Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It." -- Unknown

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level
and then beat you with experience.” -- Mark Twain

"John Wick didn't kill all those people because they broke his toaster." -MickAK

"Everything is easy if somebody else is the one doing it." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Friday, January 18, 2013

Gun Control Negotiations

There is no such thing as unilateral negotiations. Gun owners are being asked to give up some of their rights in exchange for what? What do I, as a gun owner, get out of the deal? As far as I can see, nothing, which isn't a compromise or a negotiation, it is a sacrifice.

Will the gun control side commit to saying what they recognize as being legal to own without quibbling language? Will they recognize the validity of concealed carry permits? Or when the next clown goes into a school with a few .38 revolvers, with they then go after "those evil assault revolvers"? If another Charles Whitman takes a high perch and starts picking off people with a scoped rifle, will they go after bolt-action centerfire rifles as "sniper weapons"? (The DC snipers used a Bushmaster rifle, but they could have done what they did with a bolt-action Savage rifle.)

"We're going to take some of your shit, but we won't take all of your shit this time around" isn't a negotiation. In the 1986 gun control bill, which banned the future manufacturing of automatic weapons (machine guns) for the civilian market, gun owners got the right to be able to personally transport their weapons from one place where it was legal to have to to another, irrespective of the laws in states inbetween. So if a Vermonter wanted to drive to a match in Virginia, he or she then legally could.

What is on the table, this time from the other side? Anything? How about removing silencers from the original NFA in `34, so we can shoot at a range without both needing double hearing protection and without disturbing the neighbors?

Negotiations are "give and take". All I hear from the gun control side is that the discussion is how much they want to take. What are they willing to give? Until I see something, I support the NRA's stance of "not only hell no, but fuck no".


Eck! said...

Their side is simple, you get to keep your freedom as
a non-felon in exchange for your gun(s).

They don't want to limit guns they want to ban them,
and this is the best they can do at the moment.

When liar comes to a negotiation it becomes something else. They are disingenuous liars.


Old NFO said...

Crickets is what is they are willing to 'give'... sigh And agree with Eck!

BadTux said...

There is no such thing as unilateral negotiations.

Indeed. Which is why screaming "From my cold dead hands!", the NRA "negotiation" tactic, isn't negotiation, it's a temper tantrum by spoiled toddlers unwilling to speak like adults to the majority in a democracy, and treated as such. If gun ownership groups like the NRA were willing to negotiate rather than scream "No! No! No! No!" at the top of their lungs like toddlers, maybe there'd be negotiations. But since gun ownership groups aren't willing to negotiate -- instead focus on screaming invectives at the majority of Americans, calling the majority of Americans "fascists" and "traitors" and worse -- well. Maybe the NRA should stop behaving like a bunch of 2 year olds throwing a temper tamper in a supermarket and, like, engage the majority in negotiations to get their minority view respected in a democracy? Or do you really think behaving like a 2 year old whining and kicking and screaming in the supermarket because Mommy won't allow him to keep the gummy bears he just grabbed off the shelf is a negotiation strategy? Curious penguins are... curious.

CenterPuke88 said...

Gotta ask the question "Just what is it the gun owners would like?". The problem I see here is that a large percentage of the gun rights group doesn't trust the government as far as they can throw them, so they'll never ask for something because they presume it'll just get taken away later. Anytime the registration = a road map to confiscation argument is made, there is no effective step that can be offered. the person making the argument will not be convinced.

Eck!, a question. I assume you recognize that there are about five groups in play here; extreme gun rights, gun rights, middle ground, gun control, gun confiscation. Do you agree? If you do, I pose the question of why the gun rights group automatically assumes any actions by the three groups more restrictive toward guns will be that of the most restrictive and, conversely, the inverse by the gun control side. It seems that if we could get the middle three groups together without the extremes we might find things we can do to make things better without making things worse.

For instance, what if the NRA ran shooting clubs where you could store weapons safely...it's not the government. The argument about the Feds seizing the guns would be made, but does anyone really believe that they can't do that right now? The whole defense against government tyranny strikes me as finished when they can simply hit you or any group with more firepower than you can resist. The effective deterent to a tyranny is a sufficient number of people who will not comply...but as we've seen with the eviceration of our rights over the last 11 years, we may not have that many anymore.

