Defending Semiautomatic Long Guns With Detachable Box Magaznes

[zukiphile]

But Suzi Soccermom isn't sure who she can trust with a gun. She's not really sure whether the guy on the next block who folks say has some guns is a level headed, normal, stand-up guy like her friends who don't have guns, or if he's kind of bent, tending to violence, or teetering on the edge of psycho. She might well imagine that many gun owners are more like the latter -- that's why the have guns. And if you read the gun forums, some of our fellow gun owners aren't helping to dispel that fantasy -- some seem to try hard to confirm it.

She might be okay with guns if she could be sure that they were kept out the hands of the "wrong" people.

Suzi might be fine with due process so long as it is allowed to the wrong people. She might adamantly defend the right to freely express ideas with which she agrees.

Suzi's underlying problem isn't about firearms, but her lack of foresight and ignorance of how rights and rule of law work.

 

[K_Mac]

Suzi might be fine with due process so long as it is allowed to the wrong people. She might adamantly defend the right to freely express ideas with which she agrees.

Suzi's underlying problem isn't about firearms, but her lack of foresight and ignorance of how rights and rule of law work.

Let's assume you are correct. She doesn't understand all of the forces at work. Based on everything she sees, hears and reads, guns and maybe gun owners are dangerous, especially semiautomatic rifles and their owners. All of the other soccer moms agree. They all also agree that "something" must be done about all the "gun violence".

So how do we help them see the truth? The anti-gun politicians are assuring them that they can make this all better by simply removing the guns; the 2A was written for a different time and is no longer relevant. Many of them don't really believe that, but they are frightened. In their mind a good guy with a gun is just another guy with a gun. Do we tell them they are unenlightened and guns aren't dangerous? If we can't win the hearts and minds of Suzi and the millions like her, can we win this fight?

 

[speedrrracer]

If we can't win the hearts and minds of Suzi and the millions like her, can we win this fight?

A bit of devil's advocacy...

Regardless of Suzi, can we lose this fight? If Suzi and the millions of terrified, hand-wringing soccer moms are the final say in this nation, then how do we explain why Constitutional + shall-issue carry has been growing these past decades, and now includes 41 of 50 states?

How do we explain record gun sales throughout the entire Obama administration? Can they all be previous owners stockpiling?

While some ultra-left states have descended into madness (CA, etc), federally we see a diversity of opinion, and therefore no stampede towards Suzi's side in this.

SCOTUS's small sample size leans our way, too, with Caetano adding a small bit to the protections already in place from Heller and McDonald, and Hellers "in common use" language will, if the AR is challenged, result, if nothing else, in some interesting contortions by the antis on the Court.

 

[K_Mac]

Speed I am a big fan of playing the devil's advocate role!

All good points. All of the gains and advances we've made over the last decade or two are encouraging and surprising to me. I never thought concealed carry would be legal in Illinois in my lifetime. With that said, don't underestimate the power of Suzi and her friends. A key vote here, a court ruling there and things can change quickly.

 

[zukiphile]

Do we tell them they are unenlightened and guns aren't dangerous? If we can't win the hearts and minds of Suzi and the millions like her, can we win this fight?

Part of "winning hearts and minds" is communicating a coherent understanding of the issue. A 2d Am. position that coheres and isn't merely an intermediate point on the way to more substantial restriction requires a principled argument, not an ad hoc excuse for a specific use that Suzi will have a positive emotional and otherwise vacuous reaction over.

Not every "Suzi" can be reached. Suzi may live in a suburban bubble and imagine that defensive needs are fictional. She may only know the other girls with whom she has lunch after tennis and believe that guns are a fetish of incomprehensible 'gator hunting rubes, not her people, and therefore are unimportant. Suzi might be genuinely ignorant or a sort of social bigot.

That itself isn't a reason to conform one's position for her comfort any more than the ignorance and bigotry of some people on other civil rights issues is a reason to trim one's position anti-discrimination policies in government hiring or public accommodations. That someone somewhere opposes your position isn't a reason to take their preferences as a given.

The rights described in the 1st, 2d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th are all rights held by individual against the state. They put the "limited" in "limited government", which is meaningless if those legal limits are ignored when someone like Suzi finds them an obstacle to having the state impose her preferences on the rest of us.

If Suzi lacks the mind to grasp that, you aren't going to win her heart. That doesn't mean anyone needs to call Suzi a nitwit. For some people asking them a few questions can start the process of reflection that leads to a better position.

