Why Pro and Anti-Gun Advocates Are Not Speaking The Same Language

[Dean358 0]

After such a sad weekend it's imperative we have a constructive dialogue with folks on both sides of the gun control debate to figure out how we can make society safer without restricting the rights of hunters, sportsman and other legitimate gun users. In reading the other threads there is so much knee jerk, name calling nonsense -- on both sides -- that it becomes impossible for us to find common ground and talk about solutions. I am, therefore, reposting below a very eloquent post from another forum on why we're not even speaking the same language, in the hopes of generating some constructive conversation. (Mods -- I hope this is OK, especially given the topic.) The was from Ben in London on Metafilter.com:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think it's been covered so far, but guns and ammunition is a classic example of where the true (i.e. including externalities) cost is socialized.

It also partly explains why pro and anti-gun advocates are not speaking the same language. One is talking about personal freedoms, the other is talking about cost to society. In general, humans are poor at conceptualising risk (see more airline security vs safer driving) and extremely poor at dealing with large issues of risk where there are significant vested interests (see climate change).

Gun control is, in many ways, like climate change. The status quo is that the personal freedom (the right to own, buy ammo for and shoot a gun) is cheap. In the same vein it is still cheap to buy and use fossil fuels, and reasonably cheap to drive from a to b. The costs of roads are socialised. The externalities of fossil fuel depletion and climate change are also socialised.

With guns, the externalities are all the costs associated with guns in general - training and equipping police forces, police investigations, [some] healthcare costs, the cost to schools etc of security measures, the costs to society when productive members are injured or killed. Put simply, the actual cost of gun ownership is subsidised by the state and paid for by all of us.

There are lots of examples of governments dealing with costs like these, notably in the way alcohol and cigarettes are taxed. The impact of cost and regulatory changes can be modelled. In Sweden, for example, researchers estimate that removing the alcohol monopoly and privatising alcohol sales would cause significantly more deaths, assaults, drink driving etc as a result of higher alcohol consumption. This doesn't mean there aren't people who can't and don't drink responsibly. It doesn't implicitly mean Swedish drinkers are all feckless alcoholics. It simply establishes a causal relationship between alcohol consumption and its consequences. To which there are costs.

There are analogies between gun culture in the US and alcohol culture in Sweden, where, until the beginning of the last century there were no restrictions on the sale of alcohol and where most adults are consumers and purchasers. There are disanalogies too, of course. But denying a causal link between how guns and ammo are regulated and priced, like denying how we regulate alcohol impact public health, is to deny reality.

Ultimately, this comes down to the same conversation America needs to have on lots of issues: where the boundaries between personal freedom and collective responsibility lie. It's why the American right has swung so firmly behind gun rights. It also explains the paranoia about arming oneself against a socialist government intent on removing one's freedoms. The two interests are closely aligned because they amount to a wholesale denial of collective responsibility. It is what makes the 2nd Amendment, interpreted in modern times to enable a group of people to arm themselves in self-defense against a tyrannical government, such an absurdity. The people who want to arm to protect society are one of its greatest threats.

In the 1,000 posts above a few gun rights supporters such as St Alia and Jacqueline follow a common theme: the gun is there to defend *my* rights when nobody else will. From a non-American perspective this reads less like a mantra of self-sufficiency and more like a rejection of society. It presupposes a failure of the state to deliver its side of the bargain. Soldiers are there to defend you. The police are there to protect you. Doctors are there to treat you. Teachers are there to educate you. In return, you pay your taxes and you expect all these people to do their jobs. Unsurprisingly, therefore, that we see strong themes of keeping state spending low and low taxes among people who often fail to acknowledge socialised costs. And who do not recognise that killing someone - even in apparent defense of oneself or one's property - is placing a large, hidden cost on society. The interesting counterpoint made above - why don't gun rights advocates carry heart defibrillators - reinforces how selective hardline gun rights advocates are. Those who advocate bigger, more or more ubiquitous guns are either doing so from a position of bad faith or simply do not understand risk.

Instead we get strong rhetoric about freedom and rights from a purely personal perspective. But - and apologies for picking on you Jacqueline, as one of the rare concealed carry advocates here - by choosing personal freedom over collective responsibility we pick a very shaky security (I will, and will have the opportunity to, make the right choices to defend myself, by myself) in which one is constantly on a state of alert over a safer one. One in which we acknowledge our duties to our fellow citizens in respect of protecting *their* safety. One in which we trust that by giving up some personal freedom (in this case how we own or use guns) we are gaining something back.

