I would like to spend more time sensibly debating gun control and general measures for reducing gun violence. I have made a few attempts in recent weeks to start doing so by publicly talking about my angst on the subject and soliciting some comments.
Unfortunately those conversations didn’t go very well. Like so many of the other written dialogs I’ve seen on the web, they turned into pissing matches with both sides getting emotional about their positions, getting off topic and trying to talk circles around one another.
I’d like to make a serious attempt at breaking all of the issues down into manageable pieces, laying out the arguments for and against each discussion point, and try to at least ensure I’m clear on my position. It’s not so much my intention to influence others with this effort at the present time. Again it’s more about discovery.
I thought it would be interesting to begin to develop an outline or visual of some type, depicting all the typical arguments and discussion points. I don’t know if this outline will be useful for anyone but me, and I consider it a living document, but please feel free to check it out and comment.
My outline started out as nothing more than a list of terms I’ve brainstormed on. I’ll try to organize it a bit.
Perfectly Frank 
“Unfortunately those conversations didn’t go very well. Like so many of the other written dialogs I’ve seen on the web, they turned into pissing matches with both sides getting emotional about their positions, getting off topic and trying to talk circles around one another.”
Good Lord Frank, you come to the table with no knowledge of the subject, loaded talking points points that were intentionally insulting (if not by you, the pundits who Coined them) and some very poorly thought out blog posts, as well as lots of talk of “research” but little evidence besides that list you posted at the end, as well as apologies for poor form.
Meanwhile you got some discussion that was polite, informative and loaded with links to unbiased research to support our rebuttals, and you have the gall to call it a “pissing contest”?
I won’t lie, I look forward to seeing how you address the subjects on your list, but frankly (pun intended) I’m having a hard time giving you the benefit of the doubt given your consistent behavior.
LikeLike
I got discussion that was polite and unbiased? Can you send me a link to that? I missed it.
As far as my poorly thought out blog posts…
Luckily this is my blog and I can write in as much of a “stream of consciousness” sort of form as I’d like. If you don’t like the content, you can stop reading any time.
LikeLike
Unfortunately those conversations didn’t go very well.
Gee, you start off by saying you hate the NRA – and then insult thousands of people in that post and others. And you expect things to ‘go very well’ from there?
Ever hear of karma — what you put out you get?
. Like so many of the other written dialogs I’ve seen on the web, they turned into pissing matches with both sides getting emotional about their positions, getting off topic and trying to talk circles around one another.
Wow — Let’s see, you raised points, I answered them. You started dialog and then took it in several different directions — and when I tried to point out countervailing ideas — maybe such as firearms aren’t correlated to violence and we need to address other issues — you are saying it is talking in circles.
I offered to host a debate — my site, or link to yours — that still stands. Pick a subject, let’s define the debate and go from there — I’m willing to put a little structure into this effort. Are you?
How about we add to your list of brain stormed terms?
Liberty
Freedom
Rights
Limited Government
Constitution for the United States
State Constitutions.
Self Defense
Violence
Privacy
Tax Stamp
I’m with Weer’d on this — you started off with incendiary posts and my comments were the worst — and those comments were directed pointed at the insults you hurled so easily and often. As the old saying goes “Don’t start nothing, won’t be nothing.
Now, let’s get back to the point — debate? Yes or no.
My proposal — we take turns picking a single topic, limit the sub topics to 3 or 4 points.
Numbers, claims, etc have to be cited with links to source provided.
You host one here on your blog — maybe on a topic I pick, then I host one on my blog – topic you picked.
What do you say Champ want a shot at the title? (hope you are a fan of 80s action movies)
Bob S.
LikeLike
Frank,
One of the things I really would like to address is this:
I would like to spend more time sensibly debating gun control and general measures for reducing gun violence.
Why just gun violence?
According the the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the FBI
In 2011, an estimated 1,203,564 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 3.8 percent from the 2010 estimate.
When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2011 estimated violent crime total was 15.4 percent below the 2007 level and 15.5 percent below the 2002 level.
There were an estimated 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2011.
Aggravated assaults accounted for the highest number of violent crimes reported to law enforcement at 62.4 percent. Robbery comprised 29.4 percent of violent crimes, forcible rape accounted for 6.9 percent, and murder accounted for 1.2 percent of estimated violent crimes in 2011.
Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.7 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.3 percent of robberies, and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape.
Given the numbers — works out to about 8 to 12 percent of all violent crime — shouldn’t we focus on all of violent crimes?
Let’s say the impossible happens and we can eliminate all firearm related crime – the total would be a 10% reduction . That same effort if focused on all violent crime would, wouldn’t you agree, probably yield a higher level of reduction — even if it is only marginally higher — 15%?
Is it worth the legal fights, is it worth the restriction on our liberties to try to obtain an impossible goal of legislating away gun crimes?
And given the trend — see Walls of the City Graphics Matters — where more firearms, a relaxation of laws and more people carrying — has been accompanied by a reduction in crime, deaths and injuries — is it even feasible to try?
rom 2000 to 2012, the U.S. violent crime rate fell over 23 percent. Such an improvement in the social fabric would be cause enough for celebration. But the crime drop of the 2000s followed an even larger decline in the previous decade: 32 percent from 1993 to 2000. The 1990s crime drop (in both personal and property crime) was so sharp and so unexpected that by 2000, most criminologists were predicting that an uptick was all but inevitable. Instead, after a brief pause, the crime fall again picked up steam, extending the longest and steepest crime decrease since World War Two.
http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/28/violent-crime-us-declined-rapidly-happened/
Bob S. again
LikeLike
Because gun violence, suicides by gun, and accidental shootings are issues I want to concentrate on. That is my right. We have to pick our battles and these are “battles” I’m choosing.
Do I need more of a reason than that?
LikeLike
Frank,
No more reason is needed. My comment was to serve two points; one to point out the nature of your battle (a very small section of the total problem) and to highlight that you don’t want to reduce overall crime/violence/death with your proposals — just gun crimes/death/violence.
It is your right. — Please remember that phrase, I promise you will see it again :)
So — up for the debate?
LikeLike
Let me think about the debate offer Bob. I have homework to do, if I’m to “catch-up”‘ with you.
LikeLike