The Political Cost of Bigotry

[jazzhound]

During the relatively brief time I've been hanging out in The Gungeon I've noticed that the pro-control members of the forum remain oddly silent on a number of issues. Among these "silences", the one that strikes me as most conspicuous is (not surprisingly) the one I perceive to be the most injurious --- the fact that errant gun "control" policy has seriously damaged the Democratic Party in the past, damages it currently..........and will continue to cause damage until we demonstrate the same respect for the science of criminology that we afford other branches of scientific endeavor. It's been my perception that many progressives have such an ingrained contempt for firearms that it's beyond their comprehension that other progressives may be emotionally invested in the gun "control" issue not for fear that their guns will be confiscated, but rather out of concern about how bad laws have undermined the Democratic agenda.

The following is an excerpt from the Don Kates article "Gun Control --- A Realistic Assessment". I'll follow the quote with a link to the entire treatise.


The Political Cost of Bigotry

As important as the issue of bigotry is that this incessant vilification of gun owners precludes reasonable compromise over gun laws. The gun lobby press faithfully reports the philippics, and reprints the most vituperative anti-gun cartoons, to inflame its readers.{35} Why would the gun lobby actually pay royalties to Herblock, Oliphant etc. for their anti-gun cartoons? Because the gun lobby's purposes are best served by convincing gun owners they are a hated minority. There can be no greater incentive for monetary contributions to the gun lobby and fanatic hatred of gun law proposals, no matter how apparently reasonable.

Gun owners are convinced (in part, by bitter experience) that gun laws will be invidiously administered and unfairly enforced; and, just as important, that gun owners are anathema to persons and groups like the ACLU to whom other American can look for help against mistreatment at the hands of the state.{36} So gun owners hysterically oppose controls substantially similar to ones they readily accept for cars and prescription medicines. This is only natural, given the rancor with which controls are advocated and the purposes avowed by their more extreme advocates. Would driver licensing and automobile registration have been adopted if they had been advocated on the basis that having a car is evidence of moral, intellectual or sexual incapacity -- or that the desired end is to progressively increase regulation until cars are unavailable to all but the military and the police? Would not diabetics and others with chronic illness hysterically oppose the prescription system if doctors were under constant pressure from church groups and editorialists denouncing medication as immoral? Do not gay rights activists vehemently oppose policies (however apparently reasonable), they see as motivated by enmity to gays and likely to be administered in that spirit of enmity?

Two clarifications are in order here: 1) I recognize that cars, guns and medicines are different commodities that may require very different policy responses. My point is only that no policy, however rational in the abstract, can succeed if those it regulates see it as motivated by hatred, contempt and denial that they have any legitimate interests to be considered. 2) I also recognize that gun owners respond to anti-gun attacks no less hatefully. But there is a crucial difference: gun owners are not seeking to make their enemies own guns. In contrast, what control advocates do by heaping contempt on gun owners is forever alienate those whose compliance is indispensable if gun laws are to work. However satisfying it may be to anti-gun crusaders to portray gun owners as "demented and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose concept of fun is to rain death upon innocent creatures both human and otherwise", the result is catastrophically counter-productive to the cause of gun control.


http://catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-control.html

[msongs]

1. guns are ok it's gun owners that are the problem :-) nt

[PavePusher]

2. Gun restrictions are O.K. (err, no, actually), it's the gun restrictors that are the problem.

(Sort of) fixed that for you. 8-)

[shedevil69taz]

3. With one simple comment

you have perfectly illustrated the point made by the OP.

[jazzhound]

4. Pretty unbelievable eh?

Only took eight minutes!

[Katya Mullethov]

9. Been goin on forever

It aint the dope and it aint the guns .

They hate you . No boots and braces , but it's the same bad attitude.

[slackmaster]

8. Nice job of illustrating the OP's point, msongs

:crazy:

[shadowrider]

10. Here, I fixed it for you

guns are ok it's gun owners THUGS, CARRYING ILLEGAL WEAPONS ILLEGALLY, who willingly shoot anywhere, anytime, at anyone that are the problem.

Responsible gun owners are NOT the problem.

[Chulanowa]

15. This old fallacy again...

"Only people who have their guns illegally are a problem!"

