In an recent interview with NPR, former NRA lobbyist Dudley Brown, who also happens to be the founder of the organization Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, compared deer hunting season with election season, when gun owners would be free to “hunt Democrats.”
Brown complains universal background checks are just a step towards identifying gun owners so the government can seize their weapons, and he calls the 15-bullet limit on ammunition clips arbitrary. He’s promising political payback in next year’s election that could cost Colorado Democrats their majorities.
“I liken it to the proverbial hunting season,” Brown says. “We tell gun owners, there’s a time to hunt deer. And the next election is the time to hunt Democrats.”
Via Think Progress.
It is probably time that everyone think about what terms and euphemisms they use in conversation and particularly the written word…things like right on target or gun to their head…it’s time they get retired completely.
Examining appropriateness of rhetoric and dialogue embedded in the gun debate is an excellent idea. Certainly, the comments highlighted here would be considered “inappropriate” by any rational standard. Rather than reacting to the irrational, I suggest the discourse not only reexamine, but expand the rational. Immediately following the tragedy at Columbine High School, the NRA supported both universal background checks and gun-free school zones. Since then the NRA’s position has shifted; it has drifted into propagandistic irrationalism.
What is important, however, is to note what propagandistic irrationalism actually does. It seals off the discourse. What I mean by that is it halts the discourse at “modest” reform. We don’t need “modest” reform. We need serious, encompassing reform. Reform that addresses the entire sphere of threat posed by an armed populace. The slippery slope of universal background checks for NRA advocates is that universal background checks will lead to a database of gun ownership. Immediately, the opposition responds with no, that’s not the case; data base compilation is not being proposed. Which is true. “End of conversation.” I submit that the conversation shouldn’t end there. Whether or not the ATF keeps a national gun registry is not a question of “is it good for the individual?” It is a question of “Is it good for society?” The discourse on gun registry should not be that it isn’t on the table, but rather should it be on the table?
The next slippery slope is “The government is going to confiscate your guns.” An irrational position in that gun confiscation is not under proposal. “End of conversation.” I submit the conversation not end there. Are there circumstances where gun confiscation is appropriate? Yes. There are.
Nor should the dialogue end where the NRA would like it to end with respect to culpability for gun crime. Firearm/Ammunition manufacturers and Firearm/Ammunition vendors should be held accountable for crimes committed with products they produce, sell, and profit from. Given enactment of “modest” reform is currently unlikely, I suggest ratcheting up the discourse a couple of notches to address the core problem, and that is arms profiteering, limited liability, and tort law.
Likewise, advocates of modest gun reform frame their proposals as reforms which do not impact “responsible” gun owners. What is a responsible gun owner? What does that mean? Nothing. It is nebulous phraseology. It remains undefined and usually ends at the binary distinction between “responsible gun owner” and “crime perpetrator.” I should think society needs to seriously discuss and attempt to frame a clear meaning for “responsible.” I’m not proposing a definite answer for any of the questions posed. Merely that these questions remain open for debate. Allow societal consensus to answer these questions. Society’s discourse needn’t stop where it is most politically expedient. Indeed, society’s discourse on gun control should push the envelope.
Here’s a hypothetical. What if society rethinks the appropriateness of an armed populace? What if society should decide to repeal the Second Amendment and prohibit individuals from owning guns altogether? Say the 2nd Amendment is repealed. Will rational “responsible” gun owners “give up their guns?” I should think so. Would rational “responsible” gun owners take the position that they will never give up their guns? I should think not. Perhaps reform needs to shift to a gun-free context. Perhaps the only way to devise adequate reform in our current context is to contemplate it a more expansive way. In a way that first envisions a context free of threat. What does that look like? How would such a context be maintained?
The Constitution wasn’t designed to remain static. It was designed to meet the needs of the society it serves. Rather than dismissing the irrationalism of slippery slope arguments, we should confront those slippery slope arguments rationally and examine the context that gun advocates fear.