There is no such thing as gun culture. It is a construct, and used to appropriate the rights-based language of minorities for a cause of selfishness. Gun control advocates have framed the argument more poorly than gun rights advocates. Your freedom has a cost, paid in blood. While you wave the flag of patriotism you are acting against the interests of the society you claim you defend. Gun control is not prohibition. It is not the end of freedom. It is the rebalancing the rights of society of the rights of the individual so we transact peacefully and safely.

www.wci.nyc

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

After such a sad weekend it's imperative we have a constructive dialogue with folks on both sides of the gun control debate to figure out how we can make society safer without restricting the rights of hunters, sportsman and other legitimate gun users. In reading the other threads there is so much knee jerk, name calling nonsense -- on both sides -- that it becomes impossible for us to find common ground and talk about solutions. I am, therefore, reposting below a very eloquent post form another forum on why we're not even speaking the same language, in the hopes of generating some constructive conversation..

Sorry, Dean, but the quoted article was not constructive and full of loaded arguments. You didn't do much better when you started out with "hunters, sportsman, and "Miscellanious." The debate is entirely with group number 3 - the ones that actually the intent of the 2nd amendment, contrary to what Ben (of another fucking country) asserts. It's also the language used by Democrats back when they wanted to pretend to favor gun rights during elections. Hillary Clinton claimed to be a fan of hunters and sporting purposes, just like so many others.

No, if you want to have constructive dialogue, you don't claim guns are a tax on society by counting costs, while ignoring benefits. That is a total failure in the conceptualization of risk. And when he says that police are there to protect you, he ignores or is unaware that the Supreme Court has already ruled that they do not have a responsibility to protect individuals.

The notion of sacrificing personal freedoms to gain some collective benefit is also antithetical to founding principles of the nation.

[Dean358 0]

You didn't do much better when you started out with "hunters, sportsman, and "Miscellanious."***

Ok, my (unintentional) bad. What do you find inappropriate about that and what language would you have preferred?

I'm clearly not a gun owner, but I'm trying to understand and respect the perspective of those who are while also trying to figure out how we address the tragedy in Sandy Hook and others like it. If you have issues with what I posted I'm all ears, but might it be too much to ask to keep a civil tone to the conversation?

www.wci.nyc

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You didn't do much better when you started out with "hunters, sportsman, and "Miscellanious."***

Ok, my (unintentional) bad. What do you find inappropriate about that and what language would you have preferred?

As I wrote, this is the language of the gun control candidate who wants to straddle the fence during his/her campaign. It also directly asserts that hunting and sporting needs are the primary reasons for gun rights. This is false. The right to self defense is a fundamental one.

and Ben's writing doesn't really show that the two sides aren't speaking the same language, he just beats the point to death that the gun rights people are idiots who can't see the bigger picture. His refusal to yield a single point to their side is hardly the way to reach a common understanding.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

His refusal to yield a single point to their side is hardly the way to reach a common understanding.

^ this is what I got from it.

I was hoping for a rational comparison of points and how each side talks past each other and he even started out in that direction (briefly).

But this guy simply noted that HIS OPINION is that only those that consider gun ownership to be a clear right are being close minded.

he could be a regular in Speaker's Corner "since you don't agree with me, you must ignorant and close minded"

I think the only benefit is that he's showing the problem as a case point himself. Irony, he's trying to come across as enlightened and open minded just to serve as a negative example opposed to that very thing.

He's not even trying to understand a perspective of those that lean to individual rights and personal responsibility really shows the divide more so. He considers that compromise = 'that side' come acknowledge that movement to more social position is an improvement. He doesn't even comprehend the idea of a society where decision on this type of issue no business of the feds and should be at the individual level - or least on a local level. It confirms such a clear division of even the starting points of what could be considered the "pure" positions of two sides that it is hard to expect them to come to a workable middle ground.

I consider his premise to be only half written and unless he shows the reverse, and then shows the two ideas up next to each other to compare and contrast, then it's just another biased opinion piece.

and if he actually did that - so what? we already know it

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Ok, my (unintentional) bad. What do you find inappropriate about that and what language would you have preferred?

For most people - like me - It’s not about hunters, etc. It’s about having a right given to us by our Constitution. The key step to elimination of rights to all is the elimination of rights to some group. It can be via villainization of the group or by simple denigration of the group. For example, hunters, sportsmen and miscellaneous are worthy enough to have rights, so it’s no big deal to take them.

It’s that we have the right given to us. I don’t have to be a sportsman. I don’t have to even be worried about crime or have been a victim. The right was given to us. Period.

