Ammo For Sale

« « Grassroots | Home | Obviously, compensating for the size of her penis » »

Compromise in the gun debate

At the LA Times:

First, we need to recognize that guns are present in more than 40% of all homes in this country — like it or not. Any credible discussion of this issue must acknowledge that reality.

Second, gun owners and non-gun owners alike are in universal agreement in this country that violent, predatory criminals should not possess, have access to nor easily obtain firearms.

Third, we all wish that mentally troubled individuals would not own, possess or acquire guns.

Both sides of the debate need to acknowledge they actually agree on several key issues. I am a gun owner, and I do not intend to surrender my rights because of the acts of criminals, mental midgets or a sentimental wish of how things might be somewhere else (The Times muses about Canada’s low homicide rate). I am hungry for action that moves our common agenda forward.

Also there’s this from the opener:

The “crazy” thing about the gun debate in America is how misguided and off-base both sides of the issue are. An example from one side is The Times’ Dec. 1 editorial on the Washington state police officer shootings, “Crazy about guns”; from the other side, we have almost any fundraising appeal over the last year from the National Rifle Assn.

That’s also a problem with the debate. Comparing an editorial to a fundraising appeal sent to members. You see, the anti-gun side is parroted as gospel by the press. The pro-gun side rarely has the opportunity to do that. So, we communicate on our own. Our side isn’t often presented so how can folks even know what compromise solutions exist?

4 Responses to “Compromise in the gun debate”

  1. Canthros Says:

    To be honest, when your opponents mentally inhabit a sort of fairy land where objects are responsible for people’s behavior and do actually propose such things as eliminating private ownership of guns, when you assert that your opponents are not entirely reasonable, you can come off a little crazy to people steadfastly convinced that there is a reasonable middle ground between the Brady Campaign and the NRA (in part, because it is assumed that the NRA is just as loopy as the Brady Campaign, a fact not in evidence, from what I’ve seen).

  2. Shootin' Buddy Says:

    Compromise?

    O.K., repeal half of the nation’s gun laws today and the other half in 30 days. We pick which half is repealed today.

    Compromise? No, we are not leaving the field until handguns are sold in airport lobbies like soda or candy bars.

    Until that day.

  3. elmo iscariot Says:

    “Second, gun owners and non-gun owners alike are in universal agreement in this country that violent, predatory criminals should not possess, have access to nor easily obtain firearms.”

    This is true, but the problem is that, for many gun owners (like me) it’s kind of an academic point. I agree that violent, predatory criminals _should_ not have easy access to guns, but am very, very skeptical that preventing that access is possible, or that efforts at reducing access do more good than harm.

    This is based on precedent: almost all gun control measures have historically had little to no affect on violent crime rates, while reducing law-abiding citizens’ access to guns in reality. The fact that their failure typically leads to even more restrictions on lawful people (which similarly fail to reduce violent crime) increases the problem.

    So what it comes down to is, yes, we agree that this would be a great thing. But we can’t exactly “compromise” on it while our side lives under the burden of a century of your side’s failed attempts, and you’re just suggesting we add more restrictions to the pile.

  4. John Aquilino Says:

    Who said anything about “compromise?” Feldman simply said there are areas upon which both sides agree. That’s not compromise. If you read closely he is advocating that an anti-gun media outlet toss in dollars to teach gun safety. Read between the lines: if you are to be safe with guns you acknowledge two things: you either have a gun or want to have one and second, you believe in having it for self protection. State DNR’s handle hunter safety.