Offense VS Defense (a little long)

F

FUD

Moderator
I've been thinking about this for a while but recent events and recent posts have got me thinking about this even more. Whenever there is a widely reported shooting, the anti's get on their high horse and start screaming about more gun control and gun owners are put on the defense. Why don't we put THEM on the defense instead:<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The shooting at the high school in Colorado should have never happened if existing gun laws would have been enforced since no guns were allowed on school property. The government disarmed teachers, administrators and other school workers who might have wished to be armed and could have prevented some the violence from happening. Instead, they were defenseless and our government failed to protect them as well by not enforcing exiting laws.
<LI> The recent shooting at Wendy's in NYC should also have never happened since it is illegal to carry a loaded firearm on your person unless you have a permit and the shooter did not have such a permit. Again, existing laws disarmed the innocent and our government did not enforce those exisitng laws, thus failing to protect us.</UL>
These facts should be repeatedly pointed out everytime a shootings occurs and the question should be posed: If current laws (which could have prevented the shooting from happening) are not being enforced, then how will even more laws be enforced? The simple answer is that they won't and more innocent life will be lost. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sumabich: Ok, so what are we going to do about it? The NRA has been screaming about enforcing existing laws. Here is a blatent, high-profile example of what happens when you don't. NRA members, write and suggest this get used. If someone can find links to the mayors office, Senator and Reps. lets start writing!!!!!!!!!!! This is an opportunity to fight back but we must hurry! ...[/quote]We need to point out to the Anti's that if the government is unable to protect us, then they should not limit our ability to protect ourselves. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JerryM: The anti's have done things like ask the NRA how many more children will they get killed before they change their stance. I think it is a legitimate question to turn the tables and ask the MMM and others how many more innocents will they condemn before they support honest people's right to carry weapons to defend themselves. Do they feel good that they have caused the deaths of these people? ... [/quote]Instead of passing more guns laws, more gun laws should be repealed so that people will be better able to defend themselves.
 
FUD - you make arguments that are sensible to the choir. But you miss the crucial variable of personality structure - the difference between those who can take an active view of self-defense and those who take a passive view.

Let's look at it.

A crime is committed with a firearm.

One solution is to control the firearms so they won't exist to hurt people. You know that current laws and new ones are only steps to total confiscation and searches. Some folks who can't conceive of fighting will see this as the solution. That appeals to sheep.

Other folks who haven't really thought about it, think this is a reasonable position. After all how many actually read Kleck or Lott?
They might be convinceable if they have the fire to take the active view.

Your solution is to increase firearms carrying
by reducting restrictions and for someone who does not have the will to fight - that just increases their anxiety. More of the thing, they fear - I think not!
They will be more strongly anti to hear your solution and more vocal. They see your point as giving germs to the infected.

The hope of the RKBA is to convince those who have the right stuff that firearms ownership will make them safer. We already have the choir and preaching to them is a feel good but waste of time.

Now, how to you reach the middle - well, reasoned CCW laws and presentations emphasizing selfprotection. I think that regulated carry would be attractive, simply removing laws would not at first. You propose more open access to a threat and that will not be convincing to the middle. But allowing law abiding citizens to carry will.

However, we cut our own throat, when such
solutions to convince the middle are seen as compromise - as when the GOA tried to sabotage the TX CHL bill.

We also need to drop the rhetoric that convinces folks that gun owners are dangerous.

VT carry, homophobia, pushing religion with guns, calling everyone communists, threatening revolution, racism, antisemitism etc are not useful and in fact - the hateful ones suck. But we see them here every once in awhile.

VT carry bad!! Heresy - but it will not happen
despite RKBKA hopes. VT is unique. Shall issue laws are the way to go. It is a waste of time to push VT carry.

But to go back to the main point, you are making a choir argument that will have little force to those who are not convinced already.

A few might change after a threatening incident but as a straight presentation, it won't work.

I would argue shall - issue laws with systems of checks like already in place in most places.

In states or cities with no right to own a gun, like NYC - I would argue for the incremental step for shall issue ownership.

As I said before and usually drive some folk mad, I would trade a mandatory selling of trigger locks (not use) law for a law saying any American can own a handgun after a NICS check in a second. It would open up large areas to handgun ownership.

I would trade an extension of the mag limit
for a national CCW in a second.

For the RKBA to survive, the message that sell is protection - not revolution or fighting the government.

Get guns into the hands of lawabiding folks and we will strengthen the RKBA.

HCI nibbles at us, let's nibble back.
Instead, now I'll probably see the
"Compromiser!!" hissy fits.
 
Glenn, maybe I am talking to the choir, but I'm also passing these ideas on to the NRA for their consideration and sharing it with the "choir" so that others might be able to take the idea and "build upon it" and make it better. I don't mean to assume that we can turn things around over night since we didn't get to the state that we are currently in overnight either. However, we need to make a start somewhere and the first step is to go on the offenseive. Let's have the question answered: "If the government is unable to protect us, why are we being forced to give up our ability to protect oursevles?" and back it up with recent examples ...<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI> No one in New York can legally carry (or even buy) without a permit -- someone with a criminal record was able to buy and carry a weapon.
<LI> No guns on school property -- how are all of these school shootings happening?</UL>I'm just tired of having to be on the defensive everytime a gun crime happens. When someone is killed because of a drunk driver, bars are not being targeted. When a child drowns, water sports are not targeted. When someone overdoses on over the counter drugs, sleeping bills makers are not targeted. Why are gun owners targeted when ever there is a gun crime? We are not the ones who committed the crime. As a matter of fact, studies have shown that legal gun owners (as a whole) have a lower crime rate than the general population.

Let's start using the anti's weapons against them. If the people in Wendy's were allowed to be armed, they might have had a fighting chance instead of being sitting ducks. Their blood is on the hands of all those who pushed to have stricker gun control laws.
 