Just like out right to free speech. Plenty out there would like to see rules that require the Westboro Baptists to put a sock in it. That’s easy to get popular support for that. But the same justification can be used for anybody. The Constitution protects it, and waiving on one can be waiving on others.

Right now people are talking AGAIN about how to sweep away the mentally ill. Regardless of the past decisions of the SCOTUS that hold that, yes, the mentally ill are people, too, and they have rights just like everyone else. This, of course, makes plenty of people uncomfortable and an orderly society obviously cannot benefit by a loon who lives in a street and talks to himself. Society needs that guy swept away and separated from the rest of society.

That’s my problem. It’s not about whether guns are good or bad. It’s that we were given the right to them over 200 years ago due to DISTRUST of the government itself. It’s a right, with the same dignity as the right to a jury trial, the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. Indeed, equal to the right to not be a slave.

Free speech has its costs. Beyond a reasonable doubt means that the guilty may go free. Thank goodness that the individual rights are designed to trump what the government can make us do. Including the right to decline healthcare – even if that means being crazy on a street.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

He considers that compromise = 'that side' come acknowledge that movement to more social position is an improvement

Thank you.

And, I would like to add, "compromise" resulting in the loss of a right is not really a compromise, now is it? He's asking one side to lose something precious and another side to lose nothing in return. Which is called "victory" and not "compromise."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,026]

I see this event as the "tipping point" at which the politicians will have to do something.

I would like to see some serious (non theater) suggestions from gun enthusiasts. If all they do is delay, deny and procrastinate they will probably have something thrust upon them that they don't like. If they came up with some realistic suggestions that they can live with, we'd all be better off.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

He considers that compromise = 'that side' come acknowledge that movement to more social position is an improvement

Thank you.

And, I would like to add, "compromise" resulting in the loss of a right is not really a compromise, now is it? He's asking one side to lose something precious and another side to lose nothing in return. Which is called "victory" and not "compromise."

One might say that the "other side" just lost 20 little children and six dedicated teachers and school staff, counselor. And 180 innocent people since V.Tech in 2007.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

John:

You are all about prevention. Which is just one part of the discussion.

What about mitigation? Which is, of course, unpleasant to all but is pretty necessary at this point.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

He considers that compromise = 'that side' come acknowledge that movement to more social position is an improvement

Thank you.

And, I would like to add, "compromise" resulting in the loss of a right is not really a compromise, now is it? He's asking one side to lose something precious and another side to lose nothing in return. Which is called "victory" and not "compromise."

One might say that the "other side" just lost 20 little children and six dedicated teachers and school staff, counselor. And 180 innocent people since V.Tech in 2007.

And the rejoinder to that 20 innocent children were killed in a place where the 2nd amendment was suspended and not in effect because it was a gun free zone.

There is no right answer. What can be done to mitigate something which, for the time being, has not been stopped and cannot be stopped for the next several years?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

John:

You are all about prevention. Which is just one part of the discussion.

What about mitigation? Which is, of course, unpleasant to all but is pretty necessary at this point.

I would prefer to see metal detectors and guards at the doors, rather than armed teachers, in an educational setting. I don't believe guns are appropriate in the classroom unless the class is about firearms.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Thank you. It's a good suggestion.

Note: they have these at many inner city schools, where mass shootings haven't occurred. Why mass shootings don't occur at these schools has not been studied.

Some don't like the thought of school being akin to prison, though.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I see this event as the "tipping point" at which the politicians will have to do something.

I would like to see some serious (non theater) suggestions from gun enthusiasts. If all they do is delay, deny and procrastinate they will probably have something thrust upon them that they don't like. If they came up with some realistic suggestions that they can live with, we'd all be better off.

How about the admin starting by fixing this???

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gun-prosecutions-under-obama-down-over-40-percent-percent/article/2516175#.UM-JbEbCz8B

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Dean358 0]

Quote

For most people - like me - It’s not about hunters, etc. It’s about having a right given to us by our Constitution.

But aren't all the rights granted by the constitution meant to be balanced between personal liberty and the needs of society? The first amendment gives us free speech, but we must use it responsibly, e.g. we can't yell "fire" in a theater, can't libel someone, etc. Didn't the supreme court establish this applies to the second amendment as well?

If it's not black and white, what is the right balance?

www.wci.nyc

[rushmc 23]

There is no right answer. What can be done to mitigate something which, for the time being, has not been stopped and cannot be stopped for the next several years?

[regulator 0]

I'll propose this...(which has been suggested before)

Eliminate the loophole where any person can buy a gun from a gunshow without autorization from a higher authority.

