Gun Policy News

I subscribe to gunpolicy news from http://www.gunpolicy.org/ which is like an international version of the gun guys.

One article that caught my interest was an op-ed piece from the LA Times called America's pointless gun fight. It's by Richard Feldman, so he tries to be unbiased about the issue saying that it's both sides who are being unreasonable. I tend to disagree with that, since most of the lack of reason comes from the more radical segment of the pro-gun side who see any attempt to regulate fireams as an infringement on their "gun rights". Feldman does make a very good point:

What is missing from The Times' editorial and from the ongoing national debate is the following:

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.

Mr. Feldman, I think we have sentimental wishes coming from both sides. Looking at how gun control has worked in other jurisdictions is merely an academic exercise. It has some value, but the US gun situation is very unique.

Also, I have a question about the figure that "guns are present in more than 40% of all homes in this country" which isn't disputing the figure, but a question of how many of those homes would keep the firearms if registration were imposed?

A realistic scenario for gun registration in the US would be that there would be a period of amnesty in which people were given the option of registering their firearms (which would probably be grandfathered in) or legally disposing of them. How many would turn their guns in as part of a gun amnesty or buyback?

My opinion on the reason the gun lobby fears registration has nothing to do with its efficacy as a tool for controlling firearms, but the fact that it WILL reduce the amount of firearms sold. How many people would buy a firearm if it requires a registration process?

It's not about public safety, but how much money the gun companies can make selling firearms and not caring where they end up.

Feldman does end on a very good point:

The bottom line is this: We must stop debating the polemics of guns and instead show wisdom and maturity to begin to resolve the problems of the negligent misuse of guns. Though a cliche, the following is nevertheless true: Guns aren't ever the problem; guns in the wrong hands are always the problem. How we address this problem will determine the future of gun safety in America.

Does saying that make him anti-gun? Although I already imagine he is seen as a turncoat for having written "Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist". Nevermind that he was an executive director of the firearm industry's trade association and a regional political director for the National Rifle Association.

Not from Gunpolicy.org, but from my past reading and collection we have a couple of interesting articles from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting we have a couple of interesting articles that seem to be lost in the dreck: Jeff Cohen's Gun Control, the NRA and the Second Amendment and Howard Friel's How the NRA Rewrote the Constitution: On Second Amendment, Reporters Side With Gun Lobby Against Supreme Court.

These articles deal with how the National Rifle Association has advanced the view that the amendment provides a fundamental right to private gun ownership that cannot be abridged by the passage of gun control laws. In fact, the actual finding that the Second Amendment provided an "individual right" in DC v. Heller did not come through legal precedent, but from a well planned attack by a special interest group, the Cato Institute.

The problem is that the gun debate like other US policy debates seems to be dominated by continuing misinformation, lies and deception used by ideologically shaped skeptics who deny (in this case, climate change, but it can be gun control or whatever). If deniers can convince the public that gun control (climate science, etcetera) is bogus, then there is no need for legal reforms. There is an industry of those who are paid to say that there are gun rights (manmade global warming isn’t happening, etcetera). The great majority of people who believe this have not been paid; however, they have been duped.

Gun control is a wedge issue par excellence in that all sorts of emotive situations and language can be used. Brainwashing doesn't take any sci-fi gadgetry or Manchurian Candidate hypnotism bullshit. There are all sorts of tried-and-true techniques that anyone can use to bypass the thinking part of your brain and flip a switch deep inside that says "OBEY."

How long will it take before people get fed up with the concept of "gun rights" and wake up?

How many incidents like this one where a NH Man was Charged With Firing AK-47 in a Massachusetts Restaurant:

Authorities said Anthony Gobbi, 30, of East Wakefield, N.H., fired an AK-47 into the restaurant's ceiling as patrons ducked for cover. Police said Gobbi became enraged when bartenders at the China Lion restaurant refused to serve him alcohol, believing he was drunk.

Police said that after he was refused service, Gobbi went to his truck, retrieved a handgun and the AK-47, returned to the restaurant and opened fire.

While most patrons ducked for cover, others managed to tackle Gobbi, wrestling him outside as he squeezed off a few more bursts of gunfire, police said. Gobbi was pinned to the ground while others called 911.