Also, don't believe for a moment that the issue is semi-automatic rifles with box fed magazines, which is why defending their specific utility must be something of a dead end. That's just the current point of interest; in the absence of a principled position, it will come back to something else, pistols with detachable magazines, revolver reloaders, shotguns that hold more than five shells (who needs six shells fired as fast as he can pump and pull the trigger?) etc.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I agree. The ultimate goal would be to eliminate every handgun and all long guns except some bolt action and O/U shotguns that are strictly controlled for the 'sportsperson'.

That has been said in the past. People decide first on an emotional level. Rational decisions are rare and slow to implement.

Convincing folks that EBRs are nice MSRs is very difficult if they have a negative emotional mindset. I just don't think the nice gun argument works.

 

[K_Mac]

I also agree Zukiphile. I think communicating a coherent understanding to Suzi and those in her circle of influence without rancor improves our position. We are certainly not going to reach those who do not support a free state based on political ideology or agenda, or those who simply can not comprehend the right to keep and bear arms makes us all safer. I believe it is the huge group of people somewhere in the middle who will ultimately determine what happens.

 

[zukiphile]

I believe it is the huge group of people somewhere in the middle who will ultimately determine what happens.

As is so true on many issues.

There are two ways to address that group. One I favor, and the other I don't.

The one I like less is negative social pressure. This involves casting everyone with the contrary view as a moron, short-sighted, a bigot, or not really an american. This is used very effectively on free speech and SSM issues, so that there are large portions of the culture in which contrary views are not well tolerated.

The one I favor is allowing people to have a more positive view of guns and shooting. I don't like Glenn's idea that conclusions are emotional products with analysis only an after-thought, but there isn't a good reason to keep the fun of shooting sports a secret.

Suzi may think of unpleasant stories in the news or camo clad loons when she hears "gun", but I think of competition amongst some very nice people. Jerry Miculek conveys a lot of happiness in his many videos. How could anyone sit through one of his explanations of technique and not come away thinking the sport might be fun?

That's not itself an argument for the right, but pressing the cultural point (Suzi may prohibit her boys from even pretending to shoot things they would use as imaginary, toy guns) may help provide greater acceptance.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....I believe it is the huge group of people somewhere in the middle who will ultimately determine what happens.

Yes, we don't have to win over everyone, and we wouldn't be able to in any case. We just need to move enough to tip the scales in a more favorable direction.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I don't like Glenn's idea that conclusions are emotional products with analysis only an after-thought, but there isn't a good reason to keep the fun of shooting sports a secret.

Which part don't you like? I think the emotional decision process as predominant is well established by tons of research. I used to teach a whole week on this.

Next, I don't think we should keep shooting sports a secret and may mention that millions of folks have such guns without going nuts.

My point was that the focus on sporting as in the MSR mantra is insufficient and actually can be used as a point of attack. Antigun media outlets like the NY Times and others have written explicit pieces mocking that argument.

 

[zukiphile]

Which part don't you like? I think the emotional decision process as predominant is well established by tons of research. I used to teach a whole week on this.

The part in which you discount or dismiss explicit analysis and attribute a conclusion exclusively to an unstated emotional reaction. This isn't an accusation directed to you personally, but to your position on this -- it is literally anti-intellectual. (That's not accusing it of being a stupid concept, but one that devalues the currency and trade of ideas themselves.)

Next, I don't think we should keep shooting sports a secret and may mention that millions of folks have such guns without going nuts.

It isn't my intent to imply that you want to keep it a secret. The fact is that it is a secret unknown by many people who only see firearms on the news and cop shows.

My point was that the focus on sporting as in the MSR mantra is insufficient and actually can be used as a point of attack. Antigun media outlets like the NY Times and others have written explicit pieces mocking that argument.

So? The NYT is going to mock all sorts of arguments with which it maintains a profound disagreement. That's life, not a peculiar feature of the MSR label.

Has anyone set forth the MSR label itself as an argument sufficient to win the issue?

It doesn't bother me that you hold disdain for the label anymore than it bothers me that some manufacturers market their product that way. I don't use it but it seems fairly descriptive.

