Is it practical (or even possible) to compromise on gun control vs. gun rights?

[SFShep]

An interesting article by the Firearms Policy Coalition on whether it's truly possible to compromise on gun control vs. gun rights and whether such a compromise is practical or fair.

I used to believe that there was nothing wrong with compromise, but after reading this, I think I see now that compromising on gun rights may not be feasible.

http://firearmspolicy.us7.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=7b69d67922f8e32ca499bb6b7&id=63e0b51564&e=bb4d9e7d06

[nick]

Funny how these "compromises" work. Someone comes to you and says that he'll take 100% of your rights, but might settle for 50%. Then later on he comes back and says that he'd take 100% of your remaining rights, but might settle for 50%. Another compromise (and now you have 25% left). And so it continues...

Shouldn't both sides gain something (and, possibly, lose something) on a compromise? The sad part is that gun owners always talk about compromising (that is, surrendering some more of their rights in return for nothing), even before any compromise is even offered. I haven't heard antis talking about any compromises.

[SFShep]

Funny how these "compromises" work. Someone comes to you and says that he'll take 100% of your rights, but might settle for 50%. Then later on he comes back and says that he'd take 100% of your remaining rights, but might settle for 50%. Another compromise (and now you have 25% left). And so it continues...

Shouldn't both sides gain something (and, possibly, lose something) on a compromise? The sad part is that gun owners always talk about compromising (that is, surrendering some more of their rights in return for nothing), even before any compromise is even offered. I haven't heard antis talking about any compromises.

I know, huh? That's the part that eventually convinced me that compromise won't work. Cause the anti's have never been willing to give and take 50/50 equally.

[Sleighter]

Funny how these "compromises" work. Someone comes to you and says that he'll take 100% of your rights, but might settle for 50%. Then later on he comes back and says that he'd take 100% of your remaining rights, but might settle for 50%. Another compromise (and now you have 25% left). And so it continues...

Shouldn't both sides gain something (and, possibly, lose something) on a compromise? The sad part is that gun owners always talk about compromising (that is, surrendering some more of their rights in return for nothing), even before any compromise is even offered. I haven't heard antis talking about any compromises.

I agree that most of the deals we're offered aren't actually "compromises". They're just promises to not screw us as badly as they'd like to. On the other hand, I think that we as gun owners often fail to properly prioritize the fights that we spend our time and energy on. With limited resources (time and personal energy/motivation) it doesn't do us any good to fight every single issue 100%. It only burns out a good portion of gun owners when it comes time to fight for actual infringements that are worthy of all of our efforts.

[antiseen]

To them, the compromise is that we get to own a gun. How many, what kind, what features it has, and how we're allowed to use it, amongst other things, are things they want to dictate.

That's not a compromise, it's a systematic stripping away until little or nothing is left.

If we get to the point where we're allowed one single shot bolt action pistol in 22lr to be rented for an hour at most a week, they'll be screaming "compromise" to have us supervised by a LEO for every second of that hour. Common sense, they'll say.

[ChuckDizzle]

Most of the things I am willing to compromise on are already law in California. I don't mind background checks, or a registry. I would go so far as to even concede a licensing process requirement for pistols since they serve little sporting purpose, have limited effectiveness and application for home defense while at the same time playing a disproportionate role in accidental shootings and crime. This would never happen as pistols are disproportionately popular for some reason.

I take far more issue with arbitrary feature restrictions on firearms and ammo types. The pistol roster also bugs me and makes no sense especially while they allow exemption for public servants who carry them as tools of their trade every day (wouldn't you want to make sure they have safe pistols more so than the general public).

It makes far more sense to me to try to keep guns out of the hands of bad/irresponsible people than it does to make them slightly less effective in those hands.

[003]

"Funny how these "compromises" work. Someone comes to you and says that he'll take 100% of your rights, but might settle for 50%. Then later on he comes back and says that he'd take 100% of your remaining rights, but might settle for 50%. Another compromise (and now you have 25% left). And so it continues...

Shouldn't both sides gain something (and, possibly, lose something) on a compromise? The sad part is that gun owners always talk about compromising (that is, surrendering some more of their rights in return for nothing), even before any compromise is even offered. I haven't heard antis talking about any compromise."

[97F1504RAD]

No compromise at all! Look what all the compromise has gotten us.

That was a good article by the way.

[strongpoint]

Most of the things I am willing to compromise on are already law in California. I don't mind background checks, or a registry. I would go so far as to even concede a licensing process requirement for pistols since they serve little sporting purpose, have limited effectiveness and application for home defense while at the same time playing a disproportionate role in accidental shootings and crime.

Here, have a new avatar pic.

[ke6guj]

Funny how these "compromises" work. Someone comes to you and says that he'll take 100% of your rights, but might settle for 50%. Then later on he comes back and says that he'd take 100% of your remaining rights, but might settle for 50%. Another compromise (and now you have 25% left). And so it continues...

Shouldn't both sides gain something (and, possibly, lose something) on a compromise? The sad part is that gun owners always talk about compromising (that is, surrendering some more of their rights in return for nothing), even before any compromise is even offered. I haven't heard antis talking about any compromises.

precisely.

LawDog posted a rant on this blog about this a while back and it was visualized by DK.



i posted this cartoon the other day and wildhawker expanded on it in his FPC blog.

