Questions for gun control advocates, part 1

[Shamash]

52. I wish to save lives as well

But the larger question is "at what cost?" If I asked you "Is it worth an infinite cost to save one life?", you would probably answer "no", which would mean that to you there are some things that are worth keeping even there is a death toll involved. We could stop all auto deaths by a draconian ban on cars, yet no one is suggesting that is a good idea.

I do not think it is unreasonable to ask people to look beyond their pet issues and/or fears and take a consistent view on risk. If you disagree, you are free to make an argument in support of why liberals should have inconsistent ethical standards and government policy should use a principle of ideology-based risk management.

And "not accepting my premise" is a long way from "demonstrating that it is a faulty premise". Far too often "let's agree to disagree" just means "I cannot find fault with what you are saying but I'm still not going to change my mind." I presume you feel your views on the subject are intelligent and rational and liberal, yet you have gone out of your way to avoid answering any of the questions, even the ones which can be answered completely and accurately and honestly with no firearm context (#8 and #9) nor the one which is simply "which item on this list is the smallest?" (#4). That you are unwilling to say anything...says a lot.

In terms of saving lives, the CDC has said that guns are used defensively more often than they are used by criminals, and that people who use a gun defensively have on average, better outcomes than those using any other defensive strategy. The implication of this is that if you removed all legally held civilian guns, more people would be victimized by criminals (the victims could not use a gun defensively) and on average victims would be worse off (since the previously gun-using victims now have on average, worse outcomes). That's not an NRA talking point, that's a CDC study on the causes and prevention of firearm violence. So the math on "saving lives" is not as clear-cut as "guns/not guns".

Some of the questions are simply a back-handed way of suggesting honesty about one's view. For instance, all the people who keep saying that the NRA is bankrolled by the gun industry. If they can come up with more reliable financial figures than mine to make their case, they should do so. Otherwise, they should stop saying that. Interestingly, what we have seen with this post is that all of these people are making themselves scarce so they can keep on saying that and pretend their talking point has not been rebutted.

You are quite right in that it is an enormously complex issue. Compare the depth of your view on the subject to that of the first commenter. Some people do not see it as a complex issue, they have an absolutist mentality that leaves no room for logic or discussion. I am not a gun rights absolutist, I think there is room for improvement in current laws and approaches to the subject, and that this improvement would save lives. And I have been saying it for years and saying it consistently. But as a believer in civil liberties, presumption of innocence and equality under the law, I am not going to stand by idly in the face of any fear- and ignorance-based prior restraint and bigotry. If for no other reason than that legal precedents are binding on subjects other than the one they are decided on.

For instance, there was a recent fauxtrage over Pennsylvania cities and towns no longer being able to make local gun laws stricter than state gun laws, i.e. "The NRA's diabolical plan for killing new gun laws". How many people outraged over this took a moment to realize that such a ruling also means that cities and towns cannot pass anti-abortion laws stricter than state law? Or conversely, if the cities and towns could pass such stricter gun laws it means they could also pass stricter anti-gay or anti-abortion laws.

Gun rights do not stand all by themselves in our legal framework. They are rights, and the extent to which we allow or restrict one right can affect our other rights as well (as implied in question #9). Gun rights have played a part for better or worse in at least one of our more prominent Supreme Court cases, even though that case had nothing to do with guns.

While you may not like the direction the questions point you and are uncomfortable with what the answers imply about your views on the subject, they are fact-based and logically sound (and I would note that you have not found any fault on either of those grounds). Not liking the questions, or being forced to reappraise one's views because of their answers does not mean they are bad questions.