BTW, the clubs above would not be mandatory storage, but would be a defense against charges of improper storage or insurance requirements. Perhaps the NRA could certify your storage provisions at home? Again, just looking at how we might keep the government out of this to make things work.

BadTux said...

The reality is that according to the latest polls on the subject, a) the majority of Americans do not want to ban guns useful for hunting and self defense, and b) the majority of Americans want restrictions on weapons they consider to have no useful purpose other than performing mass killings. If the NRA or gun rights advocates in general bothered addressing this majority to either change their mind or arrive at some agreement that would result in less than total banning of "scary guns", rather than screaming "Tyranny! From my cold dead hands!" to the majority of Americans, then there would be a negotiation. But of course that never happens because it's always "My way or I throw a tantrum!" and idiotic things about "slippery slopes" that are about as relevant to guns as they are to gay rights (no, people, allowing a gay woman to marry a gay woman will *NOT* lead to man-on-turtle sex and the legalization of pedophilia, all it will lead to is married gay women, sheesh!).

zdogk9 said...

" registration = a road map to confiscation argument is made, there is no effective step that can be offered. the person making the argument will not be convinced."
Perhaps this may be because you do NOT have a convincing argument.

w3ski said...

My neighbors would all love for me to have silencers.
All for it Comrade. Seriously.

BadTux said...

zdogk9, the problem is that the "registration = road map to confiscation" argument runs afoul of, well, real life. Cars are registered. Private aircraft are registered. Voters are registered. As far as I know registration has not led to confiscation of cars, private aircraft, or the internment of voters. At least not here in America, or in any other democracy on the face of this planet. It has simply led to the requirement that you do certain things to maintain that registration, such as get your car and plane inspected on a regular basis or inform the Registrar of Voters that you've moved.

In the end the "road map to confiscation" argument is a "slippery slope" argument, similar to the "gay marriage will lead to bestiality and pedophilia!" argument. Uhm, no, gay marriage will lead to married gay people. And registration will lead to registered guns. Going further than that is a bridge further than any evidence indicates, and evidence-free ranting is, well, evidence-free ranting, rather than an actual argument to be made in an honest discussion. (Note the word HONEST in the term "honest discussion", which implies that the participants aren't, well, making up sh*t).

Eck! said...

CP88 agreed there is a spectrum of players. I see you as leaning to gun control.

The NRA doesn't run shooting clubs[or not many]. I feel what you hinting is the old soviet model of everything was provided to the comrades if they were part of the club which the party controlled. Different commissar different club experience, or none at at all. Further many people keep guns as private property like a old sports cars, or as valuable artifacts. Of course the gun at the club is useless as self defense at home. What if the owner wants to go to another sate for a three gun competition?

The basic premise is that the Constitution and the words in 10USC311 have meaning and apply. That's two place that name citizens as part of both the organized and unorganized militia. Seems everyone wants to nullify that and make their own rules as to what is permitted.

Personally I could care less about the AR15 but the list never stops there
and if you look at NY they went so far as to forget to exempt the police, they use all manner of non-civilian militarized guns. Oops, they were trying to create feel good law and well they dint mean to screw things up.

Lets start with purely cosmetic features.

Why is a flash hider bad?
Why is a stock with a thumb hole bad?
whats so special about capacity of 7 that 9 or 10 breaks?
Why register anything? What does that gain?

Yet I do support NCICs check, unfortunately for private sales
only a FFL (license firearms dealer) can initiate one.
License, minimal training, not so much but tolerable. My reason is if you make guns expensive the reason is discriminatory the past the reason was to make it so costly so "those people" can get them (aka, poor, black, indians and so on).

In the end the effect is clearly punitive to honest people and ineffective to those that are dishonest or plain criminal.

Also the "you will get it only from my cold dead hands" is somewhat rhetoric
but is clear it's MY DAMN PROPERTY. IF that's not clear, If I say give me your car(or any property you laid out cash or you back for) and use force(legal) to take it, your not going to be a happy camper, right?

In the end there is the evidence free ranting, the evidence that is false or made up, evidence as in facts the other side claims is made up and yet others that look at any evidence and cover their ears and go "la, la, la, I can't hear that". If you don't like guns, don't own one. Like telling me what color I can paint my house, you get that choice by paying my taxes and mortgage.