The old "No True Scotsman" thing, you know? You - and so many others are pretending that only the most extreme example (who are always "thugs" with all the fine connotations that carries) counts as a problem, but that this extreme example, by always owning its guns "illegally" (documentation?) does not count towards the consideration of gun problems.

Of course, I suppose all those teabaggers waving their rifles along with "water the tree of liberty" signs are all such illegall, thuggish, trigger-happy criminals, then?

...No. Well, at least, they're not criminals. Ted Nugent, wanting to blow Obama and Clinton away? Also not a criminal. There's any number of examples that deflates your "every gun owner is a saint" fallacy.

[X_Digger]

16. Here's some homework for you..

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

What differentiates criminals and violent psychopaths from ordinary people is not their experiencing hatred or rage, but the ease with which those emotions are prompted and the acts to which they give rise. Killers exhibit an absence of impulse control and a seemingly inexplicable (to ordinary people) propensity to explode into extreme violence over the most trifling matters. Ordinary people virtually never kill, while the kind of people who murder often do so over things so trivial that we are left aghast not only at the fact of killing but at the inconsequential grievance that engendered it.27 The triviality of motive further confirms the extreme deviance of murderers.

To reiterate, the claim of gun prohibition advocates that most murderers are ordinary people is preposterous, devoid of even a shred of supporting evidence.

<snip>

MASSACHUSETTS: “Some 95% of homicide offenders . . . {in a Kennedy School study had been} arraigned at least once in Massachusetts courts before they . . . . On average . . . homicide offenders had been arraigned for 9 prior offenses.22

ATLANTA: Eighty percent of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had previously been arrested at least once for a drug offense; and 70% had three or more prior drug arrests—in addition to all their arrests for other crimes.23

DELAWARE: Reporting on shootings, including many in which victims had only been wounded rather than killed, 80% of shooters had arrest records going all the way back to their juvenile years; 57% had been charged at least twice with drug offenses.24

NEW YORK CITY: A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders in that city over the years 2003-2005 found “ore than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records . . . .”25

ILLINOIS: Over the years 1991-2000, the great majority of murderers had prior felony records.26

[Chulanowa]

22. Awesome

Did you happen to notice that your quoted article cites absolutely no works on psychology? If you're going to make a claim that "there isn't a shred of supporting evidence" for a claim, you'd best be able to actually back your own statement up. Rather this article references back to other pro-gun editorials, a few studies on crime-rates, and some "tough on crime" editorials. Maybe one of those actually sites some science behind the claim that - essentially - evil is genetic. I kind of doubt it, though.

However, you're missing my point.

The point is that the poster I was responding to is engaging in a "no true scotsman" fallacy. No REAL gun owner ever does anything bad with their guns! Only those people, those thugs, those criminals, those THEM do anything bad, ever, they're not one of us, and they never were, because we're saints!

No real American believes in evolution!
No real Christian would ever hurt anyone!
No real black person would vote Republican!
No real gun owner is irresponsible or criminal!
No real liberal would ever vote for Obama!

See how this goes?

[shadowrider]

24. Please do me a favor and show me where I said "No REAL gun owner ever does anything bad"

I didn't say that. I said thugs account for very large percentage of murders committed.

I never said ALL gun owners are saints. On the contrary, CCW holders have had their permits revoked for one reason or another. Not often, but it does happen.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

[Chulanowa]

26. Please, go look at your post

Gun owners aren't the problem.

Only thugs carrying illegal weapons illegally and shooting everything they see are a problem!

You make a clear difference between gun owners (who are not the problem!) and "thugs who blahblah" (who are the only problem!) Based on the contect and statement you made, clearly there can never be any overlap between "gun owners" and "thugs"

Ergo, the no true sctosman fallacy - "No REAL gun owner would ever do anything wrong with his gun!"

I'm not putting words in your mouth. In fact, you're putting words in your own mouth; you never once said that "thugs account for very large percentage" - you simply stated that "thugs" are the problem and "gun owners" aren't.

[shadowrider]

27. Show me where LEGAL gun owners ARE a problem

[Chulanowa]

28. I don't believe they are

I'm simply pointing out that it's silly for you - among others - to pretend that there are two classes of people ("thugs" and "gun owners") who absolutely never overlap. That IS the point your original statement is making, and I think it's idiotic.