 

[ronl]

Why try to argue the point in the first place? You either believe in such a right or not, and many have spoken with their wallets by buying AR-15s. They are flying off the shelves. Do you think they are buying them to turn around and hand them to Uncle Sugar? I seriously doubt it. Let's face facts; a lot of Americans are pretty stupid. The only history they know is what happened yesterday, if they're lucky. They hear the BS spewed out by the MSM and they jump on board the ban bus because they are told they will be more safe without them. I call BS on it because the latest FBI stats prove the homicide rate is lower than it has been since 1957. Here's a radical thought, let's ban radical Muslims, since they're the one's using the AR-15's to kill people. We won't hear that though because the head of DHS is a Muslim, as is the head of the CIA and the list can continue for quite a while.(do a little research and it might well surprise you) The fact is that it will not be Joe Blow who decides if we keep our semi-auto weapons. Why argue the point. You would be much better served to take the time to decide what you will do if they ban them. Will you fold up like a rag doll, or stand up for what you believe to be right?

 

[TDL]

I agree with both aspects. The gun control lobby relies on all the cognition problems, which are actually several sets of cognitive bias in the public and acute among gun control rank and file

1) Inversion of the core and central trend, ie the actual statistics on gun homicide. Eg the public thinks gun murder is flat or up when it has crashed. Other crime rate and type problems, like not knowing that the vast majority of murder is repeat criminals, and that with guns appears to be over 90% illegal guns owned by criminals.

2) Failure to understand the technology, and that Cho and Breivik did not need "assault rifles." (and that CNC and 3d advances make it a luddite fantasy to focus on implements)

3) Failure to understand all the most valuable Bill of Rights liberties are dangerous and can easily be shown to make us "less safe."

4) Failure to understand that the "limits" on Bill of Rights liberties cited by gun control advocates, such as libel and defamation, are not analogous to gun control whatsoever, but a) post harm, post proven and adjudicated harm, sanctions applied b) only to the individual who committed the harm. (The analogy to defamation would e shooting someone and claiming second amendment protection, not claiming the right to have a firearm.)

So there is a wide variety of cognition problems, running the gamut from actual trends, to the basics of pre harm vs post harm limits on rights.

 

[44 AMP]

The "ban everything" crowd refuses to recognize any use as valid. The only use of (whatever their target is) that they admit to is a criminal misuse, and criminal misuse is the reason they believe XYZ should be banned.

Doesn't matter to them what is misused or who misuses it (though they may claim otherwise, their actions and demands put the lie to that), all that matters to them is to get their hated thing banned, so "no one" can misuse it, ever again....it's a fantasy they fully believe in, and demand we do, as well.

Not too long ago, in my state, some college kids misused an "energy drink", by taking a massive overdose, and then adding "illegal" alcohol on top of it (they were below legal drinking age). Several got sick, requiring hospitalization, and at least one DIED.

The energy drink has WARNINGS on the label, they were ignored.

What was the response of the concerned people? A demand for a BAN on the sale of the energy drink, a legal product complying with all applicable laws.

And, they GOT IT!!!

ITs the same mindset with guns, it doesn't matter that some INDIVIDUAL breaks the LAW about committing murder, all that matters is BAN the GUN!!!

Seems to me that we were better off when we didn't listen to those kind of people. We did it on a national scale with Prohibition, and look how well that worked out....

 

[Pond James Pond]

The part in which you discount or dismiss explicit analysis and attribute a conclusion exclusively to an unstated emotional reaction.

Exclusively or predominantly?

Based on what I have seen and heard and experienced, most people have not done any research into firearms: not even to support their own position against them, certainly not to examine the rationale of pro-gun ownership groups.

Instead these positions have repeatedly smacked of a knee-jerk reaction: that is not something that typically results from the analytical process.

 

[TDL]

The ultimate goal would be to eliminate every handgun and all long guns except some bolt action and O/U shotguns that are strictly controlled for the 'sportsperson'.

That has been said in the past. People decide first on an emotional level. Rational decisions are rare and slow to implement.

Indeed the recent past and and the present.

1) Every national gun control lobby organization worked to help DC fight Heller and that is less than a decade ago. They all took amicus or testified in support of DC or wrote analysis or opinion pieces in support of DC.

2) They keep repeating Australia as their model. So to have Obama and Hillary continually.That is mass confiscation of all legally acquired handguns and all semi auto long guns from all law abiding citizens. Anderson Cooper, early on in the recent Obama "Town Hall" asked President Obama about repeating Australia as his model "over and over" and gave him the chance to disavow the confiscation part of that mdoel twice, Mr. Obama deflected both times

 

[zukiphile]

The part in which you discount or dismiss explicit analysis and attribute a conclusion exclusively to an unstated emotional reaction.