People didn't need guns to stop this shooter, they just needed to stand up to him and be fearless.

People need to stand up to the US gun lobby and not take it anymore.
(I was trying to figure out how to get the AK-47 story in there)

You're not as smart as you think...

I've wanted to follow up on my corollary to my previous post about brainwashing and propaganda.

That's brainwashing, mind control, thought reform, coercive persuasion, influence, manipulation or the subversion of an individual's control of his or her own thinking, behavior, emotions, or decision making.

Part of recognizing propaganda techniques is to know what they are and how they are used. Most people don't, which is why they are easily swayed.

Of course, the emotional techniques, especially those used by the "gun cretins" is highly effective and pretty much text book for being propaganda techniques.

I have a great example that I won't give, except in generalities, where a "gun cretin" is so oblivious of propaganda techniques that his argument shoots him in the foot. The premise of his argument is stated after something he wants to portray as false. Actually, it's buttressed by what he is trying to disprove. Fortunately, the way he states it, he ends up stating what he believes to be false.

I am being purposefully vague since I agree with what he believes is false. I have shared this with other people who agree with me that he is being unintentionally counterproductive to his cause. On the other hand, I don't want to publicly point out that he is supporting my point of view if this fucker is so clueless as to miss what he is doing!

Thank you for being a total dildo and not being able to spot that, guy! If only you knew what a dumbfuck you were being maybe you might get your shit together. Then again...

The problem goes to something I commented on in Man With the Muckrake's Gene change in cannibals reveals evolution in action post:

You can’t get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a Pavlovian manner. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.

Studies show the brain is wired to get a quick high from reading things that agree with our point of view. The same studies proved that, strangely, we also get a rush from intentionally dismissing information that disagrees, no matter how well supported it is.

Therefore, facts tell nothing to him, even if you shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures: he will refuse to believe it.

These people don't want to think. They don't want to challenge their beliefs. They restrict their reading and/or viewing material. The idea is to insulate people from any opposing points of view, to persuade them of a point of view. Any material that might be contradictory to the "line" is censored and taken out of context to change meaning.

We could hope that people discover critical thinking, although that seems highly unlikely given the strong anti-intellectual bias in the US. The ability to think critically involves three things:

1. An attitude of being disposed (state of mind regarding something) to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experiences,
2. Knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning,
3. Some skill in applying those methods.

Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends. It also generally requires ability to recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems, to gather and marshal pertinent(relevant) information, to recognize unstated assumptions and values, to comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination, to interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments, to recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions, to draw warranted conclusions and generalizations, to put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives, to reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience, and to render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life.

The problem is that one needs to challenge one's beliefs, especially in the light of contradictory evidence.

A Corollary to my previous post.

I have to admit to being curious as to how most Americans can remain ignorant and brainwashed by special interests: especially those that work against their interest.

I was going to call this post "wedge issues" since that is partly how americans can be distracted.

Brainwashing doesn't take any sci-fi gadgetry or Manchurian Candidate hypnotism bullshit. There are all sorts of tried-and-true techniques that anyone can use to bypass the thinking part of your brain and flip a switch deep inside that says "OBEY."

Ever notice how the gun crowd likes to use their little cliche sayings, which I am not going repeat here. But they are so simple. The use of slogans is referred to as thought-stopping techniques because it does just that. Simple phrases that make one believe.

Until they are examined in detail.

Then they like to give black and white choices and use fear. Such as refutation through emotion: "Well, how will you like it if your girlfirend is raped if guns are removed from the public."

That's why those who support regulations on guns are referred to as "anti-gun". They must not like guns because they will tolerate regulation. That makes those who support regulation "against" us.

This technique is relatively new, but you'll see a lot more of it in the future. Someone will say to his supporters, "These guys work for the enemy, don't believe a word they say. Their lies will only poison your mind."

It's a black and white choice, which makes it easier to remain stuck in their position.

Studies show the brain is wired to get a quick high from reading things that agree with our point of view. The same studies proved that, strangely, we also get a rush from intentionally dismissing information that disagrees, no matter how well supported it is. Therefore, people aren't really going to work too hard to challenge their opinions.

Neither are they going to want to hear they are wrong no matter how well supported the refutation.