Will someone prove that gun free zones save lives? All I've seen is they
are killing zones that the deranged seem flock to. Prove that wrong. There are too many cases where the worst crimes were committed and the sheep were fed to the wolves. Does support gun free zone do anything useful. And yes, there may be that chance negligent discharge (most common with police) but they are still outnumbered by nutcase killers which we shower with TV coverage. In the mean time where is my right to protect myself as the cops
are simple not there when you need them most?

No the NFA of 1934, 1968, 1988 all took, gave nothing. Where is the exchange,
Ok, if you comply your not a yet a criminal. I will not go down the road to
what laws are in effect in MA and CT that didn't work. But then again you don't live there and have no clue.


BadTux said...

The only evidence the majority of Americans seem to need is 20 tiny coffins. Guns kill people. That is a fact. That is the only fact that the majority of Americans appear to need. Yet despite that, the majority of Americans do support a right to keep and bear any arms necessary for self defense and hunting. It is the extremists (on either side, but *MOSTLY* on the gun fondler side) who scream and yell and throw temper tantrums rather than be willing to talk to the majority of Americans in the sort of discussions and negotiations needed to insure that Americans both have the guns they want for self defense and hunting, and don't have the guns that the majority of Americans don't want. "From My Cold Dead Hands" is not a discussion or a debate. It is a temper tantrum thrown by a toddler in a supermarket upset that Mommy won't let him keep that package of gummy bears that's bad for him, and worthy of about as much attention.

It's clear that scientific evidence is needed of what guns and what features present more danger to innocent civilians than others. It's also clear that the NRA has systematically fought any attempt to research the issue. You mention "Gun Free Zones" and effectiveness thereof. Has there been any research into whether they are effective or not? No. Because the NRA vetoes that research every time it hits the Republican House, by defunding CDC efforts to conduct it. Because the NRA isn't interested in a discussion based on facts, they're too busy kicking and crying and screaming at the top of their lungs and kicking the floor and howling "I want my gummy bears! I want my gummy bears!", which, if Mommy is sensible, means Mommy will simply say "I don't talk to people who are throwing temper tantrums" and walk away. Talking to people who are throwing temper tantrums simply encourages them to throw temper tantrums. 'Nuff said on that.

- Badtux the Child-rearing Penguin

Unknown said...

>Lets start with purely cosmetic features.

I agree the assault-style rifle then is primarily about cosmetics, not function. Lets accept that and also recognize that these cosmetics may have something to do with their attraction to unstable mass shooters (some research here would be useful to back this up). So, what if we turn this argument on its head and say you can have an AR15, so long as its color is baby blue or institutional green? The NRA and its supporters can't say that they're being denied the right to keep an bear arms and it would probably reduce Rambo style copycats.

Eck! said...

It was not 20 is was 26 coffins. Don't just stand exclusively on the bodies of children as many adults died that day as well. MY argument is what law makes that not happen again? If you can't answer that with facts or ways then all the emoting is wasted. Most all proposals are simply lashing out and hurting those that have done nothing. I fully expect the next spree killer to in gun free zone to get more and better "airtime" than the last.

Now for the second item. Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can
not hurt me. However under the new hate language laws calling people gun fondlers (and your should also read others elsewhere for a list of truly obcene language) might cross that line. If you make rights transient they will go away. Now go back and read what you wrote and try hard to look at that as how I might perceive it, try reading it in a very loud voice. You treading very close to stamping your feet and having a tantrum. You have successfully reached the point where I [the person] will consider your continued lack of presentable arguments or attempts at solutions as a waste of my time.

I offer only thins as a allusion, heavily entrenched warfare was tried and the toll on both side was great and the damage to the land remains a hundred years later. If you dig in and tell the other side they have to give more for what they have seen as a right and offer no protections back you cannot seriously expect they will not be equally passionate and also dig in.

Ken, if black guns were an issue then it's easy. Many ARs are available in one of several camouflage treatments. Oh, right that would be military too,
even though the military got that idea from hunters. It was never that.

Look at the NY gun law not only are most semiautomatic rifles outright banned or highly restricted many hunting rifles and sporting shotguns are too. The self defense configurations are stripped to the bone to pass. The only bright side is they forgot to exclude the police. That alone is a good thing
as why do police need all that military gear much of which are unavailable
to civilians? I'd also ask has the police so far proven they do not make errors or lack restraint? Hint they killed a few here in arrest invasions
and it was the wrong people.

