Agree with the three main thrusts of the article. If I might paraphrase the core principles:
1) Limited activist resources (time, money) should be spent effectively
2) The energy/attention of the Middle is also a limited resource that, if wasted, can starve the core effort and similar related efforts or, as you say, result in a backlash, where that energy is spent to oppose the core and related efforts.
3) Trust is a resource that once squandered tarnishes all related groups and makes it difficult or impossible for related groups to get Middle energy in the future.
These are important insights for anyone with political or social objectives! I can see how I have both experienced violations of these principles and perpetrated them in discussions I have had with others. After a few decades of adulthood, I would classify myself as liberal member of the Middle who, because of violations of these principles, now view all Leftist assertions or proposals with skepticism until I can do my own research. (Lest anyone attempt to paint me with too broad a brush, my skepticism of the Right rose to great heights in my teenage years and stayed there.)
The reason I am writing this comment (aside from delivering praise) is that you write as though the mere push to ban all guns is the violation of these three principles, but I think it would be better to view the entire gun control project writ large as a violation. Here’s why:
- All gun control proposals by the anti-gun folks will be at best ineffective and at worst counter-productive. They would all violate principle 1 because there is actually very little that can be done to reduce gun crime by targeting guns.
- Given that these proposals are ineffective, the Middle will inevitably be frustrated that the last gun control effort didn’t have the promised effect. Each time the anti-gun folks come back and ask for more restrictions, promising that they’ll work this time, the Middle will have spent limited energy on what they increasingly perceive as ineffective and pointless “progress”, violating principle 2.
- Eventually, after dozens of restrictions have failed to affect gun violence at all, the Middle will realize that the anti-gun folks will never stop asking for more restrictions and will see that the end goal (or inevitable end state) is to ban all guns (or to make gun ownership theoretically legal but practically impossible). The Middle will realize they have been lied to about the intentions or obvious inevitable impact of the gun control efforts, violating principle 3 and tarnishing every other proposal from anyone who proposed or supported gun control efforts.
Many gun owners are already at this point and recent gun purchase statistics and polling suggests that more and more of the Middle are getting there.
Some additional thoughts as I read your piece:
Some aspects of your personal narrative puzzle me. You focus heavily on gun violence rather than violence generally? Why? Surely a place with no gun violence but twice as much violence overall would not be preferable?
You mention wanting to live in a secluded part of the country but that truly is not necessary. Gun violence is not randomly distributed. If one avoids certain activities (drug dealing), certain people (those with a history of violence), and certain areas (places where violence is already high), then one is unlikely to experience any gun violence at all. If gun suicide is a concern, seeking treatment and finding a safe place for one’s guns will greatly reduce the risk of suicide by gun.
Why the focus on assault weapons? Only a few hundred people each year are killed by rifles of any kind so the number of those killed by assault weapons is certainly lower. If assault weapons could magically be disappeared, other weapons could easily be used as substitutes. Even if no substitution occurred, in reality, the amount of money, blood, and tears that would have to be spent to confiscate assault weapons from the 20+ million people that own them would dwarf (by orders of magnitude) the harm associated with them. Assault weapon bans are an obvious example of how the three principles above are violated. It does not take much to realize that an assault weapon ban would be ineffective and waste Middle energy. Every time it is proposed, a member of the Middle who knows this feels lied to.
I think you get the sequence of polarization entirely wrong. Gun owners were not a politically relevant group until later in the 20th century after various laws were passed to reduce the gun rights of the public. The anti-gun folks pulled hard and won some big (but pointless) victories before gun owners organized well enough to be able to effectively pull back. In the decades since, gun owners have rightly learned that “compromise” is no such thing. Actual compromise would require that if the anti-gun folks are going to take something, they need to give something back. I have never seen legislation offered by the anti-gun folks that would eliminate silly, ineffective restrictions in exchange for the new restrictions that surely will work this time. The word you are looking for is not “compromise”, it is “capitulation”.
Wow. Thank you so much for your detailed response Calzone. I really appreciate it. You offered such a nice analysis, I had to actually re-read my post in order to respond.
I agree with your point that much of what I say in all likelihood could be leveled against the entire gun-control project. It's a good insight. I might push it even a little further and begin to wonder if the analysis might not be able to be applied to all of politics in general. This, in fact, might be why I don't take politics all that serious. It's failed, on both sides, too many times...all the time if I'm being honest. It's why I also don't take people who view politics as a path of progress all that serious either.
