Why the "compromise" falls on deaf ears.

[AndyS]

Why the "compromise" falls on deaf ears.
Over the last year I have posted data and research on guns and gun violence. I posted graphs that showed gun violence increasing every time gun supply increased. I posted data on states with restrictive gun laws vs states with permissive gun laws and the correlating gun violence rates. I've posted most recently that the FBI has noted an increase in short 'time to crime' guns sold within a year of being found at crime scenes which showed that gun owners who passed a background check became criminals within a year. I've posted statistics on the number of guns and the number of new guns sold every year. No reasoning human being can look at this data and not conclude that the only way to decrease gun violence is to decrease the availability of guns. Amnesty International and every other violence prevention organization believes that is true based on available evidence.

Still I haven't been able to convince any on the pro gun side that there is a connection between the availability of guns and gun violence.

Now I'm told I must compromise with the Gun Culture to 'make progress on gun control'. Who is the Gun Culture? The NRA, Gun Owners of America, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, major gun manufacturers and most militias. It's publications like Ammo Land, The Truth about Guns and other rabid gun magazines. What do they want and what have they worked for since 1970? More guns for sale with fewer restrictions on sales, possession, use and “self defense”.

To compromise is to give the opposition something they want in exchange for something you want. All I want is to reduce gun violence which necessarily means reducing the availability of guns. What is it the Gun Culture wants? More guns bought more easily and more different kinds of guns including machine guns, short barrel rifles and shotguns, some 'destructive devices' and unregulated unrestricted possession at all times in all places.

Of course they don't say this out loud, they couch it in weasel words by saying they want to 'modernize' or 'clarify' or 'simplify' the Gun Control Act of 1934 and the few other gun restrictions that currently exist. There is never any specificity about the result of these 'simplifications'. When queried the subject changes or the answer is even more nebulous than before. In fact they appear to want to 'clarify' them out of existence. All for the purpose of making the last few types of prohibited guns available through the local gun store or directly over the internet.

So, if the only way to decrease gun violence and the immense cost it puts on society is to decrease the availability of guns, why would any sentient being 'compromise' with the gun culture if it means increasing the availability of guns even if getting some agreement on peripheral issues?

No, I will stay with the status quo as bad as it is and work at real and meaningful changes instead of willingly making things worse by 'compromising' with the Gun Culture. Will it happen soon? I don't know but I do know the arc of the moral universe is long and bends ever toward justice.

[billh58]

1. The "status quo" is much

better than the proposed "compromises" that I've seen, such as a call for all Liberals to arm themselves. The gunner definition of compromise is the same as the NRA's: more guns for more people. Thanks anyway Bubba...