Don't misconstrue my thinking you're saying something silly, for me being some rabidly anti-gun Bradyist. That's another common fallacy around here; "yer either fer me or agin me"

[X_Digger]

41. Oh noes!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=182557

[shadowrider]

18. So instead of thug what should we call them?

Scoundrels? Rascals? They're thugs pure and simple REGARDLESS the "connotation" that carries. Don't want to be called a thug, don't act like one.

[Chulanowa]

23. So what constitutes "acting like a thug"?

Like most pejoratives, my thug is probably different from your thug.

[SteveM]

40. Your straw is so amateurish. "every gun owner is a saint:" your invention.

And you know it. You should really get down to your own prejudice and animosity, and quit inventing fallacies and using some crap sophistry to defeat them.

[SteveM]

11. You have made the OP's point. Precisely. Your's is the very font of prejudice.

Please note that estimates of the number of civilian gun-owners in the U.S. ranges upwards of 80,000,000 people. Are all these people "the problem?"

[SteveM]

39. As the OP was saying. nt

[X_Digger]

5. We often hear about 'reasonable compromise', yet..

.. what group has truly offered compromise?

Has the Brady bunch ever said, "We endorse relaxing 'X' restriction if we get 'Y'"? No?

Compromise is not "I'll only take half of what I want right now, and the rest later."

It's hard to meet in the middle when you're already standing on my toes.

[Callisto32]

6. Here's a compromise:

We can have a ban on shoulder things that go up if we lift the tax stamp from short barreled rifles.

[jazzhound]

13. On the subject of compromise

At one time or another each of the major pro-control groups has publicly stated that they favor total prohibition of personal firearms, and only ceased this practice when it became obvious that it was strategically foolish. A reasonable person has to ask themselves the following question: If in fact the true intent of the pro-control groups lines up with their stated intents (moderate, reasonable controls) why haven't they very publicly renounced prohibition as their ultimate goal? Failure to do so is a behaviour against self-interest since if forces gun-rights advocates to dig in and oppose modest controls with the perception that they represent an incremental strategy with the ultimate goal of complete prohibition. The result of this "strategy" is a stalemate (at best) and gains for the pro-rights movement at worst. Given the trend toward liberalization of gun laws this approach is clearly backfiring.

[Euromutt]

7. Dang, the piece deals with damn near every canard we see in here

Frequently on a daily basis. Evidently, not much has changed in the intervening twenty years.

I'm not so sure about the desirability of a number of his suggestions for more effective gun control, but I'll give him credit for at least trying to come up with some workable ideas.

[spin]

12. K&R Great post. (n/t)

[Hoopla Phil]

14. Great article!!!! K and R

[onehandle]

17. I think most Hummer drives are inherently assholes.

Their 'interest' in this particular consumer item suggests it.

[jazzhound]

19. So if you don't *like* or *see the utility* of a particular consumer item

that automatically means that those who do are assholes?

Why does this come as no surprise............

[onehandle]

20. I didn't say anything about the utility or my personal 'like' of this consumer item. nt

[jazzhound]

30. Right.........at least you're consistent.

Your lack of guts and disingenuous style drive you to imply rather than say outright.

[proteus_lives]

21. Ahh, nohandle chimes in.

Notice how he never backs it up?

He's working hard to get around the civility rules though, :rofl:.

[Chulanowa]

25. I just have to laugh

Proteus, seriously? you're saying this? C'mon now... :rofl:

[proteus_lives]

29. You're obviously unfamiliar with nohandle's work.

He's very laughable.

You two would get along fabulously.

[Chulanowa]

33. You're right; But I AM familiar with yours

You shouldn't be saying those sort of things about kettles!

[proteus_lives]

34. You would like nohandle.

You two practically live in the same glass house.

[Chulanowa]

35. Keep going, keep going

It's funny.

[proteus_lives]

36. Not as funny as you Chumbawamba.

;-)

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Katya Mullethov]

32. Hummers or Escalades ?

Choose wisely .

[jazzhound]

37. kicked n/t

[jazzhound]

38. kick NT

[jazzhound]

42. kick NT

[Hoopla Phil]

43. Great post. Thank you for taking the time to write and post this.

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. K&R. I've yet to hear how insulting people will bring them around to our side

Perhaps those saying nasty things about gun owners believe that making implacable enemies is in some way a good thing in electoral

politics.