And they wonder why we are for gun rights

[Nick]

But yet there seems to be a great distortion of this in some quarters who would insist that every such loss of life - or use of potentially lethal force - was avoidable and that surely every such situation could have been avoided or negotiated out of. This argument seems to loop back to the … softer … lives we’re generally living relative to previous generations.

This is already the case in the UK. As there are also now enforcement of laws protecting the criminals actually breaking into houses from having a dangerous path for doing so.

Families ordered to remove paddling pool from garden in case burglar drowns

But instead we have our tic-tac-toe bumper sticker arguments that harden the existing divisions, convince almost no one, and fail to move the issue beyond any one faction gaining enough influence to dictate policy / legislative change.

Wow and the long winded ramblings of I reign from high and see it all as a larger problem does a better job of bringing people together? From experience, not so much. I often find myself in that view and no one listens. But, shining a light on the actual comically outrageous situations and implementations of law does have an effect. It shows what was claimed as the possible miss use and over stepping of rights is actually happening and needs to be pulled back. Being stepped on is one issue, not being willing to push back is just losing.

[Ferman]

Reminds me of a hammer ban implemented at a mall where there was some construction going on, after a high end jewelry store tenant got robbed by bandits that used hammers to break the glass display cases.

[ESmith]

Wow and the long winded ramblings of I reign from high and see it all as a larger problem does a better job of bringing people together? From experience, not so much. I often find myself in that view and no one listens. But, shining a light on the actual comically outrageous situations and implementations of law does have an effect. It shows what was claimed as the possible miss use and over stepping of rights is actually happening and needs to be pulled back. Being stepped on is one issue, not being willing to push back is just losing.

There’s certainly a place for tic-tac-toe, but I feel it ought not be the primary strategy. With the second amendment ever-increasingly a polarized liberal/conservative issue and longstanding demographic trends not being favorable to traditional conservatives I suggest that some engagement is called for.

I used to do gun forums. I don’t any more since the assumption seems to be that in addition to being interested in guns members also listen to talk radio, read the likes of The Blaze, and are very very Christian. I’ve found them to be echo chambers stuck primarily interested in manufactured outrage and endless repetition of dogma. I’d like to think that the 2018 elections were a wakeup call but maybe not.

[Bill]

With the second amendment ever-increasingly a polarized liberal/conservative issue and longstanding demographic trends not being favorable to traditional conservatives I suggest that some engagement is called for.

That is what scares me. The polarization means there is very little center remaining. A shift in the political wind can mean a dramatic change in direction. I was rather surprised there were no significant new national gun restrictions enacted in 2009 and 2010.

[ESmith]

I was rather surprised there were no significant new national gun restrictions enacted in 2009 and 2010.

I expect new national legislation to be a real possibility 2021. I doubt I will like it, but such is the apparent vector of politics.

[Nick]

@ESmith what kind of intonation do you aim for in your comments? When I read your posts I get stuck in the patterns or eeyore.

[ESmith]

I don’t know how you or others engage outside of Talk. But a lot of what I see on Talk with regards to this subject is standard culture war tic-tac-toe rhetoric. This is also what I see out there on Facebook, Twitter, comments sections on articles, messageboards, etc.

A lot of this comes to us courtesy a media business that has little choice but to feed anxiety, preparing the ground for how most people perceive issues.

Here’s one of the more interesting takes on culture war articles:

Thankfully I’m not some poor sap trying to make a living on Medium. If I really wanted traffic, the formula would not be to do what I was doing, which was building a case for a specific solution to solve a clearly identified problem. The formula would be to identify the highest traffic topic on Facebook, and feed those people what they want to hear.

I would craft articles in two forms.

1) “All the people you’re arguing with are stupid and here’s why”

2) “Share this article to prove how virtuous your side is, or alternately how much more virtuous you are than your friends because you found the article first”

These are the two most common forms of culture war weaponry in employ today, by people on all sides. One is the attack, which undermines someone else’s virtue, and the other is the defense, where you buttress your tower of virtue against attack. They take these forms because virtue is the fundamental quality of a culture. This stuff gets liked and shared far more than anything else.

Any guess what these sorts of articles / rhetorical approaches don’t do? If you guessed “persuade your opponents” you’d be correct. I’ve lost track of the number of “60 seconds that destroys {dogma}” videos, sneering articles, and other rhetoric that’s 110% certain that its supporters are righteous and those that oppose are feeble-minded, wicked, or otherwise lesser beings. It’s primary politics - nasty, boring, and drives away neutrals who will still be voting/opining on the issue nonetheless.

