
What gun control advocates can learn from abolitionists who helped end slavery - jseliger
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2016/06/what_gun_control_advocates_can_learn_from_the_abolitionists_who_helped_end.html
======
bluejekyll
would slavery have ended without the Civil War? It seems unlikely.

Now can we pass substantive gun measures that will reduce gun violence in
America without having another Civil War? Probably... But I doubt some of the
gun advocates would give up any of their arms willingly.

~~~
smt88
Most people (including gun owners) in the US support closing loopholes and
increasing background checks. I believe it's over 70% of all Americans.

The reason those things haven't passed is because of powerful lobbying by the
NRA.

I don't think any mainstream politician has proposed taking guns away from
legal, non-convict gun owners.

~~~
angersock
Not in so many words--but then again, there is a lot of dog-whistling going
on, intentionally or not.

I really hate to link to some of these, but Red State does a decent summation
of the "loopholes" as they apply to the executive actions took in January of
this year ( [http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/01/05/obamas-
executive...](http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/01/05/obamas-executive-
action-guns/) ).

It's not just the adoption of simple measures, though. There is a lot of
resistance to wider-spread bans that are kinda just waiting in the wings (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty)
) to remove the self-determination and ability to self-arm. Sure, a lot of
kooks are the ones resisting, but there are legitimate concerns there. Those
bans are made possible by slow harmonizing measures, as weapons are restricted
bit by bit by bit.

The basic problem in all of this is that the lies have been _pervasive_ on
both sides, and have been egregiously so in the case of proponents of gun-
control measures. The phrase "assault weapon" was adopted literally to ban
weapons that looked scary or military irrespective of their functional
abilities. The phrase "commonsense measures" is specifically done to make a
massive erosion of freedoms seem noncontroversial.

The entire posturing of gun control has been to either fear-monger or to smear
as ignorant people who appreciate the value of retaining their right to self-
defense and to do with their property what they will.

EDIT:

Loathe as I am to mention them, Breitbart has a useful quote showing exactly
the mainstream politician talking about seizing weapons:

[http://www.breitbart.com/big-
government/2015/10/16/hillary-c...](http://www.breitbart.com/big-
government/2015/10/16/hillary-clinton-australia-gun-ban-worth-looking-u-s/)

Washington Post had an interesting bit here as well:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/08/why-s...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/08/why-
so-many-americans-think-the-government-wants-their-guns/)

~~~
chetanahuja
_" I really hate to link to some of these"_

 _" Loathe as I am to mention them,"_

You know, just don't do that if you really dislike those publications so much.

 _" The entire posturing of gun control has been to either fear-monger or to
smear"_

No fear mongering is required. Simple data mongering is enough

[http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/health/mass-shootings-in-
ameri...](http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/health/mass-shootings-in-america-in-
charts-and-graphs-trnd/)

~~~
angersock
When those publications are as generally biased and nutzo as they are, I feel
the need to disclaim referencing them even for direct quotes and facts. They
had the information I needed, but I still don't want to act like they're
gospel for anything else!

As for the data mongering, your link notes that (ignoring gang violence),
there have been only 3, not 136, shootings this year. It's a bit curious that
such a large order of magnitude change can be had by changing the definition
slightly--and yet, it's nearly always the more dramatic number reported and
reported as an imminent threat!

------
fireseven
It fascinates me that anyone smart enough to be in tech seems to think banning
a type of weapon solves any evil.

~~~
chetanahuja
Yeah... especially when there's absolutely no precedent for such bans solving
exactly such problems in other countries.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/world/australia/australia-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/world/australia/australia-
gun-ban-shooting.html?_r=0)

~~~
fireseven
United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the
ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides
per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they
reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the
time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the
homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year
experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly
static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between
0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate
shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4.
It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.

Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run
flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost
immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within
the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.