The goal was and still is disarm the public. And if not use the threat of arms. It remains to be seen if we reach that point where we go off the edge or recognize that our basic right have costs and responsibilities. If the latter then its all moot. If not the actual government gun collectors will be the police, or military. I believe it will be a special cadre out of a TLA that will do that we can call them the stasi as a short form.


Evil Brad said...

BadTux, the "registration = road map to confiscation" is a lot more pertinent to firearms than you realise.
The people pushing for registration of cars, aeroplanes, etc, don't have an irrational hatred of all cars or aircraft, let alone a long-term agenda to ban them all. You can't say the same for firearms registration.
We went through exactly this debate up here in Canada after the government of the day introduced a registry of all long guns, back in the 90s. Its supporters seemed to be suprised that gun owners would object, despite the fact that many of those supporters were on record demonising gun owners in general and speaking out in favour of wide-ranging bans on all sorts of firearms. There was a real (and justified) sense that the long-gun registry was just the start of a slippery slope. Thankfully the registry has since been dismantled by a subsequent government.
The lesson of the story: Unless the anti side are willing to give something in return, and demonstrate in good faith that they really aren`t out to ban everything, as they claim, gun owners have no reason to accept any of their proposals, no matter how reasonable they may appear.

Comrade Misfit said...

If I remember correctly, the Canadian government would, from time to time, decide that a previously legal weapon was now proscribed and notify the owners of those weapons to surrender them. They were allowed to lawfully transfer them, but since the guns were now prohibited nationwide, there were no buyers.

Evil Brad said...

Yes that`s what happened to a lot of guns. There is some concern that when the opposition party gets back into power one day, there may be a lot more restricted firearms (the class that currently require registration) being moved onto the prohibited list. The AR15 seems particularly vulnerable in today's climate.
In any event, we don't have a constitutional right to bear arms in Canada, which leaves property rights as our biggest potential protection. (I say "potential" because noone seems challenged our gun laws on those grounds in the Supreme Court as far as i know. So far...)

Evil Brad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Evil Brad said...

Example: My all-time favourite, the FN FAL, used to be a non-restricted rifle that could be bought without even registering it. Now it`s prohibited in Canada. Still kicking myself for never having bought one back in the day...

BadTux said...

Again you appear to be ignoring my point. My point was that a law was going to be passed. Reality simply *is*, regardless of principle. Either you work with reality, or reality becomes worse than it could have been. That's just how the real world works.

As for your evidence-free rant that "the goal is to disarm the public", please provide proof that any mainstream political party has a goal to disarm the public. Vitriolic ranting of that sort just makes you look like a lunatic to the majority of Americans who want the right to possess self-defense or hunting weapons but believe that certain weapons are too dangerous for civilian possession. You may believe that they are wrong to have this belief. But calling them gun grabbers whose goal is to disarm the public isn't going to convince them of your opinion, it's just going to make you look like a raving lunatic throwing a temper tantrum.

'Nuff said. When you're willing to address the reality that we live in a democracy and that a minority (such as those with an absolutionist view of gun rights) must work with that majority rather than call that majority names like "gun grabber", maybe there will be room for discussion. But name calling and accusing the majority of Americans of something that the majority of Americans simply don't believe? That's not a discussion. That's just vitriolic rantings of someone not willing to participate as a citizen in a democracy.

BadTux said...

First of all, Brad, Canada is not the United States, despite the misgivings of Canadians who worry that it is becoming the 51st state and the geographical ignorance of Americans who aren't aware that Canada is not in fact the 51st state. The United States has a long history of firearms ownership and violence in general that Canada does not have. The majority of people in Canada likely do not believe that ownership of firearms useful for self defense and hunting is a right rather than a privilege. The same is not true here in the United States -- here in the USA, the majority of Americans believe that ownership of firearms useful for self defense and hunting is a right. Applying Canadian experience to the US is thus as ridiculous as applying Japanese experience to the US -- yes, Japan, which has banned guns since 1946, basically has non-existent gun violence (more people die of being struck by lightning in Japan than die of gun violence there, even the criminals don't usually carry guns because the penalties if caught are so severe), but anybody who thinks the same would be true of the U.S. if the U.S. banned guns is a deranged lunatic. The cultures are simply too different for that to be true.

