Why is the firearms issue being treated as a zero sum game?

[TrogL]

Hi. I'm TrogL and I'm an alcoholic. I attend AA meetings. I chair AA meetings. I am not a spokesperson for AA.

I have read and heard considerable criticism of AA. I do not want to discuss that here. Most of it consists of "AA does not have 100% success rate therefore it's useless". I know we don't have anywhere's near that kind of success. I've watched people come and go. Hell, it's right in "How it works" that's read at every meeting. I'm satisfied with whomever manages to get any sort of sobriety.

So why does gun control, psychological testing, school security etc. have to be a zero sum game? If one of them or a combination reduces gun violence why not attempt it?

[Initech]

1. Have you ever tried arguing with 2A absolutionists? It's like talking to a brick wall.

Literally anything you suggest, their answer almost immediately goes to "shall not be infringed!!!!!!!!". Fucking seriously, there has got to a middle ground somewhere. We, as a country, cannot keep doing what we are doing. I've been comparing what we are going through to the plot of the recent flick "Don't Look Up", except replace a giant asteroid with guns. Even the slightest attempt to change what we are doing is meant with staunch opposition. It is not working. But if you suggest even the slightest changes to what it takes to purchase an assault rifle, they go berserk. It is literally a cult.

[Straw Man]

9. The same could be said of gun-ban absolutists.

Don't expect to find a middle ground when you're characterizing your opposition as "a brick wall" and "a cult."

[MrsCoffee]

12. Oh ffs.

Fuck the cult. Fuck their feelings. Fuck their bullshit interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Fuck all the pushback on common sense.

I’m gonna puke I’m so sick of hearing that some middle ground must be found with people who have so little regard for human life.

Fuck them.

[North Shore Chicago]

13. 5

[NutmegYankee]

16. While I'm sure that opinion makes you feel righteous, it achieves nothing.

We needs to address the fears and concerns of both sides to get a real compromise that can fix this. Otherwise we'll be stuck in this limbo for decades to come.

[MrsCoffee]

17. Why would I want to address the fears and concerns of terrorists?

I'm sorry. At this point, that's exactly how I see them.

We've been stuck in this limbo because there is a narrative that we should "listen to both sides". NO. Fuck that. Fuck that cult and their gun fetish. I'm tired of seeing little kids blown to pieces. Gun deaths have become the number one cause of death for humans under twenty in this country.


FUCK THAT NOISE.


I am beyond pissed off at this point.


Sorry, not sorry.

[NutmegYankee]

18. Have you considered that they feel the same about you?

It's fun to demonize the enemy, but digging trenches doesn't end the war and save lives. We can dig in all we want, but the deaths will go on.

I'm equally frustrated, but I do understand that fear is driving the opposition. We are going up against decades of cultural conditioning that guns are equal to power in Men's hands. The opposition see gun control as a direct attack on their worthiness as men. Until we find a way to assuage that fear, we're going to be in this trench war stalemate.

[MrsCoffee]

20. I know how they feel about me and I don't care.

I am going to stand firmly on the side of FUCK THEM and their blood thirsty bullshit. They aren't afraid. They embrace the violence and the gore.

You don't change the culture by pretending they got a point. I don't need to appease or mollify them in any way shape or form.

[Tumbulu]

25. I agree with you- they want military weapons

for purposes of insurrection and it is time to call them on it.

Regular gun people do not defend automatic weapons. Only the crazed gun nuts. And it is this group that must be utterly disabused of their power and influence.

Regular people who keep a firearm for self defense or on their farms/ranches for putting livestock down humanely, etc are not the people demanding assault style weapons.

I want them all out of circulation and no ammo readily available for them, even if they cannot be rounded up.

No appeasing these monsters who have shown what they want to do to us.

Civility is over.

[Straw Man]

27. Who are "they"?

Regular gun people do not defend automatic weapons. Only the crazed gun nuts. And it is this group that must be utterly disabused of their power and influence.

