the proposed laws.
Too often we see the debate about guns turn into a shouting match, tossing of counter-numbers from skewed polls/data sets/etc, and personal attacks. We see people using the same word but with different meanings.
This does not let either side explain or explore the issue and come up with possible solutions or compromises.
I have spent most of my life around firearms: 24+ years in the military, raised on the family farm when not living on military bases, work as a Paramedic in Cleveland (for now). I have many family/friends/co-workers who own firearms. I am a self described liberal christian who volunteered for the Kucinich campaigns both Congressional (he was my Congressman) and president.
I have a foot in both worlds and have been exploring the non-soundbite rational for why gun owners oppose the proposed gun laws.
Part I talked about Universal Background Checks and National Registry. This time a Long look at what i call "nit-picky-ness" after the fold.
The Bard asked something along the lines of "what is in a name?" In the case of gun laws the two sides often use the same words to mean different things. This can cause much confusion and since both sides are saying the same thing but thinking different meanings, it turns into anger that they (the other side) just does not get it.
The first example of this is the words "Assault Weapon". Since a majority of posters on Daily Kos are self described Democrats, democrats, liberals, or Liberals, I bet you know how this plays out in the forums. The proposed law aims to do something that keeps "Assault Weapons" from being used in crime. A supporter of the proposed law says "there is no reason for a civilian to have a military Assault Weapon". A non-supporter then says "civilians don't have military Assault Weapons, that is against the law".
Then they get in some argument talking past each other about what an Assault Weapon is. This gets to the nit-picky-ness. The gun owner has a deeper knowledge of the differences between firearms than a non-gun owner. Makes sense, a comic book fan of GrimJack will know more about John Orstander and Tim Truman than someone who saw the movie "The Avengers".
This is where the gun owner starts to oppose laws that aim at stopping the use of firearms in crime. They focus on the fear gun owners have of losing what they currently own, and see any attempt to limit the tools of criminals as an attempt to limit them. They get nit-picky.
The gun control advocate uses the word "Assault Weapon" to mean any military looking rifle that has the ability to shoot rapidly from a detachable magazine. (we will get to magazine later), the classic example is the AR-15 rifle or the FN FAL rifle, as well as the AK-47/74/etc and SKS. When you see them, they look just like the rifles the military uses: M16/M4, FN LAR 50, AK-47, SKS. (the last two are the military versions that have the same name as the civilian versions) The difference between the civilian versions and military is that the military ones can choose to shoot several shots each trigger pull while the civilian versions are limited to one per pull.
Everything else is the same, size of the bullet, amount of powder in the cartage (another we will get to later) shape, materials, look. The gun owner says "see, we don't have Assault Weapons, you can't buy one". And they are 100% right. The non-gun owner says "we have seen Assault Weapons used to kill kids", and they are 100% right.
The issue is that the person who wants to reduce the number of deaths caused by guns is trying to do, is limit the access to the kind of weapon that is used. Makes sense, if the tool of choice was not accessible, the killer would not be able to use it. The gun owner does not want their firearm restricted or limited. Much of the reason is finical. A low end AR-15 will run you over $1,100 and can run over $3k. When a person spends that kind of money, often cash because few places will do loans and many credit cards won't allow gun sales, there is some attachment. (I know that the $1,500 beater car I paid cash for had a lot of value for me because it was a major investment of my earnings, when it got hit I was very upset.)
Another reason people are attached to their AR-15's is that they got into shooting after military service. They learned to shoot on the M-16. So they know how it feels when you aim it right, how to reload, fix jams, adjust sights, clean it, care for it, zero it, the whole 8.2 meters. So having a rifle that is almost just like the one they carried for years coming under "threat" of being taken away, hits a nerve.
So the reason that gun owners fight Assault Weapon laws is they fear the loss of their rifles and the investment they made in it. As such they will fight tooth and nail over every little thing to keep any law like this from passing.
The suggestion I have for what to do as a compromise: Stop calling them Assault Weapons. Don't use the words Assault Weapons. Call them "Military Style" or "Military Pattern" or better yet "Military Look-a-like". The last has the advantage of showing that you know they are not Military Rifles, the just look like Military Rifles. (and why would you need a look-a-like anything? To make up for some shortfall you have, which is why knock-off Rolexes still sell).
By talking about Military Look-a-Like Rifles, we address the real issue, people using them to kill large numbers of others. The gun owner is right, current laws defining "Assault Weapons" does so by talking about cosmetic features and not about the function. A heat shield made of plastic is not more deadly than one made of wood, but it is often what makes the difference in a rifle being called an Assault Weapon under the law.
Military Look-a-like rifles function the same as regular semi-automatic rifles in the same caliber, but for some reason - psychologists, this would be good to figure out - non-Military Look-a-like rifles are not used in mass killings. Same bullet, same rate of fire, same number of bullets, same quick reload, but they look like regular hunting rifles not Military ones.
