Interesting Gun Control Debate on Facebook

I’ve been carrying on a debate of sorts on Facebook. Out of respect for the participants, one of whom is a friend and I respect a great deal, I won’t direct you to it. But I extracted my pieces and have pasted them below.

Start at the bottom and work up; they are in reverse order.

[2012-08-11]
Clarence Oddbody [Gabriel], you've misunderstood me. Perhaps you are not reading carefully, or you don't want to understand.

I've read every word you wrote at least twice. I've watched your videos. I've thought about them and responded to them as best I could, that's why there is so much time between my posts - not because I'm busy; I'm thinking, writing, rewriting, and thinking some more.

There is a certain kind of privilege in encountering someone with whom we disagree but can learn from. I have that relationship with [Joshua], who started this thread.

But you and I have not found that; we might as well be speaking different languages. An indelible condescension underlies the videos you've shared and language you've used ("wearing a blue costume and a tin badge"); I can't penetrate that.

Unless anyone has something new to add, I'll withhold further comment; not because I don't have more to say, but because no one is listening (carefully) and my time is more productively spent elsewhere.

Peace,

--csc
~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[2012-08-11]

Clarence Oddbody It's been an interesting discussion, and more enlightening in what we weren't able to talk about than what we were.

The paranoia and intractable mistrust underlying most of this discussion troubles me. There was a time (when I was in the NRA and people like William F Buckley represented conservative ideals, and people like Ron Reagan represented a kind of naive political goodness) that a sort of elevated disagreement prevailed.

Not so anymore.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but it seems you guys don't realize we're on the same side; when enough people have had enough, our elected officials will fix this problem, and if our side hasn't gotten its ducks in a row, we'll lose all rights.

I'll close with an analogy: I oppose abortion in no uncertain terms. No amount of arguing will ever convince me otherwise. IMHO it's not a reproductive right, it's a human right. However, we live in a land of laws and this practice is legal. I respect the authorities that allow it because they are the same authorities that ensure (with my consent at the voting booth) that all the other bits of government function as best they can - from painting yellow lines on highways to national defense.

I'm not a Pollyanna. I'm a pragmatist. Everyone in business or government or the local lodge is. It's how humans make progress. We cooperate and compromise and use the tools we agree on to adjust what that picture looks like.

If we don't agree on the tools, we end up hurting each other, which is where "pry it from my cold dead hands" will take us.

(What other issue can collect wonderfully different people like Chuck Heston and Ted Nugent? The gun community is inhabited by people and ideals that I admire and respect. But our inability to compromise can be infuriating.)

--csc

~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[2012-08-10]

Clarence Oddbody [George], Yes, gun violence is being addressed, but not sufficiently, just as all preventable violence that continues to occur is not being sufficiently addressed. (Including drunk driving, drug overdoses, drowning deaths, etc.)

If you disagree and feel the level of gun violence is acceptable, then please say so. Conversation over. If you believe that we should do something about it, like all preventable violence, then we have some common ground.

At which point, we need to know "... in which order gun violence should be addressed with respect to other problems."

Very simple question.

~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[2012-08-10]

Clarence Oddbody We found some common ground but cannot continue the discussion if you don't respond and tell me "... in which order gun violence should be addressed with respect to other problems."

~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[2012-08-10]

Clarence Oddbody Good comments all, thank you. I think we have some common ground, so let's start there:

I agree gun violence does not account for nearly the same number of tragic deaths due to other preventable causes. I also agree gun violence has been sensationalized and exaggerated for political purposes, TV ratings, and box office sales.

So let's take this one step at a time.

Assuming this is true, how do you *order* the solution to these challenges?

I'm not asking right now HOW to solve them, but in which order gun violence should be addressed with respect to other problems.

That is not a trick question.

(BTW....

* I agree with this as well: "The first step is to teach your children that it is *never* justified to initiate violence." And this: "Changing the culture from the ground up is the solution."

* Regarding the "non-aggression principle," pls see my recent post here on Boundaries: http://clarence0ddbody.blogspot.com/2012/08/boundaries.html

The world is full of bad people at all levels that wish to subjugate, exploit, or otherwise take something from us. We develop social contracts (cf Rousseau) that express themselves in laws and authorities that enforce those laws in order to preserve order and ensure mutual protection. We can dislike it or rail against it or reform it or ignore it (at our own peril), but we can't remove it; it's in our DNA, it is the way human creatures organize themselves; it's as much a part of human nature as mound building is to a termite's, or grooming is to chimpanzee social structure.

IMHO religion is a good substance out of which to fashion rules. If we didn't have religion, we would have to invent it, or something very much like it. Indeed, any skeptic or agnostic or atheist who rejects God and still says there is a place for rules, has done just that.

That includes the non-aggression principle.)

~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[2012-08-08]

Clarence Oddbody
I asked [Gabriel] to offer his solution for preventing tragedies like the Colorado theater shooting; in the meantime, we all unfortunately watched the same thing unfold again in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, in a Sikh temple. I haven't heard from [Gabriel], and although he doesn't owe me or anyone else an answer, we do need one, so I answered it myself.