Ultimately, society must decide if individual gun ownership is appropriate for the 21st Century and beyond. It may have been appropriate for the 18th Century. The 2nd Amendment was a compromise enacted under specified conditions. Just as slavery was a compromise maintained under unique conditions. Just as limited suffrage was a compromise acceded to under particular conditions. All conditions which were distinctively responsive to 18th Century America. We must ask ourselves if the 2nd Amendment is still appropriate 2 centuries later. We must ask ourselves not how do we shape our reform to satisfy the 2nd Amendment, but rather is it appropriate to modify or repeal the 2nd Amendment so it does conform to society’s needs? Of what does that conversation consist? How is that conversation comprised?
“It seals off the discourse.”
What discourse? Senator Feinstein’s reaction to Newtown, CT wasn’t to aggressively hash out a solution in spirited bipartisan debate…but to, days after that horror, dust off old gun control legislation drafted years ago and unilaterally proclaim the solution to have been reached. Meanwhile, Barack “The Great Uniter” Obama resorted to his usual tactics of demonizing anyone who disagreed. While Alinsky would be proud, he brought no leadership or new ideas to the table.
You guys keep pushing this tired old “dangerous phraseology” meme…like the days after the Gabby Giffords shooting…blaming Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc. without respect to what actually drives the Jared Loughner’s of the world to do what they did. His friends/family said his politics were to the Left, but I don’t see the point of scoring gotcha points by claiming anything Hillary Clinton, Rachel Maddow or Bill Maher ever said drove him to violence.
For the simple minds out there wishing upon a star for a 100% ban on guns…please name another ban on an item or substance that worked? Alcohol prohibition? Marijuana? Heroin? Cocaine? Child pornography? All items banned at one time or another that plenty of people get their hands on. If you do get a ban passed (good luck with that btw), how would you go about confiscating the guns? Want to raid everyone’s home? You really think we have enough cops, agents and soldiers to do that? Wouldn’t that be the de facto tyranny for which you claim we no longer need a defense? Is anyone really so naive as to think people will just voluntarily surrender their guns for destruction? If you can’t answer these questions, talking gun bans is really nothing more than an intellectual exercise that does nothing to address the phenomenon of yahoos with serious inadequacy issues gunning down innocents.
While everyone gets caught up debating magazine capacities, arguing which guns should/shouldn’t be banned and wagging self-righteous fingers at people using harsh language and bad analogies…the next ticking time bomb is out there waiting to seize his 15 minutes of grotesque fame.
I don’t see anyone here suggesting that all guns be banned and confiscated…but there is a line between arms that are acceptable for the average citizen to own and those that are not…we are just asking that the line be move toward a more rational point between suitable and unsuitable.
Roland,
In your very commentary you are attempting to “seal off discourse” on a number of fronts. Either you are obtuse or you are dishonest. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you are obtuse. Your characterizations of Obama and Loughner, however, are illustrative of propagandistic distortion. Your assessment of Obama is not at all accurate. “His usual tactics” do not include demonization. Yet, one might note that you, on the other hand, engage in quite a lot of demonization – especially of Obama. Feinstein and Obama have introduced modest measures that were not controversial not so long ago. Neither have proclaimed those measures to be the end-all be-all for sensible public safety legislation. Those measures only became controversial for the farthest right end of the spectrum. Universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole are favored by a sweeping majority of Americans – including Republicans. You might also take note that the GOP in DC isn’t interested in bipartisan debate and have articulated as much. Some have vowed to block debate and filibuster any gun control legislation prior to even learning what the details of that legislation might be.
Given your disapproval of the proposed gun safety legislation, what are your legislative solutions – solutions that would be more updated, fresh, and newer than those that have been “dusted off” from the not too distant past? Give us your insight.
I realize that casting Jared Loughner as a Leftist” is a form of propagandist branding which goes over well when its batted about the right-wing propaganda-sphere. My suggestion to you would be: follow up on that claim. Loughner read “lefty” works and “righty” works. Need I stress reading “righty” works doesn’t make one a righty, nor does reading “lefty” works make one a lefty.
Loughner may have had ties to white supremacist groups and appears to have shared anti-government sympathies even farther to the right than the Tea Party. His views on “state’s rights,” currency and the federal reserve are those of the right wing “patriot militia” movement. His political views seem to veer farther, much farther to the “right” end than to the left. At the same time, he doesn’t seem to demonstrate any coherence in his political philosophy.