How do you define "regular gun people"? There is a wide spectrum of opinion among gun owners and even among gun-rights proponents. If "regular gun people do not defend automatic weapons," why are semi-automatic rifles, from the Ruger 10/22 plinker to the AR-15, the most popular rifles in America?

Casting your political opposition as a monstrous, monolithic caricature only exacerbates the problem. It further radicalizes the gun culture and moves any possible solutions further and further into a nebulous future.

Good luck with that.

[MrsCoffee]

32. Yeah well how the fuck is the current status quo working out for you?

Good luck with that.

[Straw Man]

33. Your rhetoric does nothing but perpetuate the status quo.

Extreme positions pulling against each other yield deadlock. Can you not see that?

[MrsCoffee]

35. Learn the difference between radicalism and extremism.

[Straw Man]

38. For all practical purposes, they are the same thing.

There are the opposite of moderation and compromise. If you have a meaningful distinction to draw, please draw it.

[Tumbulu]

40. Extremism is demanding the right to buy military weapons

and their ammo. That is extreme.

[Straw Man]

42. That's an example, not a definition.

And a flawed one at that.

MrsCoffee posited a difference between extremism and radicalism. I asked for an explanation of that difference. Perhaps one of you would like to give that a shot.

[brooklynite]

37. The current status quo supports the gun owners...

Is is better to push for incremental change and get it, or to demand absolute change and fail?

[Tumbulu]

39. Well, maybe you should re read my post.

You seem to be the one making sweeping generalizations.

The only people in our rural area who support the idea of allowing military weapons are the insurrectionists sorts.

I don’t know where you live.

[Straw Man]

41. I did. You're still wrong.

I live in a majority-Democratic state in the northeast. I don't know what you call "military weapons," but I know a lot of people who own semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and pistol grips, and they would like to continue to own them. None of them are insurrectionists. Some of them are even Democrats. Imagine that.

[Tumbulu]

44. You appear to be unnecessarily confrontational, so please take a step back

Last edited Mon Jun 6, 2022, 01:18 AM - Edit history (2)

What is true for where you live is not true for where I live.

This is a discussion board, we share insights and opinions. What I am writing is genuine for my area.

So, please refrain from such aggressive language.

[Straw Man]

45. Let me remind you that you said this:

No appeasing these monsters who have shown what they want to do to us.

Civility is over.

And you're calling me confrontational and aggressive? The irony is rich.

[MrsCoffee]

47. We wish to confront the extremists, you seem to want to confront us.

You also seem to be personally insulted that we think the extremists are monsters who don’t deserve a seat at the table.

You certainly aren’t changing any minds or winning anyone over by painting those of us who are sick of the bullet ridden bodies of babies and blood splattered halls of our schools and public spaces as the extremists.

So good luck with that.

[Straw Man]

53. Again I ask: Who are the extremists?

Gun owners in general? Owners of semi-automatic rifles? Anyone who opposes additional gun control?

You're creating a huge, vague straw man and turning a flamethrower of righteous hatred on it. This is not in any way productive. Your rhetoric is extremist.

The only monsters are the people who carry out these heinous acts. Everything else is a policy debate.

[Tumbulu]

49. So, those standing there, threatening us all

with weapons of war, are asking for civility?

That the rhetoric from those holding the weapons mimics the stance is not surprising.

What will surprise is what happens when the sleeping giant awakens.

[Straw Man]

52. Your brush is extremely broad.

A tiny percentage of gun owners are threatening anybody.

I have been nothing but civil. Nowhere have I threatened anyone with anything.

What will happen when the "sleeping giant" awakes?

[hunter]

19. Gun fetishes are disgusting.

That's where I aim my wrath.

I've got absolutely nothing against the utilitarian uses of guns.

Hunting for food isn't any less ethical than buying meat at the grocery store so long as it's carefully regulated.

Trophy hunters are disgusting.

Wannabe warriors are disgusting.

