthy are controlling and ruining this country. 30 to 40% believe it's the atheistic socialists-- the very ones who think the wealthy are the problem-- who are destroying the country. Such a revolution in America would mean that Americans are shooting each other-- a civil war, not a revolution.

Whether Americans are armed has nothing whatever to do with it. I wish people would drop that myth. The government of America has too many arms for citizens to fight against. You will just end up like Waco and Ruby Ridge or the Black Panthers. An armed uprising by Americans would just get a lot of people killed and accomplish nothing. It's not the way to go. Try another dream, more like MLK Jr.'s

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

A couple of points. First, rural environments are much different from what they were years ago. There is simply no need for anyone to hunt for food, or to control animal populations. And there are better ways I have seen reports on to keep coyotes and such from attacking cattle or other ranch animals. You are right that values don't change easily. But if assassinations of public figures aren't enough of an emotional experience to change peoples ideas about guns, I'm not sure what the hell would be-- unless it is one of your own family or yourself that gets shot with a gun by someone who shouldn't have one.

What you say might seem obviously true to some city slickers. Do you really think you are going to go out into the country and change life styles with arguments such as the above? I'd suggest you are vastly underestimating the degree to which values don't change easily.

Originally Posted by James50

I feel the same way. This is the crisis of leadership that David Kaiser has spoken about. Until we get over this and can trust our leaders, it will be hard to make progress on the big issues.

James50

Unfortunately, the leaders are not the problem. It's the voters who are the problem.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

And there we have it.

Are there any further questions?

That is the typical Boomer for you. Eric has made up his mind, all us rural folks are ignorant hicks that need to have a "Good Society" imposed on us by our betters.

I've quit trying to argue with him over the point, it's like talking to the wall. He doesn't want a discussion, he wants a pulpit to rant from in order to spout damnation and hellfire at is "hicks". His bashing of hunters was the last straw.

Originally Posted by Odin

That is the typical Boomer for you. Eric has made up his mind, all us rural folks are ignorant hicks that need to have a "Good Society" imposed on us by our betters.

I've quit trying to argue with him over the point, it's like talking to the wall. He doesn't want a discussion, he wants a pulpit to rant from in order to spout damnation and hellfire at is "hicks". His bashing of hunters was the last straw.

I'm afraid we're going to hear more about the "great unwashed masses" being the problem before it's all over. The Ruling Elite are firmly entrenched and they're not giving up unless (1) all hell breaks loose (e.g., Egypt) or, (2) they trash the economy so badly that self-imposed exile overseas becomes their best option.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Look at pbrower's statement above and you'll see why. Gun control proposals frequently go well beyond defining negligent storage or requiring training and begin defining what kinds of weapons can be owned. Combine that with an encounter with the occasional liberal with Eric's views on the matter, and it's not at all hard to understand why rural Americans live in fear of a total gun ban.

Of course the government should regulate what kinds of weapons should be owned. That is only common sense. And as far as people with my views, it is also a case of people not willing to listen to reasonable common sense. A total gun ban is nothing to "fear." The people would lose nothing important in such a ban.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Typical Boomer... misquote someone you disagree with, then call the poster a name. Yet offer nothing of substance.

You didn't read the substance of his posts. Calling someone a typical boomer is not any better than the behavior you attribute to typical boomers.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Very true. But, as Justin (IIRC) stated, elections are what they are. And, increasingly, the pols with the biggest corporate-backed war chests are the ones getting elected. That's why one of my tenets is that our politicians need to start listening to The People they're sworn to represent. Not the corporations who pay for them to get reelected.

The people need to start speaking up, and they need to speak up using some sense before they speak.

Originally Posted by The Rani

There are a couple of problems with this.
The first, obviously, is that politicians LIE! They make promises during campaigns that they have no intent of keeping. After getting into office, they keep on lying, passing legislation that they often haven't even read and telling the voters how wonderful it is.
Another problem is that "democracy" and "law" are meaningless ideals without responsible elected officials and law enforcement. If someone sees this, and votes libertarian because he thinks that "doing nothing" is the least harmful way for government to behave on certain issues, how is that childish?

Politicians are not some evil breed of people who are all the same because of who they are. They are people who are elected by the people. It is the system that tends to corrupt some of them, at least; and keep them from enacting the right legislation. It is the people, and the system, that are keeping this system in place. Plus, the people are responsible for the government they have. If the people make a blanket judgement against "all politicians" and use that as the basis of their vote, they have departed from any sense, and then they get the government they deserve-- a senseless one.

As long as half the people want genuine progress, and the other half are completely deceived, then our country will continue to be deadlocked. The only way forward is for the people to wake up. I don't know if it will happen in time.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

And there we have it.

Are there any further questions?

There is no basis for any other questions. The details on the difference between one outrageous, dangerous weapon and another, are not of any interest to me or to anyone else who has no interest in violence as a means of dealing with current problems.

Originally Posted by Odin

Oh, don't confuse the gun-haters with pesky facts.

I told Eric a couple times that ND has very low crime rates, but that went right over his head.

Maybe ND doesn't, but Montana does.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Of course the government should regulate what kinds of weapons should be owned. That is only common sense. And as far as people with my views, it is also a case of people not willing to listen to reasonable common sense. A total gun ban is nothing to "fear." The people would lose nothing important in such a ban.

Not true, we'd loose something, we'd loose our right to have guns. You're the one who's in the nothing to loose position.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

What you say might seem obviously true to some city slickers. Do you really think you are going to go out into the country and change life styles with arguments such as the above? I'd suggest you are vastly underestimating the degree to which values don't change easily.

Probably. But I still say it is a matter of reasonable common sense. It is true that that often has little effect on inbred and ingrained attitudes. People only listen when they are ready to listen. It is upsetting that horrible massacres and assassinations no longer make Americans ready to listen.