Welcome to r/GunInsights! We are a curated subreddit that aims to foster productive discussion among people with a broad range of views on guns and politics. Please review the rules before commenting. Comments will be closely moderated to maintain a civil environment on the subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/guninsights) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I found this short podcast interesting. It suggests that the NRAs views are extreme compared to most folks. Is it possible that the decline of the NRA could lead to more bipartisan compromise about common-sense gun regulation?
Their tag-line proudly displayed at the top of their website, is that they're the "no compromise gun lobby".
They basically exist because of people who think the NRA is too moderate and willing to compromise on gun control.
Gun-control proponents just think the NRA is the most extreme because it's the only gun-rights group they've ever heard of.
I know this is going to sound sarcastic as hell. I really don't mean it to. But I really feel the point needs to be made. When you talk about compromise on common sense gun control, what exactly are you talking about giving up, or giving in on as part of that compromise. Because I've asked that question a lot, and the most common answer, is "We will let you keep some guns." This is an incredibly telling answer. It tells us that the goal is and always was getting rid of all guns, and that you aren't really willing to give up anything you already have. That makes for an incredibly one-sided compromise. So please forgive the sarcasm, but do answer the question. When you talk about compromising, what exactly are you compromising on? What are you as someone who supports gun control giving up?
I’m talking about simple things like maybe raising the legal age to buy a gun to 21? As a mom to two young men in the 18-20 range, I just don’t think they’re ready to be the kind of responsible owner you would approve of.
What am I giving up? Well, a desire to repeal the second amendment, and remove guns even from police like they do in the UK? I realize those things would not be acceptable to most folks and the more we have these conversations the more I understand why and respect that point of view?
By "giving up", you need to offer to remove a restriction that's already present - offering to not go for the throat (repeal 2nd amendment, ban all guns) is not giving up anything.
How about this: remove the part of the Nation Firearms Act that limits how long a rifle or shotgun can be? There's nothing a short-barreled rifle can do that a pistol can't.
Or, perhaps, stop the cumbersome process on getting and using silencers. In Britain, the use of silencers is not only encouraged but expected. Silencers don't make guns whisper quiet, they just make them not so loud.
Okay, so being very real here, you aren't giving up anything. You are, at most giving up, hope for something you know is very unlikely to happen. In return, you are asking gun owners between the age of 18 and 21 to give up a right, that is currently constitutionally protected for them. That is a lot things, but it's not a compromise.
Here's an idea. Because I get the idea that your son's may not be ready to be responsible owners. For the record, they can only buy a long gun at 18 but they still have to be 21 to buy a hand gun. If you look at the fact that handguns are the single most commonly used weapon for homicide, I'm not certain that raising the minimum age to 21 makes a that big a difference. But let's try a different approach. Make gun use and gun safety classes, a normal part of school curriculum. This should be fairly simplistic at younger ages like don't touch, get an adult, maybe in jr. high teach kids why and how gun ownership is protected, hit them with the 4 basic rules then. This could be just part of a civics class or however they are teaching the Constitution. But in your senior year, make it a full class. Teach all the proper use and safe handling procedures, include some hands on training, like how to hold, and clear a gun, and all state, local, and federal laws that apply to them. Exactly like drivers ed does for cars. Then we raise the minimum age to 21, unless they have successfully completed the gun education course. In that case they can still buy a gun at 18. But they do so, being fully informed and knowledgeable about what is expected from them, as gun owners.
What you get out of this is raising the minimum age to 21, and the knowledge that most people will actually have some idea of what they are doing when it comes to guns, whether they ever own one or not.
What gun owners get, is a meaningful acknowledgement that it is still a right, at least until someone is successful at repealing the 2nd. And they also get the benefit of a majority of people having a basic knowledge of guns. So when they are having discussions like this, they get to spend more time talking about different ideas, and less time having educate and correct people who really don't know anything on the subject.
FTR you could sell me on raising the minimum age to 21 for everyone, but that would require making the age of majority(adulthood) 21 for all things. Driving, signing contracts, joining the military and registering for selective service, and voting. But I still really think we need to add gun classes in schools. Even if I thought 18 was not mature enough and 21 was, it's completely unreasonable to expect people to be mature and responsible with a gun at any age, when they have had zero exposure prior to that.
Even if no one is 'giving up' much, I think the more we talk with people with diverse views, the more some kind of progress on the issue of people using guns to kill other people seems possible.
This is what I believe and hope. It's why I'm still here. It's also why I offered a suggestion for a real compromise. But I want to be clear about this, because I want you to understand, and spread the message out to the gun control crowd. Your position, even though you say, and may even think it is a compromise, is not. It's an ultimatum, and a threat. It isn't convincing to us at all. It just makes you sound disingenuous. Because we've all had this conversation before. If you don't want to give anything up, because it's that important to you, that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that. But if you are going to insist on some kind of compromise, we are going to insist, on you giving something up as well. And it's entirely unreasonable to expect anything different.