And just to touch on some of your other questions/observations...I focus on gun violence in the piece because that's its topic, but no violence of all kinds is less than ideal. Gun violence deserves perhaps more consideration because of its gravity. In general though, less people=less violence. It's true that gun violence isn't random. In fact, states with lower populations and stricter gun laws have less gun violence. Again, I'm no fan of statistics. You can lie with anything, but I can tell you from my experience, living in the countryside feels much safer than living in a city. I'm not sure where you think I focused on an assault weapons ban. I mention it as something those interested in stricter gun laws could be missing out on by pursuing the banning of all guns, but I would agree with you that I don't see it as anything that would make a difference. And I think the process of polarization has nothing to do with guns, or even abortion for that matter. The polarization we see in this country is the thing behind the stupid, extreme positions people take.
But thanks again for your contribution and for reading my work.
You're welcome! Your piece was thoughtful and insightful and I felt it deserved more than a cliched response.
I share your disenfranchisement with politics. There are too many bad incentives and bad actors. As such, a government downstream of politics can be dangerous, and I think it's best to limit the power of government so that when it fucks up, it can't fuck up so badly that millions of people are killed. If not politics, what do you view is the path to progress?.
I really appreciate your questions. They give me an opportunity to reflect, which I would argue is the best quality a question can have.
I wouldn't describe myself as an optimistic person. Not exactly pessimistic either. Just "mistic," or perhaps, realistic. So, progress isn't something I think much about. I acknowledge there's been a ton of it over the centuries. Which is great. But, it seems to me that most it has probably happened, not necessarily in spite of our efforts, but despite. (I know those mean the same thing, but they hit a bit different in my head.)
Here's what I mean. I think "good" or "progress" can and does come from any number of places. It comes from some legislation at all levels from the local up to national. It comes from some community actions. It comes from some individual's helping their neighbors. It comes from some people working on themselves. Some of the progress is intended, but just as much comes as a result of unintended consequences. There are no guarantees, or "for sures." So, I don't think there is one overarching "grand narrative" that we can appeal to as the "way" to get things done.
I wish there was one answer. But it doesn't seem that that's how the world works.
Agree with the three main thrusts of the article. If I might paraphrase the core principles:
1) Limited activist resources (time, money) should be spent effectively
2) The energy/attention of the Middle is also a limited resource that, if wasted, can starve the core effort and similar related efforts or, as you say, result in a backlash, where that energy is spent to oppose the core and related efforts.
3) Trust is a resource that once squandered tarnishes all related groups and makes it difficult or impossible for related groups to get Middle energy in the future.
These are important insights for anyone with political or social objectives! I can see how I have both experienced violations of these principles and perpetrated them in discussions I have had with others. After a few decades of adulthood, I would classify myself as liberal member of the Middle who, because of violations of these principles, now view all Leftist assertions or proposals with skepticism until I can do my own research. (Lest anyone attempt to paint me with too broad a brush, my skepticism of the Right rose to great heights in my teenage years and stayed there.)
The reason I am writing this comment (aside from delivering praise) is that you write as though the mere push to ban all guns is the violation of these three principles, but I think it would be better to view the entire gun control project writ large as a violation. Here’s why:
- All gun control proposals by the anti-gun folks will be at best ineffective and at worst counter-productive. They would all violate principle 1 because there is actually very little that can be done to reduce gun crime by targeting guns.
- Given that these proposals are ineffective, the Middle will inevitably be frustrated that the last gun control effort didn’t have the promised effect. Each time the anti-gun folks come back and ask for more restrictions, promising that they’ll work this time, the Middle will have spent limited energy on what they increasingly perceive as ineffective and pointless “progress”, violating principle 2.
- Eventually, after dozens of restrictions have failed to affect gun violence at all, the Middle will realize that the anti-gun folks will never stop asking for more restrictions and will see that the end goal (or inevitable end state) is to ban all guns (or to make gun ownership theoretically legal but practically impossible). The Middle will realize they have been lied to about the intentions or obvious inevitable impact of the gun control efforts, violating principle 3 and tarnishing every other proposal from anyone who proposed or supported gun control efforts.
Many gun owners are already at this point and recent gun purchase statistics and polling suggests that more and more of the Middle are getting there.
