Progressive "Talking Points" About How To Sell Gun Control With Better Words...

[SteyrAUG]

If you want to read the opposing teams "playbook" here you go.

http://www.winningprogressive.org/tag/gun-safety

It's the usually iffy facts and word games, in fact most of it is an instructional manual on how to play word games where you don't call a duck a duck but you call a duck whatever is most acceptable to the person you are trying to persuade.

[Voodoo_Man]

[common sense]

Show me where it says driving is a RIGHT in the constitution. Driving is a privilege not a right.

Firearms are a RIGHT in the constitution, not a privilege.

[/common sense]

[MountainRaven]

The violent crime rate has dropped because of, among other things, a reduction in exposure to environmental lead? Wat?

[common sense]

Show me where it says driving is a RIGHT in the constitution. Driving is a privilege not a right.

Firearms are a RIGHT in the constitution, not a privilege.

[/common sense]

There's more to it:

You don't need a driver's license to own a car. You don't need to register a car that isn't being driven on public roads.

Also: It's all arms - not just firearms - that are Constitutionally protected.

[SilverBullet432]

So we go from " gun control " to " gun safety"? Gimme a break!

[Eurodriver]

The violent crime rate has dropped because of, among other things, a reduction in exposure to environmental lead? Wat?



There's more to it:

You don't need a driver's license to own a car. You don't need to register a car that isn't being driven on public roads.

Also: It's all arms - not just firearms - that are Constitutionally protected.

I've seen some pretty objective evidence about this. Crime rates drop exactly 14 years (the time from birth to when young males tend to take up criminal activities) after lead is banned from gasoline and again (although slightly less pronounced) after lead is banned from paint.

[Voodoo_Man]

The violent crime rate has dropped because of, among other things, a reduction in exposure to environmental lead? Wat?



There's more to it:

You don't need a driver's license to own a car. You don't need to register a car that isn't being driven on public roads.

Also: It's all arms - not just firearms - that are Constitutionally protected.

I wasn't going to go into a whole detailed post, skimming the top is enough.

You can find where someone's head is at with just a sentence or two, then figure out if its worth talkin to them.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I've seen some pretty objective evidence about this. Crime rates drop exactly 14 years (the time from birth to when young males tend to take up criminal activities) after lead is banned from gasoline and again (although slightly less pronounced) after lead is banned from paint.

Really, I'll call BS.

While lead in the air would decrease quickly from auto exhaust, it wouldn't clean up the traces left in the environment.

Even bigger BS on the lead paint correlation. Paint has a very long life cycle so 'removing' lead from paint will have a longer and much slower effect. Interior paint can have 10-20 year, sometimes 50 year interior lifecycles. Removing lead from the paint also just removes it from the top layer, not from the layer that actually contains the lead.

I just glanced thru some of the literature and to find the effect of lead, you have to really parse thru the other variables- ie the amount of lead my be an effect, but it is swamped by other factors. Sure, getting the lead out is a positive.

That said, can you place the rise of other social issues with the removal of lead? How about the near similar rise of ADHD in kids? The increase in peanut butter allergies?

People misuse scientific (not saying you) studies almost as much as they do quotes from the Bible. Every study I see touted by the press as saying "X" almost invariably has problems with A. Not drawing that conclusion as strongly as suggested by the MSM or B. The sample or population is non right (size, composition, controls). And God love Excel, but it has turned everyone into a statistician.

On the whole car thing:
-Do you have to get a background check to buy a car?
-If you beat your wife, can you get a car?
-Is there a waiting period for a car?
-Do they put a speed limiter on a car?
-Can you buy a car if you have a felony?
-If you buy two or more fast cars in a week, do they turn in special paper work on you?

[hatt]

Research that shows arming more people and giving them greater legal leeway to open fire in ‘self-defense’ does not reduce burglary, robbery, or aggravated assault, but it does result in more homicides.

Well I'm OK with more homicides. Shoot first wonder if he would have killed or just robbed me later.

[Koshinn]

One of the better points that anti-gunners use is that of suicide. Data for which I have no citation shows that suicides by gun make up about twice the number of deaths as intentional homicides by gun.

And further, data for which I have no citation also shows that making suicide less "easy" actually does reduce suicides.

If we can agree that life is sacred and should be protected (off topic, but law-abiding peoples' lives have a higher precedence than law-breaking peoples' lives), then there is actually a pretty good argument for banning guns to reduce suicides.

There might be other ways... perhaps a "gun restraining order" like California has proposed? But that's easily abusable for other reasons.





Their point about "arsenals" and "hordes of ammo" is ridiculous - mass shooters only need one or two firearms and maybe a couple boxes of ammo to kill dozens of people. Theoretically, a guy running around with a single AR-10 with a 20 rd mag of 7.62 soft points could kill 20 people. And if you limit people to say, 100 rds / month, dedicated individuals can still accumulate a ridiculous amount of ammo. See the buying panic when you were only allowed 1-2 boxes per person... they brought their family members to each buy ammo too, and hit up stores every day. The guys who planned Columbine did it for a year. And again, you only need a single mag's worth of ammo to inflict considerable destruction, so that's not the answer. And 10 rd mags? Just look at an IPSC/USPSA Production stage... fire a few rounds, reload while moving to the next target of opportunity. It's simply not effective legislation to stop mass shootings while crippling self defense against a single dedicated opponent.

[hatt]

One of the better points that anti-gunners use is that of suicide. Data for which I have no citation shows that suicides by gun make up about twice the number of deaths as intentional homicides by gun.

And further, data for which I have no citation also shows that making suicide less "easy" actually does reduce suicides.

If we can agree that life is sacred and should be protected (off topic, but law-abiding peoples' lives have a higher precedence than law-breaking peoples' lives), then there is actually a pretty good argument for banning guns to reduce suicides.

There might be other ways... perhaps a "gun restraining order" like California has proposed? But that's easily abusable for other reasons.

Using that argument we'd have to ban cars and just about anything else. Everything comes with a risk. And getting rid of one "danger" will expose you to other dangers you wouldn't have been exposed to.