Changing the Debate

[GaryV]

What the Obama administration seems to have finally figured out is that the way to win in the on-going battle over gun rights vs. gun control is to control the debate, by using words, phrases, and images that get people who react on emotion rather than thought (which, unfortunately, is the vast majority) to see things from their point of view. The way to counter this is to take control of the debate away from them. The way to do this is to make the debate not about gun control, but about violence, since the obvious and easier solutions to violence have nothing to do with gun laws.

I propose that everyone write as many representatives and senators as they can, and make an argument based on these data:

1) According to national crime statistics, so-called "assault weapons" are only used in about 2% of gun crimes, and in fewer than 1% of homicides.

2) According to national crime statistics, the average number of rounds fired by criminals using guns is under 4 per attack.

3) According to national crime statistics:
a) 57% of violent felons have previous criminal convictions;
b) 3/4 of those have multiple prior convictions;
c) 29% of all murderers and rapists had multiple prior convictions
d) As many as 23% of violent felons had 5 or more prior convictions at time
of arrest

4) In some cases, the penalties for stealing cable TV or bootlegging movies is stiffer than for violent felonies. Only 18% of felony convictions are for violent crimes. Violent felons should therefore never be released to make room for non-violent criminals.

From that, there are a couple of conclusions to draw to their attention:

1) Even if we could magically make every single "assault weapon" and "high-capacity" magazine disappear tomorrow, the federal government's own best data show that we would make virtually no change in the overall violent crime rate or murder rate in the US.

2) By addressing the problem of repeat violent felony offenders, we could reduce violence, including murder, in this country by as much as 50% or more almost overnight, far more than even impossible gun control measures could ever achieve.

3) The best way to keep violent felons from getting guns is not background checks, but keeping them in prison.

4) Since that is true, anyone pushing for increased gun control laws, instead of addressing the problem of repeat violent offenders is clearly and blatantly wasting the best opportunity we've had in over a generation to address the actual causes and cures of violence in our society, for no other purpose than attacking private gun ownership.

I plan to add to my letters a call for a national 2-Strikes law for violent felons. I believe everyone deserves one chance to turn their life around. But anyone who commits a second violent felony after that one chance should be locked away for the rest of their lives with absolutely no possibility of parole or early release.

I plan to send a copy of that letter to every single member of Congress, and challenge each one to put aside their petty political agendas and instead not waste this opportunity to make the US safer than it's been in any of our lifetimes. I think that if we as a community could rally around this, instead of trying to fight a rear-guard action of trying to defend our right to own guns, we could put the antis on the defensive and not only win this round of the battle, but actually significantly reduce violence in the US by shaming them into supporting legislation that actually does something productive.

I've been posting stuff to this effect on every comment section, blog, etc. that I can find on the subject of the current gun situation, an I urge everyone to do the same as much as you can. That, along with flooding congress with letters, could potentially shift this debate away from guns and onto criminals, where it belongs.

[GaryV]

From responses I've had on other forums, it's obvious to me that I failed to get across a major point about this effort. This is not about winning an argument. As one person pointed out, trying to do that on the issue of gun rights vs. gun control is like trying to get someone to change their religion. It just isn't going to happen, at least not in numbers big enough to make a difference. This is about image and spin; it's about our side looking like rational people with a real plan to reduce gun violence, and making the antis look like unreasonable zealots beating the same tired old drum. The audience for this strategy is not the anti with whom you argue, it's the undecided bystander who's watching from the sidelines. It's about shifting numbers in opinion polls. It's about changing the questions being asked in the media so that at some point an anti might find him or herself confronted in public with the question of why they are okay with murderers walking around with 5 or more prior convictions for violent felonies. It just has to happen once to really change the way people think about the issue, and the more of us who take every opportunity to get those questions in the public eye, the greater the chance that that one instance occurs. Just think of the marine who wrote to Feinstein. Imagine if this argument got picked up that way, how much harder it would be for her to come up with a dismissive response.

[GaryV]

One other thing occurred to me as I was writing my letter, something which anyone taking up my challenge to write their own letter might also like to use: favoring an AWB and magazine restrictions over stronger sentences for violent felons is racist.

We know from the government's own data that by far the typical gun crime is committed using a handgun, with fewer than 4 shots fired. Murders in which "assault weapons" are used and more than 10 rounds are fired are, comparatively speaking, exceedingly rare. But they also have one other attribute: they are almost entirely carried out against victims who are white and middle class. On the other hand, the thousands of common typical gun crimes are more often than not carried out against poor minority victims. So, in "doing something about gun crime" politicians who favor the currently advanced gun control laws over stronger sentences for violent felons are opting to do something that might only questionably make a dozen or so white middle class kids safer over doing something that is guaranteed to save the lives of thousands of poor minority children every year. While they like to count them in the total dead every year to support their call for action on gun crime, when presented with the opportunity to save a large percentage of their lives they opt instead to throw them under the bus in order to advance a purely political anti-gun ownership agenda.

By the way, I invite commentary, even if it's critical.

[Goosebrown]

No criticism here. I agree and I am going to steal your first post almost word for word. Thank you.

I also specifically agree that "assault weapon" crimes are almost totally white on white and are the "nut" cases that break not the day to day shootings in crime areas.

[Hogstir]

Should also point out that a ban on something always creates a huge black market for for that item. Prohibition created the black market and organized crime answered it. It brought more crime and murder not less. The drug cartels already have access to large numbers of guns through the other latin american countries as well as their ( and our ) own government. They sell drugs for profit not because they think it is the right thing to do. If they see a chance for more profits through smuggling guns they will do that also. They already have the smuggling routes and techniques and there is no such thing as a gun sniffing dog. Criminals and gangs will always need guns to protect their territories and commit their crimes and the cartels will supply them not only to protect their distributers but for the massive profit it will bring.
Illegal immigration and the libs protection of these illegals through sanctuary cities and policies which do not allow police to enforce immigration laws allow criminals who were at one time deported to return and not face immediate arrest on sight.