Your false equivalencies between lefty and righty pundits leaves your analysis wanting in sense. There’s nothing tired or old about rhetorical heat. Rhetoric does matter and always will. To insist that it doesn’t is simple ignorance on your part. It may behoove you to pay very close attention to each of the pundits you exemplify. On one side you’ve provided examples of irrational rhetoric: Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck. On the other, rational analysis: Clinton, Maher, and Maddow.
Trying to correlate mental illness with political persuasion is similarly a favorite “righty” theme and a full-blown propagandistic absurdity. Perhaps you might consider that Jared Loughner was only 22 years old at the time of the Tuscon shooting. Not old enough for anyone to distill decades of political works from myriad political contexts in order to coherently formulate a comprehensive understanding of “left” from “right.”
Name a successful ban? The National Firearms Act of 1934 was an effective regulatory ban on machine guns. Similarly, the Federal Assault Weapons Act of 1994 significantly reduced the number of crimes committed with assault weapons. The rate of crimes increased following the lapse of the ban. California’s assault weapons ban has improved homicide reduction especially along the Mexican border compared to Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico – which don’t ban assault weapons. Assault weapons aside, states with tighter gun regulations experience fewer gun related deaths than those with loose gun laws.
Rather than sealing off the discourse, perhaps you could give us your ideas, Roland. If there were a 100% ban on civilian gun ownership in the United States, what would your ideas be to enforce it? If you don’t believe people will voluntarily surrender their guns, then how would you prepare for that? How would you accommodate the lawlessness of illegal possession of firearms? Parsing through details is an intellectual exercise, indeed. It is part of healthy debate. It is part of problem-solving. We are participating in a forum for exchanging ideas, are we not? Let’s hear yours. I’ve posed a hypothetical scenario: can you come up with solutions within that framework? If not, maybe you’re just sealing off the discourse. If not, maybe you are simply obstructing debate. Can you speak to “responsible gun ownership” – what do you think that means? Do you have an opinion on weapons profiteering? Do you have any concrete solutions to any portion of the complex and multi-faceted problem of gun violence in America? Do you have a way to (in your words) “address the phenomenon of yahoos with serious inadequacy issues gunning down innocents?” And can you address other gun-related deaths with pragmatic solutions?
PJ said: “Name a successful ban? The National Firearms Act of 1934 was an effective regulatory ban on machine guns. Similarly, the Federal Assault Weapons Act of 1994 significantly reduced the number of crimes committed with assault weapons. The rate of crimes increased following the lapse of the ban. California’s assault weapons ban has improved homicide reduction especially along the Mexican border compared to Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico – which don’t ban assault weapons. Assault weapons aside, states with tighter gun regulations experience fewer gun related deaths than those with loose gun laws.”
Please cite sources for those claims. I’ve read a National Institute of Justice report that gave mixed reviews of the 1994 ban that went nowhere near as far as claiming it “significantly reduced” crimes involving banned weapons. In fact, one of their key findings stated: “The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.” Feinstein and others revive this ban as their answer to Newtown-type incidents, yet “rational analysis” by the NIJ found that such a ban did not drive down body counts. (NIJ report: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf)
PJ, perhaps you could pull your nose out of the air, knock off the condescending attitude and actually read what I wrote. I didn’t draw a connection between Loughner’s supposed politics and his actions. I was criticizing those who did. Maddow and others quickly used the incident to take aim at their favorite targets (Palin, Beck and Limbaugh) even though there was absolutely no factual basis to their claims. Not exactly “rational analysis” on their part…more like partisan political hackery.
PJ, your first post was taking us down the path toward a 100% ban and/or repeal of the 2nd Amendment. That was your choice of “hypothetical scenario” and I’m attempting to engage you on it. If you can’t answer my questions, or at least attempt to do so, you are sealing yourself off from the discourse.
Ask your local gun shop owner how many calls they have got to come buy and or empty out the basement of guns and ammo bought buy dad. Dad who cashed in eveything to store loads of guns and ammo, Only to leave the kids not a dime to bury his gun crazy butt. This obammy is going to take my guns bullcrap For Five Years Now Is sickening. The NRA Of which i used to be a member and FOX Lies pushing this fear at all costs is total bullshit !