FUD, I think your approach is reasonable, and it takes more than one set of tactics to win a war.

More offense would definitely help us, and it certainly beats cowering.

Regards from AZ
 
"We also need to drop the rhetoric that convinces folks that gun owners are dangerous.

VT carry, homophobia, pushing religion with guns, calling everyone communists, threatening revolution, racism, antisemitism etc are not useful and in fact - the hateful ones suck. But we see them here every once in awhile.

VT carry bad!! Heresy - but it will not happen
despite RKBKA hopes. VT is unique. Shall issue laws are the way to go. It is a waste of time to push VT carry.

But to go back to the main point, you are making a choir argument that will have little force to those who are not convinced already.

A few might change after a threatening incident but as a straight presentation, it won't work."

Well first I'm sorry for you as you seem to feel having moral values or attempting to reason with the antis is counter productive. Second in a fair and equeal world the middle ground might, might mind you, be a safe place to try and meet the antis. The NRA is the JudenRat of the gun rights movement. In case you haven't noticed we have lost the war for the hearts and minds of the sheep out there. The GOA's take no prisoners and/or no compromise is the only way to go. Gun onwers can be dangerous and it is time we realize that is why the government is trying to disarm us, not the fact so many people die each year or to control crime. Generally as a whole gun owners are responsible hard working law abiding people with a strong sense of right and wrong. The NWO type politician is our enemy, the person, no matter how misgiuded ,
who is attempting to strip our God given , constitutionally affirmed right to keep and bear weapons is our enemy. Not an opponet but our enemy. As a police officer I have always been in favor of an armed populace, but more and more I see officers who will be willing to pull an Elian on your home to get your weapons.They will be willing to shoot you down as a terrorist because you choose to exercise a right the Founding fathers realized was the liberty teeth of our freedoms. Myself I will take my badge off and hopefully get away so I can help resist those who would do this. You need to wake up . And I know your gonna say I'm one of those gunowners who scares people. Well screw em they need to be frightened because I am not a family living in the woods that wants to be left alone, or a church group that just wants to be left alone. I am a professional at arms when they come to get my guns I hope they realize they will need 2 things a lunch and a whole lot of body bags for it will be a long damn day.



[This message has been edited by WGB38 (edited May 28, 2000).]
 
FUD - we differ on how to do it. My point is that strong proposals to weaken gun control laws is not going to work at this moment in time.

We should not be on the defensive - I agree with you on that. My offensive strategy is more the indirect approach of Liddel-Hart as the direct one won't work in my opinion.

I think we can bring people to gun ownership with laws that enable people to own guns and carry for self-protection. As that number increases then we have the body politic to weaken laws.

It's a fairly common persuasion strategy of getting your foot in the door.

I understand the frustration and wanting to make a strong stand but I don't think it works.

Remember that the NRA was willing to give it up on safety locks mandate with sales and the NICS at gun shows for private sales. Why shouldn't we get something with that?

WGB - that's nice - without the middle being on our side, we lose. That's it. Eventually we have to expand outside of the choir.

In fact, reading your last paragraph will just convince people that we don't need private ownership. And if you lose the majority of the country, we watch you on the news being taken down by the military. Is that what you want?

This country is not going to support a guerrilla war over gun ownership. If it gets to that point - you won't have a sea of peasants to hide in. So FUD and I might disagree on strategy but how does your rhetoric convince anybody.

As far as the NRA - they are not perfect by anymeans but 6,000,000 members in that organization would do more for the RKBA than
watching Larry Pratt oppose shall issue CHL bills waiting for VT carry to arrive.
 
Mr. Meyer, I have to disagree with you.What most people never realize aboutthe first revolution in this country was that about 15%
actively supported the founding fathers, another maybe 10% passively supported them, about 40% to 50% were indifferent, about 25% were active tories and maybe another 10% were passive tories. I believe if it comes down to it and just 10% fight we will win. For the statist liberal gun grabbers to win they will have to use UN troops and they still may not win. That's if it happens in the next 20 years.After that all bets are off because most of us who have the knowledge and will to resist will be old enough that we will not be as effective or we will have died,. That's what the dumbing down of america is about being able to take the country without fireing a shot in the future. As to winning, I would rather die a
free man with rifle in hand than live as an arse kissing toad to a socialist government. And yes you may see me on the TV being taken down by the military. Law Dog and I have discussed this very issue several times. I just don't have the faith in the system the rest of you have.
As for the NRA I wouldn't trust any of the leadership further than I could throw a biulding. They are to willing to trade my liberty for their job security. The insepid insta- check is a NRA invention. They have started talking tougher of late but that's only for the show. Heston is a liberal from way back, and even backed gun control in the 60's by his own admission. They have frozen out the people in the NRA who realize that the word right means just that a right, not
granted request. I'm a police officer, I consider myself a peace officer but there is no wiggle room when it comes to our rights and any police officer dumb or mercenary enough to attempt to enforce a gun ban or confiscation deserves what they get.

We sir will have to agreed to disagree. One thing I would like you to understand sir my post was not just me speechifing, I truely believe one day I will have to take my badge off and shoot people who were once my brothers in blue. I hope my position will not adversely affect any future exchanges we might engage in. Hey we might even agree on some things.

[This message has been edited by WGB38 (edited May 30, 2000).]
 
WGB - I thank you for your last comment.

My only complaint in such debates are that people villify folks who suggest ideas
that disagree with them. I feel that we can use persuasive strategems to convince folks.

That is not compromise to me but mental guerrilla warfare so real warfare never has to occur.

I think the battle for the minds can be won by being clever. This makes folks mad at me sometimes. Life.


Regards

Glenn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top