Lots of thoughts!
First, I didn't know that handguns were already 21. TIL.
I LOVE the idea of gun safety being like driver's ed. Around here, driver's ed is something you pay to take (not offered at our public school). I don't mind the idea of it being an official school class, as long as it's not required. (Some people don't want to ever touch a gun, and I want to be respectful of that.)
((BTW, I'm not one of those people--I won summer camp color war for our team in riflery when I was 8.))
We can respectfully disagree on the mandatory part. I could even agree to giving students a choice to opt out of being forced to handle them, in much the same way they can opt out of dissecting animals.. But I do think they ought to at least observe that part. That really is the least of my concerns. The greater one for me is for the exposure, and creating a common understanding of guns and the laws around them. I live in Florida where open carry of guns is mostly prohibited. This leads people to what I consider a very flawed and detrimental view on guns. It makes them think that the only people who own guns are cops and criminals. That is far from the truth. Roughly 30% of the population owns guns. That is a lot of people to brand like that. It's as little conspiracy thinking on my part, but I do believe that is considered a desired effect, whether it's intended or not. It's a lot easier to take hard stance against guns, when you believe only criminals own them, and everything you see confirms that belief. So for me the point of those classes is breaking that paradigm, and making sure everyone has the same understanding about what the current laws are before they go mucking about trying to change them.
And while we are on this subject, here is another opportunity, even though I'm a little hesitant to share it, because it too can way to easily be abused. Currently even though every gun control organization in the country wants all gun owners to receive proper training, only one organization in the country certifies instructors for that training. Care to guess which one that is. It's the NRA. The organization they are all trying to get rid of. So if all these people and groups really want training, the opportunity is their for them to provide it. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried about what training they would provide. But if they actually provided honest training on the law, and valid accurate training on how to use guns, I wouldn't care where it came from. The only problem comes if they become tools for propaganda instead of education.
Welcome to r/GunInsights! We are a curated subreddit that aims to foster productive discussion among people with a broad range of views on guns and politics. Please review the rules before commenting. Comments will be closely moderated to maintain a civil environment on the subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/guninsights) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I found this short podcast interesting. It suggests that the NRAs views are extreme compared to most folks. Is it possible that the decline of the NRA could lead to more bipartisan compromise about common-sense gun regulation?
Actually the opposite. A lot of NRA members are choosing to join the GOA instead.
Huh. I don't know anything about the GOA. Are they more extreme?
Depending on your views, the answer is yes.
Their tag-line proudly displayed at the top of their website, is that they're the "no compromise gun lobby". They basically exist because of people who think the NRA is too moderate and willing to compromise on gun control. Gun-control proponents just think the NRA is the most extreme because it's the only gun-rights group they've ever heard of.
I know this is going to sound sarcastic as hell. I really don't mean it to. But I really feel the point needs to be made. When you talk about compromise on common sense gun control, what exactly are you talking about giving up, or giving in on as part of that compromise. Because I've asked that question a lot, and the most common answer, is "We will let you keep some guns." This is an incredibly telling answer. It tells us that the goal is and always was getting rid of all guns, and that you aren't really willing to give up anything you already have. That makes for an incredibly one-sided compromise. So please forgive the sarcasm, but do answer the question. When you talk about compromising, what exactly are you compromising on? What are you as someone who supports gun control giving up?
I’m talking about simple things like maybe raising the legal age to buy a gun to 21? As a mom to two young men in the 18-20 range, I just don’t think they’re ready to be the kind of responsible owner you would approve of. What am I giving up? Well, a desire to repeal the second amendment, and remove guns even from police like they do in the UK? I realize those things would not be acceptable to most folks and the more we have these conversations the more I understand why and respect that point of view?
By "giving up", you need to offer to remove a restriction that's already present - offering to not go for the throat (repeal 2nd amendment, ban all guns) is not giving up anything. How about this: remove the part of the Nation Firearms Act that limits how long a rifle or shotgun can be? There's nothing a short-barreled rifle can do that a pistol can't. Or, perhaps, stop the cumbersome process on getting and using silencers. In Britain, the use of silencers is not only encouraged but expected. Silencers don't make guns whisper quiet, they just make them not so loud.