PJ said: “Name a successful ban? The National Firearms Act of 1934 was an effective regulatory ban on machine guns. Similarly, the Federal Assault Weapons Act of 1994 significantly reduced the number of crimes committed with assault weapons. The rate of crimes increased following the lapse of the ban. California’s assault weapons ban has improved homicide reduction especially along the Mexican border compared to Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico – which don’t ban assault weapons. Assault weapons aside, states with tighter gun regulations experience fewer gun related deaths than those with loose gun laws.”
Please cite sources for those claims. I’ve read a National Institute of Justice report that gave mixed reviews of the 1994 ban that went nowhere near as far as claiming it “significantly reduced” crimes involving banned weapons. In fact, one of their key findings stated: “The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.” Feinstein and others revive this ban as their answer to Newtown-type incidents, yet “rational analysis” by the NIJ found that such a ban did not drive down body counts. (NIJ report: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf)
PJ, perhaps you could pull your nose out of the air, knock off the condescending attitude and actually read what I wrote. I didn’t draw a connection between Loughner’s supposed politics and his actions. I was criticizing those who did. Maddow and others quickly used the incident to take aim at their favorite targets (Palin, Beck and Limbaugh) even though there was absolutely no factual basis to their claims. Not exactly “rational analysis” on their part…more like partisan political hackery.
PJ, your first post was taking us down the path toward a 100% ban and/or repeal of the 2nd Amendment. That was your choice of “hypothetical scenario” and I’m attempting to engage you on it. If you can’t answer my questions, or at least attempt to do so, you are sealing yourself off from the discourse. Don’t ask me to defend your solution.
Roland,
I’ll keep my nose precisely where it is, thank you. I’ll sniff at whatever I deem particularly malodorous. You saturated your comments with the gamey stench of right-wing propagandistic distortion. Whether or not that was your deliberate intent is open for debate. I can see what you wrote and I can assess it just fine.
You are excerpting from a 1999 review. That report backs my claim on the 1934 ban. It also admitted its own statistical pitfalls and concluded that: “The findings suggest that the relatively modest gun control measures that are politically feasible in this country may affect gun markets in ways that at least temporarily reduce criminals’ access to the regulated guns, with little impact on law-abiding gun owners.” which was the goal of the ban. The longer term problem of criminals eventually getting to guns has much to do with the weapons and ammunition industry’s efforts to undermine the goals of the ban. These findings are in the 1999 study you cite and the 2004 DOJ funded review. I suggest you examine the entire framework of both reviews.
The 2004 Review isn’t all that ambiguous, Roland. It indicated significant reductions nationwide ranging from 17% – 72%. I find even the lowest end significant. Of course, the stats will vary from state to state, city to city. That doesn’t make for an inconclusive study. That it couldn’t assess all of the data for conclusive opinion elsewhere in the report reflects only the human limits of statistical analysis – not enough time, but more crucially, not enough data. The latter, I’d add, continues to be a serious issue given the NRA and their Congressional cronies successfully stifled data collection. The summary indicates relative effectiveness as a percentage of all gun crime. If anything the review suggests more stringent bans on semi-automatic weapons due to their higher frequency in use. It also suggests the negative impact war profiteering has on adequately assessing the ban’s effectiveness, both for achieving the ban’s goal and measuring its effectiveness over time – as did the ’99 review.
Sorry, I can’t be your research service. I won’t compile an exhaustive list of sources for you. There is a plethora of analysis to sift through to back any claim anyone wishes to make on the correlation between gun deaths and gun regulation, also the correlation between gun deaths and the presence of guns. My opinion derives from lots of reading and sifting over a long period of time. Coming to an opinion requires synthesizing that material. You won’t find a single answer for my claim in any single source. But here are a few that might be helpful to you:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-13/guns-dont-kill-people-gun-culture-does#p1
http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/on_target.pdf
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2108854
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32842_20121114.pdf
http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Banning_Assault_Weapons_A_Legal_Primer_8.05_entire.pdf
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf
You haven’t engaged the gun-free scenario. Nor have you responded to my queries posed. You haven’t discussed any solutions inside the hypothetical scenario or out of it.
So, Roland. Give us your solutions for reducing gun violence, gun accidents, and gun suicides. You must have some. You’ve indicated correctly that we must arrive at a broad approach to reduce gun deaths in this country. Where, in your opinion, do we start?