This gets past the nit-picky-ness and directly to the issue, Military Look-a-like rifles tend to be involved in mass killings. So lets make the Military Look-a-like features the target of the laws. Prohibit features on a rifle that makes it look like a military issued weapon. Focus on the traits that make it desirable for the mass shooter, its scary look. (other wise they would have used another kind of rifle, the Newtown school shooter took his mom's AR-15 over several other more powerful rifles that could have held as many rounds)
This could also allow the law to be retro-active and require all existing Military Look-a-like rifles to have the cosmetic features that make them look like Military rifles removed. This would be a compromise in that the law is not arbitrarily banning some guns because of cosmetic features but rather banning the cosmetic features that make the gun attractive to mass killers. It would not be taking away existing guns, or banning the gun at all, just the cosmetic features mass killers like.
Another "nit-pick" is the word "clip". Again the proposed law aims to limit the number of bullets that can be carried in an easy to hold manor with a firearm. A supporter of the law says "no one needs to have a 30 round clip". A non-supporter replies "See, you don't have a clue about firearms, it is not a clip it is a magazine, a clip is...(insert long diatribe covering technical details here)".
Yes there is a difference between the two but when I received my training with the M1911A1 (and later with the M9) we were told "grab two clips and move to the firing line". We knew what we were suppose to grab. To make things more confusing there are rifles that take clips (M1 Grand, SKS for example). Because the average person has been using the term magazine and clip interchangeably it is being nit-picky to fight it.
However gun owners do this for a reason. They have to show that the proposed law is flawed some how. Either in its design or base of operation. If they can show that the author of the law, or supporters, don't have a clue about guns and how gun's work, they can use that as examples that the law is flawed and should be voted against.
That is why you will read things like "you're trying to ban 30 round clips. There are no such things a 30 round clips. This law wont' work because it does not have any relation to how guns work!" And implying the other person is clueless or uninformed, because if you knew the difference between clip and magazine you would not be supporting a gun control law.
Same goes for "Bullet" "Round" "Cartage" and "Semi-auto" "Automatic" "Auto-Loading".
The Solution? Hit wikipedia and learn the difference but don't sweat it.
As for the fight against large numbers of rounds held in detachable spring loaded devices...(High capacity is being attacked by gun owners as part of the nit-picky) the solution will be hard to compromise on.
Gun owners feel the need to have large numbers of rounds as an option. some of this is due to the type of game they hunt. Yes, you don't need a 30-round magazine for deer (and it would be illegal in most rifle hunting states). But if you're doing varmint control - feral hogs, feral dogs, woodchucks, rats, etc you do need a large number of rounds because you won't have long after the first shot before they scatter and flee. With varmints you want to get more than just one.
Gun owners also point to situations police find themselves in, where 15 or 20 shots are fired before the bad guy goes down. The military also expects to need several shots to stop people, requiring a minimum of 23 hits out of 40 shots to qualify annually in the Army. Close Quarter Combat training I have had (both military and civilian taught) stress that you will need to take multi-shots at the same target to stop it. That you should expect to go through a magazine of 30 in any engagement. So the gun owner hears all this and says: "What if my family is attacked by more than one person? If it takes four or five shots to stop a bad guy, and i'm limited to 7, I can only stop one person, the other bad guy(s) will kill me and my family."
This is a hard thing to over come. The gun owner just wants to protect their family. Who would not want to do that? Then along comes some non-gun owner trying to "cripple" their ability to do that.
Here is the compromise: Don't ban large count magazines, clips, en block clips, drums, what evers. Require they be registered with the government, given serial numbers, and tracked. Limit the number a single person can own (per caliber/per weapon model of course). Make it clear that ownership of large count (insert proper term here) is not tied to ownership of any firearm.
Meaning that you can own 5 en block M1 Grand eight round clips (yes, that is 100% correct) but not own an M1 Grand. Or own 12 M1 Grands, it does not matter because all the gov is tracking is the round holders. So those 30-round MagPul's for an AR can be owned by anyone even if they don't have an AR, but they are registered with the government and each time they get sold, traded, or transferred, the gov is notified. This would let my uncle have 5 mags for his 2 AR's, 5 mags for his Marlin .223, 5 mags for the 3 .22lr, 5 for the Glock 19, 5 for the Glock 27, 5 for the Glock 37 and 5 for the Para Ordnance 1911. (each Glock is a different caliber, so each one is allowed 5 per calibre per weapon type. Glock magazines won't fit into a Para Ordnance weapon.)
This will let gun owners feel they can still "protect" their families, but limit the number of large capacity magazines mass killers can get legally. (or if they kill their mother and steal her mags, limit how many they can get from that.)
Is it the best choice? No. Is it the worse? No. But it would do more than any current proposed law that won't get passed. Most gun owners i've suggested this to have supported the idea of limiting the number of "high-cap-mags" (their words, don't nit-pick) you can own but not limiting the number of bullets a mag/clip can hold. (They really hate the NY-SAFE act's 7 bullet limit, which makes M1 Grands a pain in the but to shoot, and is just stupid when you use logic. Sorry have to agree on this, you can keep your pre-ban 10 round mag but don't put more than 7 in the mag, can't buy a 7 round mag because they don't make them, and don't have 7 in a mag and one in the chamber.)
Next up: this is a back door confiscation, this is punishing the innocent for what the guilty did, and it won't work.