Common Ground for Right and Left?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • spencer rifle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Apr 15, 2011
    6,544
    149
    Scrounging brass
    This may end up as a long post.

    My oldest son is considerably left on a number of issues (religion, the environment, meat, population, etc.) but not necessarily on guns. He lives on the east coast, where he regularly interacts with "those types of people." He has some of the left's blind spots (successful entrepreneur who hates capitalism, avid consumer of capitalist products while talking it down, etc.), but wants to see what common ground the left and right might share about "gun control."

    We had a rather long discussion today about this. My opinions:
    1. We have compromised enough. He wanted specifics, which I will supply when time allows.
    2. The left makes no effort to understand what they are proposing to limit
    3. Anything that can lead to a registry is a non-starter - we're too close already
    4. Most leftists don't want a discussion, they want to lecture you, you baby killer

    His opinions:
    1. The right seems to make no effort to be empathetic to survivors of gun violence (in his view)
    2. Too many school shootings
    3. Too many people not securing their firearms

    Things we agreed on:
    1. Existing laws must be enforced, especially 4473 and straw buyer violations
    2. More thorough reporting to NICS from more agencies
    3. Don't trust the government (at least I trained him right in that)
    4. Shooting a Mosin and a shotgun are very similar experiences
    5. Emotional reactions require an emotional response - logical arguments won't get through the filter

    I sent this article to him, which just came out today:
    https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2019/10/30/gun-grabbers-misleading-us-n2555471

    It has the extra added bonus of me being able to call him a racist if he doesn't believe and support!
    His response - doesn't like the attitude: too condescending.
    My response - RACIST!

    So, INGO, what other resources and opinions and common ground can we supply to him? Besides directing him to this page.
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,791
    150
    Avon
    Dr John Lott’s studies. He’s an Economist, not a gun guy.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,612
    149
    Valparaiso
    All I have to say is that if my son can't live close to home, I'm glad he lives in Kentucky.

    I applaud the search for common ground.
     

    Bigtanker

    Cuddles
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Aug 21, 2012
    21,688
    151
    Osceola
    Dig into the crime stats directly from the FBI.
    https://ucr.fbi.gov

    Compare murder ratesfrom 1995 and 2018. Murders are down 40%. (Source PDF--- https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAUegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw1CE7gNI8Oa4c13oiqlBN5C )

    Although the media would have you think otherwise.

    Then actually look into the murders. What percentage of them are gang related or suicides?

    Research what was considered a "mass shooting" in 1995 vs what the requirements they have now.

    Also look into when the states started to issue some form of carry license/permits. That all started gaining steam in the 90's. CC goes up in the 90's, murders go down. And the whole Clinton AWB of 1994. How did that effect anything?

    Maybe, just maybe with the correct facts he can understand we are actually safer with loosening of gun restrictions.
     

    K_W

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Aug 14, 2008
    5,385
    63
    Indy / Carmel
    Things we agreed on:
    1. Existing laws must be enforced, especially 4473 and straw buyer violations
    2. More thorough reporting to NICS from more agencies
    3. Don't trust the government (at least I trained him right in that)

    Reverse that and you will see a big problem... Never trust the government, especially when it can put on some list that you don't know you are on until you are denied your rights.
     

    fullmetaljesus

    Probably smoking a cigar.
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    5,849
    149
    Indy
    How about if both sides started respecting the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. That's the only common ground that matters.

    Boiled right down to the only logical end.

    But to expand on this a bit to help ass understanding.

    Look at the historical definition of words in the 2A.

    It spells out the intentions very clearly when you understand the meaning.
     
    Rating - 100%
    128   0   0
    Jan 28, 2009
    3,656
    113
    Boiled right down to the only logical end.

    But to expand on this a bit to help ass understanding.

    Look at the historical definition of words in the 2A.

    It spells out the intentions very clearly when you understand the meaning.

    Yes, take them as the way they were written, not what you can read into them.
     

    Tactically Fat

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Oct 8, 2014
    8,270
    113
    Indiana
    Come at this from a strictly numbers viewpoint.

    Get the statistics directly from the FBI on the total number of deaths by firearm. Then you subtract out all the suicides. Then you can divide that remaining number by the population of the country. Multiply that number by 100 and you'll get the actual percent of murders.

    If you want some more, ONLY take the number of school shooting murders and divide that by the population to get your %.

    Hint that most of us on INGO already know: The resulting % is lower than a rounding error.
     

    JettaKnight

    Я з Україною
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Oct 13, 2010
    26,517
    113
    Fort Wayne
    His opinions:
    1. The right seems to make no effort to be empathetic to survivors of gun violence (in his view)
    2. Too many school shootings
    3. Too many people not securing their firearms
    On the surface, there's nothing in those three that can be disagreed with*. But how we address those is completely different.


    The first is subjective, but the others, "too many" makes it agreeable. Otherwise, I'm not sure anyone can say, "We have just the right number of school shootings, actually maybe too few." :n00b:


    It's similar to auto accidents, yes we have "too many", but there's no way we're lowering the highway speed to 30 to solve it. Some solutions are just plain not acceptable. And other solutions are not actually solutions in reality.

    We had a rather long discussion today about this. My opinions:
    1. We have compromised enough. He wanted specifics, which I will supply when time allows.
    2. The left makes no effort to understand what they are proposing to limit
    3. Anything that can lead to a registry is a non-starter - we're too close already
    4. Most leftists don't want a discussion, they want to lecture you, you baby killer
    You've already set it up for failure. You've made assumptions that prevent dialog. Don't you think he's made similar assumptions about you?