[Divernhunter]

What I have found is that firearm owners are not united as show by some of the above posts. That makes it easy for the anti's to chip away at our "so called" right. If they were really rights then they would be left alone completely.

Firearm owners will not care if a fraction of the owners are thrown under the bus but cry foul loudly if it happens to be a part they have interest in. This is why we loose.
Example and I will not even mince words about the idiot posting who stated "since they serve little sporting use, have limited effectiveness.....". Where in the 2nd amendment does it say sporting purpose and just who are you to judge that is sporting? I have little(no) use for trap shooting myself but support peoples right to do so. I take it I should not be able to have a pistol which I hunt with since you have decided it has limited effectiveness and I imagine sporting use? I do not suppose you did anything to stop the banning of 50bmg rifles. I have and shoot 2 I also plan to hunt with one when the chance comes around. Just what support can I count on you for. Heck do you even consider hunting "sporting use"? I could go on but maybe you get my point. If not then you are a major part of the problem.
Then said "far more issue with arbitrary restrictions" The one that are arbitrary in your mind only? What about others who find different items arbitrary to them compared to you? You like AR/AK/etc firearms? "I" have no real use for them and could care less about them BUT I support the right for people to own them. I even bought one just to piss off the powers that be. Also all the lives saved by having a pistol when you needed it. I am one of those people. Maybe you can be RIP for not having one when you need it. "I personally" like being alive to see my new grand daughter grow up to shoot and hunt.

What about Suppressors? I am sure some gun owners could care less about them and think no one needs them. After going to Africa and shooting a rifle with one it is plain stupid to not allow them in this state. Less recoil, less ear damage for the shooter and those around the shooter are just 2 or the benefits.

That is the trouble of gun owners. They do not care about the other areas just the part that effects them personally. Then they wonder why the other owners do not come to aid them in their fight. All after doing nothing to help the other interest group in their fight to keep the so called rights.

And before you dig at pistols consider all those killed in auto accidents(much higher numbers) and many of those due to idiots on cell phones. Make cell phones illegal or make them so they cannot work inside an auto? Such as they have to be off and in a locked container. That I would support since it is about as effective and smart as some of the crap we have now and is proposed.

I am not sorry. People who do not think and are so segmented just irritate me. Not just the one I pointed out here.

End Of Rant. Flame away if you like but I am done with this thread.

[bacon_lover]

[DonaldBabbett]

NO! ..... NO COMPROMISE

like Gun Owners of America has been saying from Day 1, 1975.

The 2nd A is absolute. Period.


NO COMPROMISE

[DonaldBabbett]

Most of the things I am willing to compromise on are already law in California. I don't mind background checks, or a registry. I would go so far as to even concede a licensing process requirement for pistols since they serve little sporting purpose, have limited effectiveness and application for home defense while at the same time playing a disproportionate role in accidental shootings and crime. This would never happen as pistols are disproportionately popular for some reason.

I take far more issue with arbitrary feature restrictions on firearms and ammo types. The pistol roster also bugs me and makes no sense especially while they allow exemption for public servants who carry them as tools of their trade every day (wouldn't you want to make sure they have safe pistols more so than the general public).

It makes far more sense to me to try to keep guns out of the hands of bad/irresponsible people than it does to make them slightly less effective in those hands.

You are a loser and not a true Gun Owner of America. Kalifornia, as is the federal GCA of 1968, ALREADY is in gross violation of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Law of the Land, by its so-called "laws" on the books.

you are a GOINO, gun owner in name only, a hypocrite

I buy guns at private shows and from private parties to keep the gubmint out of my business as much as possible.

My 'gun permit' is Our Bill of Rights.

As far as pistols and revolvers go, they are the only thing practical for concealed carry for well-intentioned people interested in personal security outside the home.
They might use the same gun for in-home security as well if they can only afford to buy one gun. It might not be safe to fire a rifle inside the home because of
its high velocity and long guns can be quite unwieldy in the close confines of many home defense scenarios. A pistol handles fast in a hurry. A revolver is highly
safe by its design in comparison with an auto-loader which requires more complex training. A shotgun can scatter and hit bystanders, family members in your home,
in some instances. There are many legitimate justifications for handgun use in personal security. In other situations, long guns might be more practical.

I would say long guns have limited quick-handling ability in home defense.

Pistols are quite common in target competition, sporting purposes.
Many hunters also like them as sidearms. They can still be more wieldy
in the woods than the deer rifle they are hunting with in emergency situations
like a sudden animal attack. They can also be used to dispatch a wounded animal
since firing a much-high-powered centerfire rifle at such close range might pose a ricochet danger.

Handguns are also great wilderness survival weapons.

[TeddyBallgame]

Funny how these "compromises" work. Someone comes to you and says that he'll take 100% of your rights, but might settle for 50%. Then later on he comes back and says that he'd take 100% of your remaining rights, but might settle for 50%. Another compromise (and now you have 25% left). And so it continues...

Shouldn't both sides gain something (and, possibly, lose something) on a compromise? The sad part is that gun owners always talk about compromising (that is, surrendering some more of their rights in return for nothing), even before any compromise is even offered. I haven't heard antis talking about any compromises.

^THIS

compromise should be give a little, receive a little

when was they last time their "compromise" including giving back a little something they've already taken...NEVER

their idea of compromise is always pretty one-sided