I don't think most of our police have the skills or the temperament to use guns appropriately. I've seen them shoot people who weren't shooting back, and people who didn't even have guns.

Most gun fetishists vastly overestimate the value of guns for self defense. One of my great grandmas, who was a suburb hunter and outdoors person all around, would say things like, "If I wanted you dead I'd poison your coffee." She had ZERO tolerance for fools with guns, especially the incompetent city yokels who invaded her territory every hunting season with their ridiculously expensive gear seeking to prove their manliness. And this was before the modern idiocy of military style rifles and the like.

Gun fetishists need to crawl back to their closets. Most U.S.A. citizens don't care enough about guns to bother owning one, and support much stricter regulation of guns. It's a crime that violent and ignorant people, their brains damaged by lead and insecticides and television, enjoy more political representation than saner folk.

Oh, and the second amendment is bullshit. It's not like our Constitution wasn't full of bullshit when it was written, things like the 3/5 person compromise, that were meant to appease horrible white men who kept others as property -- as slaves, wage slaves, even their own wives and children.

I'm not going to stop mocking gun fetishists, nor will I compromise with them. They are wrong, just like racism is wrong, hatred of LGBTQ people is wrong, etc..

[crickets]

22. Preach. You are not alone.

Also, aren't grandmothers the best? There's a point when they've seen and heard it all and just speak their minds without a care in the world. Love it.

[Tumbulu]

26. Excellent! Agree 1000x's!!!!!!

[Straw Man]

28. Pardon me, but ...

... your classism is showing. And it's as ugly as it is counterproductive.

[hunter]

30. My "classism?" What is that?

You don't know me at all.

I hope you don't think gun fetishists should be a protected class.

There are a lot of destructive cultural identities in the U.S.A.. My wife and I live in a place with a violent gang culture. Guns are a big part of that culture. Should that gun culture be respected?

One can respect all people as human beings but one need not respect every aspect of the cultures they embrace.

[Straw Man]

34. Here it is.

It's a crime that violent and ignorant people, their brains damaged by lead and insecticides and television, enjoy more political representation than saner folk.

Your contempt for the rural poor is manifest. Can you not see that?

[hunter]

36. Must be why my wife and I have always lived and worked in rough U.S.A....

... both "urban" in the pejorative racist white Republican sense, and "rural" in pejorative affluent white tech-boy Libertarian sense.

Maybe that makes me feel superior, I don't know.

Maybe my beat up old U.S.A. pickup truck, Catahoula dog sleeping on my foot as I write this, decades lapsed hunting skills, and knife scar on my arm acquired in a fight makes me a poser of some kind.

Actually, I am a poser. My basic nature is "crazy homeless guy." The only reason I've avoided that lifestyle for about 90% of my adult life now is that it's so damned boring. I hated living in my broken down car even though I was really good at it.

And deeper down I don't like being the harmless comic relief when I'm riding in the back of a cop car or locked up in a psych ward. (Those are the basis of some of my funniest stories, however... Hunter really is crazy.)

I have stories about gun violence I don't tell here on DU. PTSD sorts of stories. I get called to jury duty every few years, as a matter of formality, but it's unlikely I'll ever serve on a jury. I've seen too much. They don't even ask anymore.

The lead/insecticide/television stuff is reality. And terrifying.

[SYFROYH]

2. Its interesting that you bring up a zero sum game.

Its true that gun restriction is viewed as a loss by gun rights folks and lessening restrictions is viewed as a loss to gun control advocates.

In mediations we try to reframe these kind of arguments so that its not a zero sum game.

I wonder if it can be done

Ive tried to make the xase that in order to get some gun control that is effective that we give up on some gun control that probably doesnt impact gun violence.

Its hard to get either side to budge.

[haele]

5. Typically, a gun safety argument will work. Heller actually allows for safety based regulations.

However, absolutists will still use the infamous Joe the Plumber reasoning "your dead kids don't mean you can take away my right to bear whatever arms I can".
Well-regulated doesn't enter their definition of the 2nd Amendment at all.
They all want to play John Wayne or Clint Eastwood, and will hysterically attack anyone who points out they're living in an unsustainable fantasy pushed by Gun Manufacturers and their fellow chaos mongering travellers to rake in Disney level money.