Some additional thoughts as I read your piece:
Some aspects of your personal narrative puzzle me. You focus heavily on gun violence rather than violence generally? Why? Surely a place with no gun violence but twice as much violence overall would not be preferable?
You mention wanting to live in a secluded part of the country but that truly is not necessary. Gun violence is not randomly distributed. If one avoids certain activities (drug dealing), certain people (those with a history of violence), and certain areas (places where violence is already high), then one is unlikely to experience any gun violence at all. If gun suicide is a concern, seeking treatment and finding a safe place for one’s guns will greatly reduce the risk of suicide by gun.
Why the focus on assault weapons? Only a few hundred people each year are killed by rifles of any kind so the number of those killed by assault weapons is certainly lower. If assault weapons could magically be disappeared, other weapons could easily be used as substitutes. Even if no substitution occurred, in reality, the amount of money, blood, and tears that would have to be spent to confiscate assault weapons from the 20+ million people that own them would dwarf (by orders of magnitude) the harm associated with them. Assault weapon bans are an obvious example of how the three principles above are violated. It does not take much to realize that an assault weapon ban would be ineffective and waste Middle energy. Every time it is proposed, a member of the Middle who knows this feels lied to.
I think you get the sequence of polarization entirely wrong. Gun owners were not a politically relevant group until later in the 20th century after various laws were passed to reduce the gun rights of the public. The anti-gun folks pulled hard and won some big (but pointless) victories before gun owners organized well enough to be able to effectively pull back. In the decades since, gun owners have rightly learned that “compromise” is no such thing. Actual compromise would require that if the anti-gun folks are going to take something, they need to give something back. I have never seen legislation offered by the anti-gun folks that would eliminate silly, ineffective restrictions in exchange for the new restrictions that surely will work this time. The word you are looking for is not “compromise”, it is “capitulation”.
Wow. Thank you so much for your detailed response Calzone. I really appreciate it. You offered such a nice analysis, I had to actually re-read my post in order to respond.
I agree with your point that much of what I say in all likelihood could be leveled against the entire gun-control project. It's a good insight. I might push it even a little further and begin to wonder if the analysis might not be able to be applied to all of politics in general. This, in fact, might be why I don't take politics all that serious. It's failed, on both sides, too many times...all the time if I'm being honest. It's why I also don't take people who view politics as a path of progress all that serious either.
And just to touch on some of your other questions/observations...I focus on gun violence in the piece because that's its topic, but no violence of all kinds is less than ideal. Gun violence deserves perhaps more consideration because of its gravity. In general though, less people=less violence. It's true that gun violence isn't random. In fact, states with lower populations and stricter gun laws have less gun violence. Again, I'm no fan of statistics. You can lie with anything, but I can tell you from my experience, living in the countryside feels much safer than living in a city. I'm not sure where you think I focused on an assault weapons ban. I mention it as something those interested in stricter gun laws could be missing out on by pursuing the banning of all guns, but I would agree with you that I don't see it as anything that would make a difference. And I think the process of polarization has nothing to do with guns, or even abortion for that matter. The polarization we see in this country is the thing behind the stupid, extreme positions people take.
But thanks again for your contribution and for reading my work.
You're welcome! Your piece was thoughtful and insightful and I felt it deserved more than a cliched response.
I share your disenfranchisement with politics. There are too many bad incentives and bad actors. As such, a government downstream of politics can be dangerous, and I think it's best to limit the power of government so that when it fucks up, it can't fuck up so badly that millions of people are killed. If not politics, what do you view is the path to progress?.
I really appreciate your questions. They give me an opportunity to reflect, which I would argue is the best quality a question can have.
I wouldn't describe myself as an optimistic person. Not exactly pessimistic either. Just "mistic," or perhaps, realistic. So, progress isn't something I think much about. I acknowledge there's been a ton of it over the centuries. Which is great. But, it seems to me that most it has probably happened, not necessarily in spite of our efforts, but despite. (I know those mean the same thing, but they hit a bit different in my head.)
Here's what I mean. I think "good" or "progress" can and does come from any number of places. It comes from some legislation at all levels from the local up to national. It comes from some community actions. It comes from some individual's helping their neighbors. It comes from some people working on themselves. Some of the progress is intended, but just as much comes as a result of unintended consequences. There are no guarantees, or "for sures." So, I don't think there is one overarching "grand narrative" that we can appeal to as the "way" to get things done.
I wish there was one answer. But it doesn't seem that that's how the world works.