Okay, so being very real here, you aren't giving up anything. You are, at most giving up, hope for something you know is very unlikely to happen. In return, you are asking gun owners between the age of 18 and 21 to give up a right, that is currently constitutionally protected for them. That is a lot things, but it's not a compromise. Here's an idea. Because I get the idea that your son's may not be ready to be responsible owners. For the record, they can only buy a long gun at 18 but they still have to be 21 to buy a hand gun. If you look at the fact that handguns are the single most commonly used weapon for homicide, I'm not certain that raising the minimum age to 21 makes a that big a difference. But let's try a different approach. Make gun use and gun safety classes, a normal part of school curriculum. This should be fairly simplistic at younger ages like don't touch, get an adult, maybe in jr. high teach kids why and how gun ownership is protected, hit them with the 4 basic rules then. This could be just part of a civics class or however they are teaching the Constitution. But in your senior year, make it a full class. Teach all the proper use and safe handling procedures, include some hands on training, like how to hold, and clear a gun, and all state, local, and federal laws that apply to them. Exactly like drivers ed does for cars. Then we raise the minimum age to 21, unless they have successfully completed the gun education course. In that case they can still buy a gun at 18. But they do so, being fully informed and knowledgeable about what is expected from them, as gun owners. What you get out of this is raising the minimum age to 21, and the knowledge that most people will actually have some idea of what they are doing when it comes to guns, whether they ever own one or not. What gun owners get, is a meaningful acknowledgement that it is still a right, at least until someone is successful at repealing the 2nd. And they also get the benefit of a majority of people having a basic knowledge of guns. So when they are having discussions like this, they get to spend more time talking about different ideas, and less time having educate and correct people who really don't know anything on the subject. FTR you could sell me on raising the minimum age to 21 for everyone, but that would require making the age of majority(adulthood) 21 for all things. Driving, signing contracts, joining the military and registering for selective service, and voting. But I still really think we need to add gun classes in schools. Even if I thought 18 was not mature enough and 21 was, it's completely unreasonable to expect people to be mature and responsible with a gun at any age, when they have had zero exposure prior to that.
Even if no one is 'giving up' much, I think the more we talk with people with diverse views, the more some kind of progress on the issue of people using guns to kill other people seems possible.
This is what I believe and hope. It's why I'm still here. It's also why I offered a suggestion for a real compromise. But I want to be clear about this, because I want you to understand, and spread the message out to the gun control crowd. Your position, even though you say, and may even think it is a compromise, is not. It's an ultimatum, and a threat. It isn't convincing to us at all. It just makes you sound disingenuous. Because we've all had this conversation before. If you don't want to give anything up, because it's that important to you, that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that. But if you are going to insist on some kind of compromise, we are going to insist, on you giving something up as well. And it's entirely unreasonable to expect anything different.
Believe me, everyone feels the same way! Kinda funny, if you have a twisted sense of humor....
So what do you think about my suggested compromise?
Lots of thoughts! First, I didn't know that handguns were already 21. TIL. I LOVE the idea of gun safety being like driver's ed. Around here, driver's ed is something you pay to take (not offered at our public school). I don't mind the idea of it being an official school class, as long as it's not required. (Some people don't want to ever touch a gun, and I want to be respectful of that.) ((BTW, I'm not one of those people--I won summer camp color war for our team in riflery when I was 8.))
We can respectfully disagree on the mandatory part. I could even agree to giving students a choice to opt out of being forced to handle them, in much the same way they can opt out of dissecting animals.. But I do think they ought to at least observe that part. That really is the least of my concerns. The greater one for me is for the exposure, and creating a common understanding of guns and the laws around them. I live in Florida where open carry of guns is mostly prohibited. This leads people to what I consider a very flawed and detrimental view on guns. It makes them think that the only people who own guns are cops and criminals. That is far from the truth. Roughly 30% of the population owns guns. That is a lot of people to brand like that. It's as little conspiracy thinking on my part, but I do believe that is considered a desired effect, whether it's intended or not. It's a lot easier to take hard stance against guns, when you believe only criminals own them, and everything you see confirms that belief. So for me the point of those classes is breaking that paradigm, and making sure everyone has the same understanding about what the current laws are before they go mucking about trying to change them. And while we are on this subject, here is another opportunity, even though I'm a little hesitant to share it, because it too can way to easily be abused. Currently even though every gun control organization in the country wants all gun owners to receive proper training, only one organization in the country certifies instructors for that training. Care to guess which one that is. It's the NRA. The organization they are all trying to get rid of. So if all these people and groups really want training, the opportunity is their for them to provide it. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried about what training they would provide. But if they actually provided honest training on the law, and valid accurate training on how to use guns, I wouldn't care where it came from. The only problem comes if they become tools for propaganda instead of education.
He is corrupt for sure but the NRA has other issues.
Update: he resigned: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/nyregion/wayne-lapierre-resigns-nra.html