Haele

[Straw Man]

8. I have a suggestion for avoiding the zero-sum trap.

Try to avoid the "melt 'em all down" rhetoric. It does nothing except confirm in gun owners' minds the notion that they must resist every little step toward restricting gun ownership, even the ones that are minimally invasive and might actually save lives. If a total ban on firearms ownership is truly your goal, don't be surprised when gun-rights people are absolutely intransigent in the face of even the mildest limitations.

The most logical thing that has been proposed in the wake of the Uvalde tragedy is raising the age for semi-auto rifle ownership to 21. That might even get some traction among 2nd Amendment die-hards, as long as it isn't accompanied by any "and this is just the beginning" pronouncements.

[BootinUp]

3. There are 2 acquaintances of mine, men like me,

and about my age, that I had recent conversations with about gun control. They are both against any new gun regulation. I forcefully rejected their philosophy. I want to recommend more people do the same. And that includes using a form of your question above.

[Fla_Democrat]

4. This will be fun

And, I think in the end, you will have your answer.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. We are giving them the benefit of the doubt, which is...

our first mistake. We're past the point where we ahould just tell them to shut up and melt down their guns.

Yes, know you can buy a tank, but have fun buying spare parts, dealing with tbe plugged main gun, and the background check fo make sure you aren't planning a revolution or storming city hall. Basically, you can't easily buy anything designed to blow people into little bits. Targets, meat, raccoons and wild pigs are about it. Neighbors are a no-no.

Anything made to look like a military arm should get the sarcssm it deserves. Any individual attempting to use such a penile substitute should be on the receiving end of appropriate hilarity.

[Rhiannon12866]

7. Interesting comparison.

I'm Rhiannon and I'm in AA as well. I also chair meetings, give rides, make cookies, order coins, whatever helps. But I'm not a spokesperson for AA, either - though I'll do anything I can to support anyone who shows up. And I know that it hasn't worked for everybody. I've been to too many funerals.

But I agree with you, we need to try everything, it's definitely worth the effort to attempt to save lives. What I don't understand is the resistance from those who have experienced losses - Senator Murphy has been dedicated to gun control since Sandy Hook happened in his congressional district 10 years ago.

Maybe it takes time - it takes some people awhile after finding AA, including me. But those who I've seen who are the most ready to embrace AA are those who have suffered a trauma, usually legal trouble. And considering the terrible trauma recently suffered by those in Texas, one would think that they'd be ready to try anything to prevent it from happening again - I'm looking at you Abbott, Cruz and Cornyn. But then there were terrible deaths during the power failure in their state last winter - and they didn't care enough to make the necessary changes after that, either.

[forthemiddle]

10. Exactly! Compromise isn't a dirty word!

The House passed legislation that they KNEW wouldn’t pass the Senate, but what we could do is take that piece of legislation to some of the more moderate Senators and say which part can you get on board with, and start from there.
I know many got burned last year with the scaled down infrastructure bill, but I say take what little we can get.
If we insist on the entire thing, we will get nothing, and that is a fact!

[kacekwl]

15. You have to start

with the entire thing. If the starting point is already giving up on your goal you will end up in the negative. Going from assault weapons ban to raising the age 3 years in the same sentence is foolish. You've already gave 95% away.

[Straw Man]

43. Your math is flawed.

If you "gave 95% away," you would have 5%. You would not be in the negative. You would be 1/20th of the way to your goal.

If you start with the "whole thing," you will get nothing. You will meet fanatical opposition and absolute intransigence. You will have lost the uncommitted middle, which I assure you does exist. I've met them and talked to them.

Raising the age to 21 and requiring licensing for all semi-auto firearms would go a long way toward addressing the problem. Or you could just let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and get nowhere.

