Log in

No account? Create an account

Mon, Mar. 18th, 2013, 01:01 am
So called “logic” of gun bans.

Originally published at VolkStudio Blog. You can comment here or there.

To make the “logic” of gun bans a little more obvious, I’d like to use the analogy of cars as more familiar to everyone. Imagine a situation in which some tiny number of vehicles are used for criminal purposes, such as transporting drugs, kidnapping and drive-by shootings.  By the logic currently applied to guns, the hypothetical car-banners can try several approaches:

  • Ban everyone from using the same kind of cars as used by the majority of criminals. If the most popular “crime car” is a Ford Escort, ban those. Or all compact sedans. As everyone, including criminals, switches to other types, ban the most popular of those.
  • Ban the most high-performance vehicles (or those with largest number of seats, greatest cargo capacity or some other useful feature) on the theory that they are most suitable for criminal use and evading police. Next year, ban the next to the most high performing types and so on.
  • Prohibit ownership to specific people, defining the “specific” people broadly enough to include everyone besides specifically exempted politicians and their, so called “public”, servants.

Neither of these approaches is reasonable but anti-gun people push for them anyway. They are ok with victimizing the blameless. That tells us that their real goal isn’t disarming the criminals but disarming everyone they view as potential political opposition.

Some segments of gun control are aimed at producing a local electoral majority, the prime example being the Colorado bills that would cause enough pro-gun people to move out of the state to ensure a long-term Democrat majority. Others are aimed at disarming the “most probably enemy” population groups, and both political parties are guilty of that to some extent, though Democratic party does it far more.

Mon, Mar. 18th, 2013 05:08 pm (UTC)

You're not addressing the thing that makes all the difference to most of the people who support the gun bans, though -- cars are a major part of the everyday life of nearly all of us, we grew up taking them for granted, getting your first car is a HUGE step towards being an adult and having self-determination, and getting around is an obvious need for all of us.

Whereas, to most of these people, they've never seen a gun outside of a policeman's holster or in a movie. Or in some cases being pointed at them by a criminal. They are tools of destruction, that some people inexplicably adopt as toys; beyond the military (including the police) they have no legitimate purpose. They can't imagine a militia of citizens standing up for 30 seconds to an armored division in combat.

So, you're preaching to the choir here, and not addressing the core beliefs where the gun banners think differently from us. If we can't find ways to attack those core different beliefs, we won't win them over. And it appears to be the case that the number of households with guns in them is declining, so if we can't win some of them over, in the long run we will lose.

Mon, Mar. 18th, 2013 05:14 pm (UTC)

I am addressing the allies but providing analogies which may be used in face to face conversations. Just like you had once convinced me.

Mon, Mar. 18th, 2013 10:58 pm (UTC)

All arguments based on learning from history are "preaching to the choir." All arguments based on evidence (for example, that NICS checks correlate negatively with crime rates) are "not addressing the core beliefs where the gun banners think differently from us."

I used to be like them; I used to go to a church where we would perform preventive maintenance on our personally-held convictions, fueling them with confirmation bias and demonizing everyone not like us. These are brainwashing techniques used by every body of faith, and there are actually very few reason-based tools that can break that feewing of bewonging in which faith takes root:

  • Ridiculing them when they bring their faith-based tenets out of their houses of worship and attempt to inject them into public policy
  • Screaming "SHUT THE FUCK UP!" at them when they attempt to silence their doubts by mindless repetition of the tenets of their faith
  • Keeping them apart from each other so that they cannot mutually reinforce each others' delusions
  • Providing the evidence and reason-based argumentation for those few who eventually shed the burden of faith-based thinking and are looking for something to replace it

You do not give Oleg enough credit when he performs that latter function. It doesn't work in every case, but nothing works in every case. In fact it's rare that faith-based thinkers can even get to that point, but when they do, Oleg and his body of work need to be there.

Thanks for what you do, Oleg.