PDA

View Full Version : Crux (and gaping hole) of the Brady Argument


lomalinda
04-28-2009, 10:44 PM
"In the past, the "gun control" debate was easily defined. "Good" guns were long guns that were used for hunting and sporting purposes, while "bad" guns were easily concealable handguns that had limited sporting use and were prone to misuse. Previously the standard for restricting weapons involved concealabililty and a cost/benefit analysis: Is the harm done by a given category of firearm outweighed by any possible benefit? Yet, although assault weapons are frequently misused and many are more concealable that standard long guns, a new standard is emerging: For what purpose was this weapon designed? The first application of this standard came in 1986, when Congress voted to outlaw the future production of machine guns for civilian use. The number of criminal incidents involving legally owned machine guns prior to the ban had been few. Yet, Congress saw no reason for this category of weapon to remain in civilian hands."

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awadebat.htm

TheBundo
04-28-2009, 11:52 PM
The only case of a political assasination I can remember being done with machine guns (I think) was Anwar Sadat, and it was members of the Armed Forces that did it.

Sinixstar
04-29-2009, 12:41 AM
I do actually have some firsthand experience with the anti-crowd (obviously).

In my experience, the anti-argument boils down to two very simple things.
1) lack of knowledge.
2) lack of positive experience.

If you grew up in New York City for example, and the only experience you've ever had with a gun - is seeing gangbangers in brooklyn shoot eachother, or getting one shoved in your face while being robbed on your way home late at night - you're naturally going to have a healthy fear of guns, and think they should just go away. That's lack of positive experience.

Because you have no experience or knowledge of guns - you don't understand why closing retail shops doesn't work. You don't understand how people are getting what they can't have regardless. The logic makes perfect sense, because as far as you know - you just go to the scarey gun store and lay down some cash. Like buying gum - only it goes boom.

That's the context of the vast majority of the people who are anti-gun. Period. That's why so many of them are from urban environments. You don't take dad's old shotgun out lookin for pheasant when you live on Park Ave South. It's much more of a geographical thing then anything else I think.

You come here to NV - and the majority of the democrats I know here are not anti-gun. In fact, i'm going to the range with a few of 'em tomorrow. Why? Because they grew up in an environment where they obtained knowledge and experience related to guns, and they understand what it is and how the system works. The few that I know that are anti-gun (they are the minority here) are that way because they did not grow up here. They grew up in an urban environment, have no direct knowledge or experience - and thus don't understand what all the fuss is about.

That's why i've been saying for a long time - you take the politics and the division out of the issue, you focus on putting a positive image on the pro-gun movement, and focus on education and positive re-enforcement, and you will change minds, I guarantee it.

putput
04-29-2009, 7:51 AM
Ooh, Ooh,

Let's ban the urban environment! :p

rrr70
04-29-2009, 7:55 AM
Ooh, Ooh,

Let's ban the urban environment! :p

No, we need to ban people.

spyderco monkey
04-29-2009, 8:32 AM
I do actually have some firsthand experience with the anti-crowd (obviously).

In my experience, the anti-argument boils down to two very simple things.
1) lack of knowledge.
2) lack of positive experience.

If you grew up in New York City for example, and the only experience you've ever had with a gun - is seeing gangbangers in brooklyn shoot eachother, or getting one shoved in your face while being robbed on your way home late at night - you're naturally going to have a healthy fear of guns, and think they should just go away. That's lack of positive experience.

Because you have no experience or knowledge of guns - you don't understand why closing retail shops doesn't work. You don't understand how people are getting what they can't have regardless. The logic makes perfect sense, because as far as you know - you just go to the scarey gun store and lay down some cash. Like buying gum - only it goes boom.

That's the context of the vast majority of the people who are anti-gun. Period. That's why so many of them are from urban environments. You don't take dad's old shotgun out lookin for pheasant when you live on Park Ave South. It's much more of a geographical thing then anything else I think.

You come here to NV - and the majority of the democrats I know here are not anti-gun. In fact, i'm going to the range with a few of 'em tomorrow. Why? Because they grew up in an environment where they obtained knowledge and experience related to guns, and they understand what it is and how the system works. The few that I know that are anti-gun (they are the minority here) are that way because they did not grow up here. They grew up in an urban environment, have no direct knowledge or experience - and thus don't understand what all the fuss is about.

That's why i've been saying for a long time - you take the politics and the division out of the issue, you focus on putting a positive image on the pro-gun movement, and focus on education and positive re-enforcement, and you will change minds, I guarantee it.

Superb point there.

gewgaw
04-29-2009, 12:18 PM
That's why i've been saying for a long time - you take the politics and the division out of the issue, you focus on putting a positive image on the pro-gun movement, and focus on education and positive re-enforcement, and you will change minds, I guarantee it.

Absolutely true! Every time I take a friend out to go shooting for their first time, even if they had anti-gun ideas or were afraid of guns, they end up LOVING it. I teach them the firearms safety rules, how to make the firearm safe by opening the action and setting it down properly (this boosts their confidence a lot to know they can make a firearm inert and safe), how to aim, etc. etc.

Not a single person I have taken shooting has ever said at the end, "God that was AWFUL, I never want to do that again! Guns are BAD!"

Take a friend shooting. Show people why we love this sport, and one by one, there will be more pro-2A people.

Or at least, less anti-gun people!

singleshotman
04-29-2009, 1:56 PM
Both my Wife and Sister-in--Law are both Democrats and rather Liberal.However,both are from the South were Guns are very common and don't mind guns around the house at all.I have taken them shooting and they both like it. My wife has even told me her last Boyfriend used to carry around an AK-47 all the time and she only broke up with him because of his mother.

highpowermatch
04-29-2009, 3:17 PM
I know some lib hunters that I am always defending the 2a and AW against. they see no need beyond hunting..... I don't get it. Sheep.......