[MrsCoffee]

48. Give away 95% to the terrorists.

Are you kidding me?

Guns are the leading cause of death of humans up to the age of 19 in this country. You don’t just give away 95% when it’s the lives of babies we are talking about. That’s just sick.

God I wish they would go back to only allowing this garbage in the gungeon.

[Straw Man]

54. Apparently you would rather have nothing than 5% of something.

So ideological purity trumps actual progress toward saving lives? Is that what you're trying to say? I offered several achievable and effective policy goals, and all you can say is "Are you kidding me?" No. I'm not kidding you. Do you want to improve the situation or not?

Feel free to complain to the admins. Maybe you can get me banned. But I'm not the one calling other people's opinions "garbage" and "sick."

[Novara]

11. I'm also in recovery ...

... and AA taught me how to be a better person than I was. And so it's often so hard for me to understand how people can be so awful to each other, so arrogant, so hateful, so selfish.

The reason why it is treated as a zero sum game is because every single thing is a zero sum game to republicans. If we expand rights to minorities, women, immigrants, etc., why, it must mean that we're taking something from them. THAT'S HOW THEY THINK. Lifting all boats means sinking theirs. They are not generous by nature; they are purely selfish, so they can't "give" an inch. Ever. Take abortion, for example. They want to ban it under every and all circumstances. No middle ground. They see food stamps as something taken FROM them. It's idiotic. No grey areas. They're too simple to understand any grey area.

Somehow they believe it compromises THEM to compromise (when it really does the opposite).

I think they are just not smart and can't conceive of a middle ground in anything. It's simpler to see black and white. You don't have to think. So naturally, they can't conceive of smarter gun restrictions, like no assault weapons (no one needs them), or raising the age limit. They automatically assume that even a narrow, specific assault weapons ban means no guns for anyone, ever. They are too stupid to see nuance and a middle ground.

Anyway, nice to meet another person in recovery!

[GoCubsGo]

14. The gun cult believes that chipping away at their ability to have

unfettered access to guns will eventually lead to losing all access. They look at it as a domino effect, where background checks lead red flag laws, lead to an assault weapons ban, which leads to the ban of some other weapon, then to another, and another, until all guns are banned and the Second Amendment is repealed. This is why they dig in to fight off every attempt at gun control, and the rest of us are left with nothing. They, of course, own half the Senate, where any common sense gun legislation goes to die.

[DonCoquixote]

21. I will say this

If the NRA trotting about eddie eagle to schools telling them not to mess with the guns in daddy;'s locker saves a life, great. But the reason this is about 70/30 is because the gun lovers often defend guns even in situations where they are misused, such as cops shooting unarmed black men, or in situations beyond reasonable care (does an 18 year old NEED an ar -15 when they cannot even buy a beer?)

[Fla_Democrat]

23. So, get your answer?

Understand it now?

[TrogL]

24. Yeah, it's a multi variant problem

To the gun crowd it is a zero sum game, a "from my cold, dead hands" thing with a lot of slippery slope thrown in.

The whole psychological thing is buried under the weight of the US health care system. Who's gonna pay for it.

The rest is tied up in the morass of the US political system: Constitutional amendments, fillinusters, States' rights...the list goes on.

[Fla_Democrat]

29. If that's what you took from this

If that's you take, ok. Glad you got your answer.

[kcr]

51. Certainly living up to your sig line

[Oneironaut]

31. It's a bad faith attempt to silence the debate, and is the same as saying, "There's nothing we can

do.”

[Dorian Gray]

46. Thanks for your perspective

it's a good one.

I find with any great cultural shift, you need to lean into it gently. Like you say, compromise. It shouldn't be zero-sum. When we make gains, and deaths decrease, we can lean in more.

Changing minds and hearts should be our goal. While it feels righteous to ban everything here, I generally want a cultural shift and acceptance. It's not about punishing people who have guns.

[iemanja]

50. Case in point

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216768178