Create a law where you have to track all gun sales (private) and if broken and that weapon was used in the course of a crime and the seller didnt report it they could be held accountable (not for the actual crime that was committed, but something equal to a high misdermeanor or low felony. This would be at least a decent initial offering.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

He considers that compromise = 'that side' come acknowledge that movement to more social position is an improvement

Thank you.

And, I would like to add, "compromise" resulting in the loss of a right is not really a compromise, now is it? He's asking one side to lose something precious and another side to lose nothing in return. Which is called "victory" and not "compromise."

One might say that the "other side" just lost 20 little children and six dedicated teachers and school staff, counselor. And 180 innocent people since V.Tech in 2007.

And the rejoinder to that 20 innocent children were killed in a place where the 2nd amendment was suspended and not in effect because it was a gun free zone.

There is no right answer. What can be done to mitigate something which, for the time being, has not been stopped and cannot be stopped for the next several years?

It appears schools were moving in the direction of some of your ideas

Now they are moving faster

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/17/newtown-massacre-sparks-nationwide-school-security-alert/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[OHCHUTE 0]

There's no disconnect between languages. It a result of an overstressed world that is attempting to rid itself of the stress it feels. Lemming Theory

There's simply too many people and society is out of control, especailly with all the failed marriages (mini social units) and atheiests, who do home schooling where morals and integredity are decayed.

For god sakes with as much football on TV, and those watching it, you know were heading back to tribalism.

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

[kawisixer01 0]

Let's make one thing very clear that many of you have mis-stated and I believe may believe wrongly about that is a very serious and eggregious mis-understanding of our constitution. INALIANABLE rights mean those we are born with, they are natural rights, incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred by any man over another. Endowed by their creator. Further the declaration states that these are "self evident", meaning that the basic human rights require no defense because their virtue is unquestionable. It further states "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" meaning we the people are the only ones who have granted the govt the power to govern.
I absolutely abhor seeing or hearing people say or imply that we were "given" these rights by a constitution, or worse yet we are "allowed" to have them by the govenrment. This type of thinking and speaking crates the impression that they can be revoked or altered.
Sorry....pet peeve of mine.

[kawisixer01 0]

Quote

There is no right answer. What can be done to mitigate something which, for the time being, has not been stopped and cannot be stopped for the next several years?

These school killings are not just happening in the US either

Many other countries have the same insanity.

Some with guns, some with gas, some with knives


Also of note, this latest tragety is not the most children ever murdered in school in the US

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

But aren't all the rights granted by the constitution meant to be balanced between personal liberty and the needs of society?

In a limited sense, yes. Very limited sense. One cannot ban yelling “fire” in a public theater. Seriously - how do you prevent that from happening? You don’t. And if you pass a law that prevents yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater, then people may actually be quiet if there is, you know, a fire at a Great White concert or something.

There are laws against fraud. So does that mean that fraud doesn’t happen? No. You penalize the act when it occurs. There are laws against inciting a riot. So do you prevent a person from speaking? No. If a person incites a riot you nail his ass to the wall for it.

The whole “Fire in a crowded theater” thing is so overly used and so misunderstood in so many ways. The right to be a devil worshipper is there. It’s balance is that if a devil worshipper commits human sacrifice “religious freedom” is not a defense.

Same with all rights. If individual rights are subject to the whim or caprice of the majority or whomever is in power, then it’s not a “right.”

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[normiss 798]

I agree. Very good idea.
So long as they aren't TSA staff anyway.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

I see this event as the "tipping point" at which the politicians will have to do something.

I would like to see some serious (non theater) suggestions from gun enthusiasts. If all they do is delay, deny and procrastinate they will probably have something thrust upon them that they don't like. If they came up with some realistic suggestions that they can live with, we'd all be better off.

How about the admin starting by fixing this???

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gun-prosecutions-under-obama-down-over-40-percent-percent/article/2516175#.UM-JbEbCz8B

As I have written countless times, laws that aren't enforced might as well not exist.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I see this event as the "tipping point" at which the politicians will have to do something.

I would like to see some serious (non theater) suggestions from gun enthusiasts. If all they do is delay, deny and procrastinate they will probably have something thrust upon them that they don't like. If they came up with some realistic suggestions that they can live with, we'd all be better off.

How about the admin starting by fixing this???

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gun-prosecutions-under-obama-down-over-40-percent-percent/article/2516175#.UM-JbEbCz8B

As I have written countless times, laws that aren't enforced might as well not exist.

So why write new ones?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln