My opinions on the issue of gun control (for what they are worth) …

[spin]

The political parties treat politics as a game similar to professional football where the two teams see victory as the only goal.

It's hard to solve problems when your object is to win at all costs. Compromise doesn't seem to be a viable alternative.

Gun control is currently is used as a wedge issue by Republicans to successfully win elections. Democrats who once benefited from the issue now fear to pass new laws but many in our party want to appear to support draconian gun control in order to pacify the very liberal base of the party. This approach may win elections in the very liberal areas of our country but accomplishes little to address the problem and hurts our candidates in more conservative areas of our nation.

I tend to look at the problem of gun violence as a one which we will never totally solve but one in which if both sides work together we can make our country a safer place to live.

Both sides need to compromise.

For those who support stricter gun control:
1) It is very important to learn a little about the basics and the terminology of the subject. Firearms are not rocket science; they are far less complicated than your car. If you know a little about a car, you can describe your problem to a mechanic and he will treat you with respect and not laugh at you behind your back. If a person who opposes firearms makes a statement like, “We need another "assault" weapons ban because Wal-Mart is selling machine guns without background checks,” you have lost the argument. (If you lack knowledge, ask in the Gungeon and those who support RKBA will happily educate you.)

2) Most people who are in favor of RKBA will never accept any system of registering firearms as they know that in the future the system may be used to confiscate firearms. This has happened in U.S. history. California is one example. They attempted to confiscate registered "assault weapons".

3) Many supposedly great ideas have recently emerged such as micro-stamping ammo. Unfortunately, these ideas are often impractical and not well thought out. Consider the viewpoints of people who know firearms carefully before you buy into such schemes.

4) Statements such as "guns are only good for killing people" are almost as stupid as "guns don't kill people, people do."

5) There are many tragedies caused by firearms, but many people have also used them for legitimate self defense and survived a violent attack.

6) It is easy to support "feel good" laws pushed by politicians who wish to appear be doing something to address the problem of gun violence. Words on paper are cheap. Politicians can look like heroes to their supporters if they ban "assault" weapons, but if they leave loopholes large enough to drive an 18 wheeler through, such laws are useless. Manufactures simply changed the appearance of their weapons by removing items such as bayonet lugs and continued selling them. High capacity magazines were always available during the ban as long as they had been manufactured before a cutoff date. They just cost a fortune. This did not discourage most of the gun owners I knew who spent big bucks to get them.

7) Always treat any propaganda by the Brady Campaign with suspicion. They are more interested in donations than solving problems.

For those who support RKBA:

1) We are winning. The facts and statistics are on our side. We may be able to convert many who currently oppose firearm ownership.

2) Be polite to those who hate firearms. It is possible that a tragedy involving one of their family or an acquaintance has occurred and has influenced their viewpoint.

3) I see no problem with allowing private citizens to access the NICS background check for their sales of firearms as long as no serial numbers or information is recorded that could result in a de facto registration system. I believe that we all are concerned about selling our firearms to honest sane people who will not misuse them. If not and you don't give a shit about who buys your weapons, you are not a responsible gun owner.

4) All gun laws are not an infringement on our rights. Surely even the founding fathers would have opposed a violent criminal or a person with a very dangerous mental problem from owning firearms. Many current gun laws are reasonable and if enforced could reduce firearm violence even further. As an example we could work to make sure that the states input the names of violent criminals and those legally adjudged of having extremely serious mental problems into the NICS background check system. That's simple and requires no new law.

5) It may be fun to walk around with signs that say "Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants." Unfortunately it will be misused by the media to portray gun owners as people who wish to overthrow our government. Revolution is reserved for those times when a true dictator or tyrant who would oppress our citizens is in power. We are not at that point.

6) Be careful of NRA propaganda. They often exaggerate the threat of new legislation in order to generate donations. When there is a real possibility of an infringement on Second Amendment rights, donate generously and contact your representatives in government. (Note: I am an NRA member but I am no fool. I contribute generously when our rights are truly in danger.)

I expect to get flamed by both sides. I can only hope that this post leads to a productive discussion.

edited for typo

[Tuesday Afternoon]

1. no flame from me. excellent post. K&R

[panader0]

2. There are so many guns in the US at this point

and it is so easy to get one (I can get one at the local swap meet in 30 seconds), that laws about gun control will never mean much, or have any real bite.
Don't own one myself.

[Logical]

6. I agree with you....

too many guns and too easy to sell them between private parties to do any useful control at this point.

[wtmusic]

3. You say the Brady Campaign is "more interested in donations than solving problems"

like all non-profits (including the NRA) Brady survives on donations. You imply they're not using funds to solve problems but sticking the money in their pockets. Do you have any evidence?

You're not improving the debate by framing it in pro-RKBA/anti-RKBA terms. It's very possible to support RKBA and favor stricter gun control.

[Logical]

5. I don't think he thinks you are either one or the other. I know I am a mix of both. n-t

[PavePusher]

9. They seem to spend all their money on fear-advertising and salaries.

They certainly don't run any safety training or skills classes.

[wtmusic]

11. What you call "fear advertising" many people see as a legit message

and safety training and skills classes are not their focus:

"The Brady Campaign works to pass and enforce sensible federal and state gun laws, regulations, and public policies through grassroots activism, electing public officials who support common sense gun laws, and increasing public awareness of gun violence. Through our Million Mom March and Brady Chapters, we work locally to educate people about the dangers of guns, honor victims of gun violence, and pass sensible gun laws, believing that all Americans, especially children, have the right to live free from the threat of gun violence."

Nothing about eliminating the right to keep and bear arms.

[PavePusher]

12. Huh, they keep claiming to be about "gun safety".

Maybe they're getting off-message.

[Pullo]

22. There's a lot of distrust of what the Brady's claim to want now, and their motives for doing so

They used to be known as Handgun Control Inc. Back then, they were much more open about their long term goals, and their political strategy for getting there. As an example, here's a quote from a former chairmen:

"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.

I concede that quote was from decades ago. If nothing else, it seems to me they used to more forthright with their desires. The politics have changed since then, necessitating the name change and the gradual scaling back of both their rhetoric and policy initiatives. As someone who's followed this issue for a long time, its hard not to be skeptical of what the Brady's lobby for and why they do it.

For example, why do the Brady's still support an "assault" weapons ban? If one looks at homicides involving firearms, rifles of any type are rarely involved. Of those involving rifles, only a fraction involves "assault" weapons. An "assault" weapons ban is anything but sensible if the goal to address the broader problem of gun violence in the US.

However, if the goal is to heavily restrict firearms in the United States and render the 2A a constitutional relic, another AWB makes sense. It would divide guns and gun owners into "good" and "bad" categories by law. It may also divide them politically, thus weakening their "stranglehold" on US gun policy. As much was was said by Josh Sugarman of the VPC, one of the Brady's few intellectual allies, when he invented the term "assault" weapon.



That is just one example. There are many others.

[spin]

13. I will support my contentions about the Brady Campaign with two statements...

1) They are viewed by the Better Business Bureau as a questionable charity.

You can read the report at http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/law-and-public-interest/brady-center-to-prevent-gun-violence-in-washington-dc-1136

2) Obama favored improving the NICS background check by imputing the names of criminals and those adjudged as having severe mental problems. The Brady Campaign which had supported the idea suddenly went down the path of limiting the number of rounds a semi-automatic firearm could hold, even though they had advocated improving the NICS background check before the Arizona shooting.

The President Speaks Out On Guns

This past Sunday, President Obama wrote an op-ed for Gabrielle Giffords' hometown paper, the Arizona Daily Star. Looking back on the tragic shootings in Tucson, he made it clear that we need to fix our nation's broken background check system and keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people:

That's why our focus right now should be on sound and effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.

• First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.

• Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.

• Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.
http://crooksandliars.com/taxonomy/term/3638,20025,18940

The Brady Campaign previously had favored Obama's position as shown in this link to their site.

Brady Background Checks Mental Health NICS

Overview

POSITION: The Brady Campaign supports strengthening the Brady background check system to make it harder for criminals and other dangerous people to buy firearms. The Brady Campaign supported the NICS Inprovement Act of 2007, which provides for financial assistance to aid states in sending records to the National Instant Check System (NICS).

PROBLEM: Many states fail to supply complete records of prohibited gun buyers to the national Brady background check system or the Brady Law's National Instant Check System. That means many felons, domestic violence abusers, and those who are dangerously mentally ill can walk into a gun store and buy firearms without being stopped.

The Brady Law, which mandates that federally licensed firearms dealers do background checks on prospective gun purchasers, has prevented over 1.9 million prohibited persons from buying guns. However, a background check is only as good as the records it can search. Unfortunately, many prohibited persons are not blocked from buying guns because their records are not in the NICS, including about 80-90% of individuals with disqualifying mental health records, and one-fourth of those with felony convictions. Ten states do not provide any relevant domestic violence records that indicate prohibited purchasers.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/nics

And yet they are currently pushing for a ban on high capacity magazines on their home page (which Obama did not mention).

Fiancée Of Slain Giffords Staffer Visiting Capitol to Endorse Ban On Large Capacity Magazines

Congress: No Assault Clips!

On January 8, nineteen people, including U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and U.S. District Court Judge John Roll, were shot outside a Tucson, Arizona grocery store with a handgun equipped with a large capacity ammunition magazine.

U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy has introduced H.R. 308, Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act to prohibit civilian possession of these military style magazines. Senator Frank Lautenberg has introduced S.32 in the Senate.

Large capacity ammunition magazines are designed to enable shooting mass numbers of people quickly and efficiently without reloading. They are not useful for hunting or self-defense.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/

Nowhere on the Brady Campaign homepage is an improvement to the NICS background check mentioned!

Why is this? I suspect that they hope to generate more emotions and contributions by advocating an "assault clips" ban ("Assault clips" is a newly invented term to describe what was commonly called standard magazines or extended magazines which hold more than ten rounds which were supposedly banned during the "assault weapons" ban.)

Rather than back Obama's idea that might actually be productive they have chosen to push a idea that might result in another "feel good" law that would do little to reduce future mass murders by those who suffer from severe mental illness. I can only see this tactic as an attempt to generate contributions. Be aware that mass murders have been committed by mentally ill individuals who used firearms with magazines that only held ten rounds.

In several posts here in the Gungeon I linked to their page on improving the NICS background check and supported their viewpoint. I took some heat from those who support RKBA, but I am a strong supporter of the NICS background check system and desire to see it opened to private sellers of firearms to allow them to determine if a buyer is honest and sane.

The NRA's position on the issue is:

Background Checks/ NICS
NICS Legislative Efforts

The National Rifle Association has always supported including the records of individuals adjudicated mentally defective into the National Instant Background Check System. We believe that the NICS should serve the intent of Congress, which is to prohibit the sale of firearms to criminals and other prohibited persons, such as adjudicated mental defectives. However, we must not forget that the NICS also serves the purpose of clearing firearm purchases by law-abiding Americans. Too often, the system has been abused and has not delivered on the promise of a fair and instant check.

In order for NICS to be effective and efficient, it should not be bogged down with unnecessary information or duplicative records. It should not be used to charge transaction fees on background checks; as a permanent repository of gun purchase information; or to unnecessarily delay the ability of law-abiding Americans to purchase firearms.

The NRA has achieved many improvements to the NICS over the years, including the destruction of approved transaction records within 24 hours, and prohibiting the FBI on an annual basis from charging a “user fee” on background checks.

***snip***

The NRA will continue to work for the quickest and most accurate NICS possible on behalf of our members and law-abiding gun owners across the country.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=221&issue=018

It would seem to me that the NRA and the Brady Campaign could work together to improve the NICS background check system if they both stopped playing political games and attempting to generate contributions.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. "Republicans Steal"

There, I summed all that shit I didn't read up for you. It's all that needed to be said.

[spin]

19. Good summary. (n/t)

[Logical]

4. Spin, very good and fair post. Not that you need any validation from me....

It really should be accepted by the non-gun crowd because of your "For those who support RKBA" items. Really good points and no way anyone should be offended by those. Very logical.

I am not really worried about the government knowing what guns I own but I can see where there is a worry if they have used it in the past. I did not know they had tried that in CA.

I am not a NRA fan mainly because I think they generate paranoia where there is none. I wish there was another group that were like them but not so right wing.

The point I think non-gun people to realize is that we will always have guns in the hands of criminals and there is no way at this point to stop it since banning guns will never happen. If the criminals have them we need them and CC license holders have caused almost no issues.

Thanks for the the great post and taking time to post it.

[spin]

21. Thanks for your support ...BTW...

someone sent a message to me but I accidentally managed to delete it when I went to reply. I'm not sure how I did this but it probably has something to do with the fact that I have a new computer with a smaller keyboard.

I'm not sure who sent me the message but I think it was you. If so send it again and I'll see if I can manage not to delete it this time.

[tularetom]

7. No flames here

Good thoughtful post.

K & R

[rrneck]

8. Nice work! nt

[druidity33]

10. K&R. nt.

[rl6214]

14. K&R

[Hoopla Phil]

16. I'll recommend this thread; despite the many misgivings it gave me.

My best wishes Spin.

[Logical]

18. Curious what misgivings? n-t

[spin]

20. Thanks. (n/t)

[DWC]

17. Excellent post. we need more like it. n/t