Secondly, what you just demonstrated is that the best way for a minority such as gun enthusiasts to defend their rights is to participate in the political process, rather than call the majority names like "gun grabber" and "fascist". Participating in the political process got the long gun registry dropped. Throwing a temper tantrum and going home is not a strategy for success if you're a minority, because any minority in a democracy needs the support of at least a portion of the majority if they want their views to be respected. I realize that this pragmatic approach to politics might seem unseemly to those who believe in principle first, dealing with reality second. So it goes. Reality simply *is*, and doesn't care.

Eck! said...

>>Applying Canadian experience to the US is thus as ridiculous as applying Japanese experience to the US--yes, Japan, which has banned guns since 1946, basically has non-existent gun violence (more people die of being struck by lightning in Japan than die of gun violence there, <<

In all possible cases you use the incomplete metric of "gun violence" as a compare yet manage to pass on violence by other means (cutting instrument, clubs, other). When you take rifles or all kinds out of the gun death
number why do they remain greater than 97% of the same value, simple,
rifles are rarely used even AR15s. It even has all of the self defense shootings by cops or civilians. Its telling less than the whole story.
When you compare sometimes you have to compare cities of similar density
as crime does concentrate in more densely populated areas.

However, having a gun itself here is not a crime (mostly) unless your a
felon but using it in a crime increases the penalty, often on paper a great amount. However, the criminal usually serves 1/3 to 2/3 of that so minimal added cost the bad guy. Its likely more than me if a weapon (any!) is used in a crime the sentence should +25 years and mandatory without parole.

If we stop doing catch and release maybe the violence (all) will drop some.


Evil Brad said...

Yes BadTux, you are correct that Canada and the US are completely different societies (although private firearms ownership has played a far more significant role in Canada than is commonly thought). And the need of gun owners to have the support of the majority is even more important in Canada than the US, given that we have no "2nd amendment" to fall back on.
However, my point that emotional rhetoric is undermining any attempts at reasonable regulation of guns applies at least as much to the anti-gun side as the pro-gun side. This is true on either side of the border.

CenterPuke88 said...

Eck! Thanks for the thoughtful response.

1) I see your example of the Soviet model as a good argument against. I picked the NRA to show I'm not opposed to a strong gun support group being the responsible party outside the government to reassure gun owners.

2) I specifically mentioned the home option as an answer to defense. Personally, if I still had my SKS, I wouldn't consider it a home defense weapon, so storage would be a nice option for me, but your point is well taken.

3) I actually fall to the other side of the spectrum. I want people to be able to own guns, but I'm also sick of the costs associated with the current gun culture here. There isn't an easy answer, and posturing on both sides doesn't help it either. I'm just not convinced that guns keep us free, and that makes me a heretic to many. I see a government that could easily overwhelm any gun owner, if it wished. I'd like an easy answer to these killings, but the whole armed society is a polite society when down the drain with all the people with seemingly no moral compunction about killing.

4) Gun free zones are about enhancing penalties; no more, no less. Anyone who preaches otherwise is trying to pull one over on you. Anyone against them is likewise trying to bend facts to their will. The argument about the zones disarming people is likewise twisted to both sides advantage; a primary concern about guns present in these areas (usually schools) is the presence of large groups of people, many of whom have less than full comprehension of the consequences of handling or shooting a gun in that area. The key decision on these zones must be made by balancing the likely number of accidental deaths from an increased presence of guns versus the likely number of deaths from deliberate attacks. We need data to make these numbers real, but currently can't get that data because the NRA has constantly pushed to block research.

5) Maybe the answer is the increased background checks for now but to study gun deaths and violence (multiple studies by various groups with different aims and agendas) and perhaps improve things in the way highway safety has improved.

CenterPuke88 said...

Eck!, perhaps if we stopped the war on drugs the private prisons would see value in enforcing the enhanced penalties on guns in commission of a crime to drum up replacement business?

Al Capone went down for tax charges...maybe we can reduce gun violence (loaded term, I know) if we use a similar approach. Extra time for using a gun in a crime, plus charges for not paying sales tax when you bought the illegal gun???

Comrade Misfit said...

What we are seeing is the opening dance. The NRA may think that they have the votes to prevail and, if you're going to win 100%, why give anything up? Similarly, if the gun control crowd had 100% certainty of prevailing, they'd just do it and nobody would give a shat what the NRA (or I) thought.

In between certainty for either side is where there could be some negotiation. But we aren't there yet. This particular battle of the bands hasn't finished tuning up the instruments.

Eck! said...

CP88, We are converging! I like the way you think.