Whenever I’m talking over the issue with neutrals or opponents I make an effort to listen, try to figure out where they’re coming from, and see if I can address their concerns without being dismissive. It’s slow going. But I feel that I get more traction than throwing slogans around. YMMV.

[coloneldan]

I don’t really care as much about the governmental takeover/control issue

It’s about exerting control over peoples lives, ensuring they can’t take care of themselves, and making them thank you for it. ( as I am sure you understand…just stating the facts )

but I do care about the restrictions on personal liberty which limited me as a traveler from carrying a useful tool. I had the need to bandage my feet and not having a knife made it difficult to cut tape, etc. (I suppose scissors would have been a better choice, but who wants to carry scissors everywhere they go, except maybe on a Swiss Army knife and that is illegal in Britain).

Of course, with liberty and freedom comes responsibility and this is somehow being overlooked. Unfortunately, in Britain’s case they are attacking the issue unsuccessfully by outlawing the tool and not addressing the underlying problem resulting in the average Britain being unable to buy or own a simple pocket knife. Seems overkill to me.

It just doesn’t make logical sense, but then I was raised to respect all tools, especially guns and knives. I believe that the outlaw of guns, knives and sharp tools, will be just as successful as alcohol prohibition was in the US. (Or drugs for that matter) We had a constitutional amendment prohibiting alcohol consumption and almost NO ONE obeyed it. They just had to be covert about drinking. This law is essentially have the same effect, or lack thereof.

My 2 cents.

[Nick]

I get your Tic Tac Toe argument @ESmith. But, the problem isn’t really that. Instead, the problem is that rational discussion and explanation of logical solutions also no longer persuades those that choose to disagree with you on political lines.

@Gimli in our group is always quick to explain that many of the issues we face are based around personal responsibility. The catch is personal responsibility is hand in hand with personal freedom. The removal of legally accessible weapons are not enacted in a manner that protects the individual or group. Instead, they are enacted in a manner that makes the responsibility of protecting one’s self illegal. The explanation for this idea is that the government will protect you. When counter explanation and examples illustrating that the government not only can’t perform this service, but have made the situations worse in many cases are shown. Those examples and explanations connect with less and less of the population.

Responsibility is difficult and so is freedom. But, Freedom and responsibility though difficult, have lead to the greatest gains we have had in our society. Protecting access to freedom and responsibility is paramount in my eyes to protecting our future. But, so many are willing to give it away, especially when the areas needed to defend it most are being targeted. These areas are access to means to defend yourself, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. All of which are currently under assault.

[Windsor]

The explanation for this idea is that the government will protect you. When counter explanation and examples illustrating that the government not only can’t perform this service, but have made the situations worse in many cases are shown. Those examples and explanations connect with less and less of the population.

And along the way have proven in court that they’re not obligated to protect you.
.

[Julie-Harris]

I would also pay attention to banks, e-commerce sites, insurance companies and credit card processors who are now refusing to do business with gun related businesses. This is increasing cost and threatening cash flow for gun manufacturers and other gun related businesses.

[ESmith]

I get your Tic Tac Toe argument @ESmith. But, the problem isn’t really that. Instead, the problem is that rational discussion and explanation of logical solutions also no longer persuades those that choose to disagree with you on political lines.

I understand registering disagreement. But the way you’ve worded your statement suggests that you’re expecting those you’re discussing the issue with to concede on the spot, something that I’ve seen happen pretty much never - especially on such a polarizing identity issue.

[tomthm]

If like to see the full version above on a T-shirt.

[Haley_Moore]

Hm. After reading through the pool story, it doesn’t say what the headline implies. This pool is set up in a common area that isn’t secured the way pools usually are, with a gate and posted rules and so forth. The issue is that anyone, including small children and pets, could jump in at any time without supervision, and the landlord isn’t keen on getting sued if something goes wrong. The landlord, not the government, is the one asking them to drain the pool.

It’s true that this story is about people who live in public housing, which is managed by a nonprofit housing council, but a commercial landlord would have the same liability issues. But the Mirror knew it would get clicks if it framed this as the government going out of it’s way to protect criminals. And hey, it worked so I guess they’re on to something.