    Assume that each of you have good intentions and wants to listen to the other.... and actually listen to the other person when they do talk.


    Guns are a passionate topic, and it takes work to remain understanding and rational.
     

    spencer rifle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Apr 15, 2011
    6,544
    149
    Scrounging brass
    Well, I never like to hear that I am closed-minded, but it may be time for reappraisal.

    This also, though:
    "Important principles may, and must, be inflexible." - Abraham Lincoln
     

    Jludo

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 14, 2013
    4,163
    48
    Indianapolis
    I think Bill Maher said it best that the thing gun owners hate most when 'liberals' open their mouths about gun control is that they generally have no ****ing idea what they're talking about.

    The catch 22 seems to be as soon as someone becomes very well versed in gun ownership/firearm knowledge, goes to shooting ranges, they seem to hop the fence over to the 'gun owner' crowd. It's very rare to see a pro gun control person who actually knows anything about what they're trying to ban. That doesn't mean you don't have some gun owners ok with smaller concessions like forcing private sales to go through an ffl.

    Also obligatory note that I absolutely hate this false left/ right dichotomy. Get your team jerseys off.
     

    Jludo

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 14, 2013
    4,163
    48
    Indianapolis
    I find it similar to the drug debate in the other direction. Get knowledgeable about things like marijuana and psilocybin before you decide it should be illegal. Once you can argue from a position of facts and familiarity I'll listen to what you have to say.
     

    Keith_Indy

    Master
    Rating - 95.2%
    20   1   0
    Mar 10, 2009
    3,212
    113
    Noblesville
    First you have to agree on some principles:

    1 - Individuals have the natural right to protect themselves and their families from physical harm (as long as they, themselves are not in the process of committing a crime.)

    2 - If a person has a natural right to protect themselves, then they have the right to arm themselves with the means to protect themselves. (Subject to some restrictions on the means, must be an individual weapon that does not cause "mass destruction," ie chemical, biological and nuclear weapons would be off-limits, but a theoretical ray-gun that only harms A SINGLE TARGET would not be off-limit.)

    3 - You can only legislate that someones actions are criminal, that does not prevent someone from engaging in those actions.

    4 - The government can not and does not protect individuals from harm. When seconds count the police are minutes away.

    5 - Criminals do not follow the law, hence why they are criminals.

    6 - In a nation that cannot keep drugs and illegal immigrants out of the country, keeping "illegal" guns out of the country is nonsensical.

    7 - A firearm is merely a tool, and just like any other tool can be used for good or ill intent, used properly or abused.
     

    JettaKnight

    Я з Україною
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Oct 13, 2010
    26,517
    113
    Fort Wayne
    First you have to agree on some principles:

    1 - Individuals have the natural right to protect themselves and their families from physical harm (as long as they, themselves are not in the process of committing a crime.)

    2 - If a person has a natural right to protect themselves, then they have the right to arm themselves with the means to protect themselves. (Subject to some restrictions on the means, must be an individual weapon that does not cause "mass destruction," ie chemical, biological and nuclear weapons would be off-limits, but a theoretical ray-gun that only harms A SINGLE TARGET would not be off-limit.)

    3 - You can only legislate that someones actions are criminal, that does not prevent someone from engaging in those actions.

    4 - The government can not and does not protect individuals from harm. When seconds count the police are minutes away.

    5 - Criminals do not follow the law, hence why they are criminals.

    6 - In a nation that cannot keep drugs and illegal immigrants out of the country, keeping "illegal" guns out of the country is nonsensical.

    7 - A firearm is merely a tool, and just like any other tool can be used for good or ill intent, used properly or abused.

    You'll find a whole lot of people can't get past item #1.
     

    Keith_Indy

    Master
    Rating - 95.2%
    20   1   0
    Mar 10, 2009
    3,212
    113
    Noblesville
    You'll find a whole lot of people can't get past item #1.

    Yep, in which case, hardly anything will get past that. There are those committed to complete non-violence out there.

    Although I've convinced a few with the argument, so you're just going to stand there and let your wife/daughter/son get beat up/raped/killed?

    If you're willing to commit violence with your hands, a bat, or some other blunt object nearby in this case, why would you not want to arm yourself with an effective means of self-defense.
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    28,146
    113
    North Central
    On the surface, there's nothing in those three that can be disagreed with*. But how we address those is completely different.


    The first is subjective, but the others, "too many" makes it agreeable. Otherwise, I'm not sure anyone can say, "We have just the right number of school shootings, actually maybe too few." :n00b:


    It's similar to auto accidents, yes we have "too many", but there's no way we're lowering the highway speed to 30 to solve it. Some solutions are just plain not acceptable. And other solutions are not actually solutions in reality.

    .

    It is unimaginable to most people today that belive government can control things that the government they so trust has a standard of rodent feces, insect parts, maggots, and foreign material like cigarette butts that can be in the very food because they cannot control it. We as a society tolerate a certain automobile death rate for travel efficiency, what the anti-gun crowd cannot do is apply the same logic to the fact that to have reasonable self defense there has to be a tolerable death rate. They further fail to get that the rate will never be 0, no matter what draconian laws are passed.

    https://www.livescience.com/55459-fda-acceptable-food-defects.html
     

    Shadow01

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 8, 2011
    3,239
    119
    WCIn
    I have always thought if preventing needless death is the goal, shouldn’t you start with the item that causes the highest needless death? This approach will weed out the ones that are truly interested in preventing death and those that just want guns gone by any means available.
     
    Top Bottom