The full post is here: http://clarence0ddbody.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-modest-proposal.html

This is a summary:

1. All guns must be registered.
2. Deeper background check for all firearms.
3. Restrict magazine capacity to allow Winchesters, collectibles, etc, but no large magazines, banana clips, etc.
4. No assault or automatic or semi-automatic weapons.
5. Exemptions allowed for collectors, museums, dealers, etc.
6. Permit renewal every 10 years for every gun. I renew my car registration annually, and my driver's license every 4 years. The concept seems reasonable for firearms.
7. All sales must be recorded through a state authority; this should be quick and uncomplicated so that every owner can do it himself, just like you renew your own driver’s license. If you let a permit lapse, you get a hefty fine; if you can't abide by the law, you lose the right to keep your guns. No fees, just like there are no fees to vote or file your tax forms.
8. No firearms of any type within city limits except under lock and key.
9. Law officers may ask (with cause) to see your firearms to ensure they are safely locked. (Just as they may stop you while driving.)

~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[2012-08-04]

Clarence Oddbody
[Joshua] asked "Charles, what do you mean it's illegal? It's precisely legal. The 2nd Amendment is law, anything contrary to that is illegal" and I didn't answer you. What I tried to say was that armed resistance against the US govt is illegal. You can't promote it or practice it. Even though the right to bear arms is ensured (and I believe the founding fathers had resistance in mind), you can't use those arms, even though you are allowed to have them.

Any argument citing Afghanistan and similar examples misses the point, since, as I've mentioned, those revolts have been funded by other countries and they are not fighting with small arms. Take a look at the cache of arms next time the Israelis seize a shipment and you'll see what I mean.

We ensure our freedom by participating in the process that allows it, not by arming ourselves.

All that said, I don't expect to convince anyone. Let's just not stop at Ice T reminding us the issue is deeper than we think. I've been on both sides of the divide. I used to be a member of the NRA. I am not bleeding heart trying to take away sporting guns or even carrying permits.

I'm trying to stop more James Holmeses by getting the few people who read this to think twice. That's all.

~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[2012-08-03]

Clarence Oddbody
Then what are you, [Gabriel], going to do to stop future tragedies like James Holmes in Colorado? I have attempted in this short space to offer reasonable arguments for compromise, which you reject. Fair enough. I think you are dangerously mistaken, and you no doubt think I am.

If there is no compromise with folks like me (who wish to allow for sporting arms), then please explain how you plan to allow the proliferation of guns in America and prevent their misuse. In theaters, on street corners, or in homes where moms and dads don't lock them up.

Until you can present a cogent plan and actually demonstrate that it works, others UNlike me and UNlike you who wish to remove all guns will press to do just that.

If you can't compromise, you won't be given he opportunity to.

I see the edges of something in our discussion that I've seen too many times in too many places: A refusal to cede an inch of ground for fear we'll lose a foot, then a yard, then the battle.

I'm not suggesting that either side concede ethical or moral or intellectual arguments. Only that we find common ground and gather there together.

Unfortunately, extremes on both sides are the loudest and most intractable. What happens when 1/2 says "I want to keep all my guns" and the other 1/2 says "I want to take all your guns"?

Nothing.

And innocent people continue to die over an antiquated constitutional notion.

~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[2012-08-03]

Clarence Oddbody
If you are arguing with me (hard to tell) pls go back and reread what I wrote. I was saying that the reason for an armed citizenry *in response to an external threat* is no longer relevant. Your examples are not sufficient. I know of no modern conflict in which a citizenry that was already armed with sporting weapons used them to fight off an invading power. Indeed, for generations now, foreign powers have been arming the resistance in the countries you mentioned. They didn't pick up their deer rifles and head off to war.

Let me please elaborate my position so there is no misunderstanding: I RESPECT SPORTING ARMS and am largely on the side of those that wish to keep and bear them.

But any system that allows to happen what happened in Colorado is broken. Those most vociferously defending the 2nd amendment should be out front looking for a solution. References to Afghanistan and rattlesnakes are not going to convince anyone.

We (who share some common ground) need a compromise. If we (who share some common ground) don't, we (who share some common ground) will lose all access to all arms, and there will be such enormous support from a tired and injured community that has to live with gun violence every day that no amount of protest from us (who share some common ground) will matter.

My own opinion is that your position (if I understand it) is untenable.

~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[2012-08-03]

Clarence Oddbody
I presume the founding fathers were considering both internal and external threats (I believe it was Jefferson who said that the American people had a right to rebel against their own government.) But I believe they primarily had in mind protection against foreign powers; in those days many men went to war with their own weapons. In an age of drones and bombs and ICBMs, this notion is no longer relevant. I grew up with guns in the house. I fired them for sport (I wasn't a hunter). I liked and still respect them. I even like Ted Nugent; I think he's a bit extreme, but I think he's a sincerely nice person with a passion for this topic). But with all due respect to all that disagree with me, the constitutional right is no longer valid in the same sense it was 200 years ago. Should it be repealed? No, but perhaps revised. However (and I say this most sincerely), you don't want to anger an armed citizenry.

~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[2012-08-02]

Clarence Oddbody
And armed resistance to domestic tyranny is illegal. So where does that leave us? Without the courage the founding fathers had: acknowledge that governments sometimes exceed the authority granted by the Social Contract. They knew what they were doing. No, they couldn't foresee the tragic consequences of an armed and derelict citizenry, but they also knew well that even the best of governments can turn on the very people it governs.