Exclusively or predominantly?

Emphasis added.

I would let Glenn speak to his own position generally.

Specifically, I have differed with Glenn on his position that it is appropriate or accurate to dismiss the analyses in Supreme Court decisions as a mere rationalization of an emotional conclusion.

The effort to delegitimize an opponent's political or legal position with a psychological diagnosis is a crude political tool that is closely related in form to marxist false consciousness theory.

If ideas have meaning, then an analysis composed of them can't be waved aside properly with a sentiment that the writer doesn't understand that he wasn't actually reasoning to a position, but was instead embroidering a crude emotional antipathy the reader takes a guess at.

If ideas don't have meaning, then the enterprise of psychological diagnosis of a writer itself can be as easily dismissed as the ideas to which it is applied.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The effort to delegitimize an opponent's political or legal position with a psychological diagnosis is a crude political tool that is closely related in form to marxist false consciousness theory.

That's all well and good. I come to my conclusion on the basis of research on decision making done by Nobel prize winners and scholarly analyses of judicial decision making. It is not a theory out of my head.

It is not a psychological diagnosis, implying a disorder, but what we know of decision processes.

 

[ATN082268]

A demand for a BAN on the sale of the energy drink, a legal product complying with all applicable laws.

And, they GOT IT!!!

ITs the same mindset with guns, it doesn't matter that some INDIVIDUAL breaks the LAW about committing murder, all that matters is BAN the GUN!!!

There are a number of unsavory elements that make up the situation of blaming an object used illegally, immorally and/or in a manner inconsistent with its original design/intent. Some of mine have overlap and I'm sure there are more but I don't want to get too depressed I'll list some of them, in no particular order:

1. A complete lapse of personal responsibility.

2. A unrealistic notion that by banning something will get rid of it and/or change the behavior of someone for the better.

3. Those that crusade against a particular object, don't realize (or care) that the same thing can be done to other objects as well, including ones they care about.

4. Creepy politicians looking for a way to make themselves look good while, at the same time, limiting your freedoms.

5. Greedy lawyers looking to make a quick buck.

 

[zukiphile]

Glenn, note that what I write against below is an analytical framework, and not you or your emotional mooring. The argument isn't that you are some sort of jerk (in fact my opinion is exactly the opposite), but that I've taken exception to an idea you've set forth.

That explanation isn't gratuitous, but illustrative.

That's all well and good. I come to my conclusion on the basis of research on decision making done by Nobel prize winners and scholarly analyses of judicial decision making. It is not a theory out of my head

I wouldn't attribute it exclusively to you either by way of praise or condemnation. If memory serves, as an undergraduate I read a piece by Charles Taylor that set forth a similar idea.

It is not a psychological diagnosis, implying a disorder, but what we know of decision processes.

The problem is that you apply it to a decision processes into which you have very limited insight.

I know that many want to parse legalisms but I opine that the opinions are first driven by the justices' core beliefs (focused by social beliefs, emotions and religion). Then they look for precedents and legalism to bolster their views. I've read scholarly analyses of such.

[Scalia's] emotion this time is just that - emotion based on an underlying belief structure. I disagree with it.

We should take this opportunity to say that expansion of individual rights and removing the state from personal decisions (that do no overt harm) is to be celebrate.

The 4 liberal justices have a gut oppostion to guns. The 4 conservative justices have a gut opposition to gays. That's what focuses how they decide. Kennedy has been seen as one who thinks about things a touch more deeply and also relishes his position as swing on the major issues.

I'm afraid constitutional issues are decided by people on a primary personal basis and the intellectual ballast, so to speak, comes in later to rationalize the decision.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=564274highlight=emotional+valence

You don't actually know about the decision process of the Obergefell minority except as it is set forth in text. Instead of dealing with the ideas expressed, you attribute their conventional constitutional analysis to a "gut opposition to gays" and a failure to think as deeply as those with whom you agree. That kind of dismissal sidesteps the substance of constitutional law.

That's a pretty ordinary and human response to a position one doesn't share, that the opponent isn't smart enough or nice enough to agree with the more enlightened. However it is also ultimately an ad hominem argument with substantial chronological shortcomings.