I need "Common Ground" ideas

[bigt8261]

I am renewing my solicitation of ideas for what I call "common ground", which I am differentiating from "middle ground" as follows. Common ground is area already occupied by two sides or ideas, and middle ground is ground that is in between two sides or ideas that can only be reached jointly though compromise or shifting. Follow?

Last night I re-extended my offer to Grand Rapids' anti gun mayor George Heartwell to work together and find this common ground. To my surprise, he appears to have accepted my offer. See here http://forums.michiganopencarry.org/index.php/topic,2172.msg22884.html#msg22884

So once again, I want your ideas. What are things that both pro-gun and anti-gun people might agree on that will actually have an effect on violence? Let me be clear, I am NOT interested in compromise and I imagine the other side feels the same. What are things we think the other side might agree with without us having to compromise?

Two of the most common ideas I received last time were enforce our existing laws and stricter punishment for those who commit violent crime with firearms. I think those are good generic ideas, but I need things to be as specific as possible. If you are unable to provide specifics, please provide what you can and hopefully we will hash out the specifics as a group. Also try to keep ideas relevant to the state and local level.

Maybe something will actually be accomplished or maybe the mayor is just oiling a squeaky wheel. I think it would be foolish for me to not approach this in good faith, so here I am.

Thank you to any who help.

[jgillmanjr]

Tom,

At the risk of sounding like some sort of libertarian "extremist", I guess the question I would ask is this: Is it even possible to have a "common ground", as used with your definition? I would argue that the best thing that would come out of this would be a "middle ground" as described.

For example, you mention that people have recommended pushing for enhanced enforcement of existing laws. I would disagree that existing laws concerning firearms, at least the ones that concern activities that are malum prohibitum, should exist, much less be enforced. More on that here if you would like to see my train of logic on that one.

As for the harsher punishments for violent crimes committed with firearms: Why should there be a differentiation in regards to what tool was used to commit a violent crime? Violence is violence, whether a gun, knife, sledgehammer, or a barbie doll turned into a shank is used.

But, that's just how I see it.

-Jason

[bigt8261]

Excellent points. I believe I somewhat addressed a few of them last time, but it appears I neglected to do so this time.

As for the harsher punishments for violent crimes committed with firearms: Why should there be a differentiation in regards to what tool was used to commit a violent crime? Violence is violence, whether a gun, knife, sledgehammer, or a barbie doll turned into a shank is used.

I completely agree. My hope is to start with a focus on firearms in an effort to get to the table and then broaden to the notion that you described above. If this is good to do for an offense commited with a firearm, why is any other violent offense less deserving of the same standard. After all, it's the guilty act, not the tool right?

It also appears that I neglected to point out that I am hoping to turn the anti's focus from firearms to violence in general. In doing so, hopefully I will relieve some of the pressure for gun control and may even get something accomplished.

I would disagree that existing laws concerning firearms, at least the ones that concern activities that are malum prohibitum, should exist, much less be enforced.

Again I agree. There are a lot of reports that have come out recently showing how frequent it is for violent offenders to be given reduced sentences and then let out early only to recidivate. If we go back to focusing on "gun crime" for just a second, much of it is perpetrated by people who already have a criminal record. 1. I think criminals know the punishment will be lenient and 2. why are we letting them out so early if we know they are only going to recidivate.

Overall, to me more background checks are next to worthless. It's not going to stop the people actually intent on violence and the only people that it will "catch" are those who were actually trying to follow the law.

I understand this is likely a pipe dream, but I'm proceeding on the off chances that it is not. At the counter rally in Waterford this past weekend one guy from the other side eventually calmed down and rationally discussed this matter with me once I explained it to him. By the end he seemed supportive. This gives me hope.

I hope I sufficiently addressed your concerns. Please continue if I have not.

[Donut]

He has to understand that things have changed drastically since the 60,70,80's and it is not going to be that way ever again, watch the new's . The police are overburdened enough and are not going to be able to handle situations fast enough and the way our economy and population is growing things are only going to get worse.
Dose he want us and his family safe or dose hey want to help the bad guys.
He should be proud that he has us , the honest ones here to protect him,his family and the general public.
Give him a copy of this.

Doug

[jgillmanjr]

I completely agree. My hope is to start with a focus on firearms in an effort to get to the table and then broaden to the notion that you described above. If this is good to do for an offense commited with a firearm, why is any other violent offense less deserving of the same standard. After all, it's the guilty act, not the tool right?

I can understand taking the approach of trying to move their support over in a piecemeal manner.

I would be curious to see at what point you start trying to get them off the "higher penalties for crimes involving firearms" kick, and how it would actually be approached. Essentially, when is the right time, and how do you do it?

It also appears that I neglected to point out that I am hoping to turn the anti's focus from firearms to violence in general. In doing so, hopefully I will relieve some of the pressure for gun control and may even get something accomplished.
Again I agree. There are a lot of reports that have come out recently showing how frequent it is for violent offenders to be given reduced sentences and then let out early only to recidivate. If we go back to focusing on "gun crime" for just a second, much of it is perpetrated by people who already have a criminal record. 1. I think criminals know the punishment will be lenient and 2. why are we letting them out so early if we know they are only going to recidivate.

I think that the focus on violence is key. Once they realize that it's the violence itself, not the tool used, the logic can then be pressed on them that firearm restrictions of any sort upon those out of prison are flawed; combined with the fact that we need to identify (which indeed is no easy task) those who are going to continuously recidivate, and lock them up for good (or hope they get killed at some point).

Overall, to me more background checks are next to worthless. It's not going to stop the people actually intent on violence and the only people that it will "catch" are those who were actually trying to follow the law.

I understand this is likely a pipe dream, but I'm proceeding on the off chances that it is not. At the counter rally in Waterford this past weekend one guy from the other side eventually calmed down and rationally discussed this matter with me once I explained it to him. By the end he seemed supportive. This gives me hope.

I hope I sufficiently addressed your concerns. Please continue if I have not.

Indeed you have. If you get someone to the point where they can/will follow the logic, it's damn easy from there. The issue is when they're all hellbent on saying "logic be gone!", at which point, it's futile.

Unfortunately, it's those types that make me bust out the ad hominem machine because my attempts at logic won't work. That just makes me feel dirty.

[METL]

He has to understand that things have changed drastically since the 60,70,80's and it is not going to be that way ever again, watch the new's . The police are overburdened enough and are not going to be able to handle situations fast enough and the way our economy and population is growing things are only going to get worse.
Dose he want us and his family safe or dose hey want to help the bad guys.
He should be proud that he has us , the honest ones here to protect him,his family and the general public.
Give him a copy of this.

Doug

You're right, things HAVE changed, but your line of thinking is wrong, because it's changed FOR THE BETTER.


Violent crime and murder has been cut in 1/2 in the last 20 years.  There were 3,000,000 violent crimes in 1992, and 1.5 million in 2011.

The last time the united states had the same number of murders as 2011, was in the 60's.  I think 1965, and there was only 200 million people.  In 2011 the population was 310 million, but nearly the exact number of murders ~14,500.

Crime is statistically waaaaaaaaaaay down, yet there are record numbers of gun sales each year.  More and more and more and more guns, yet crime statistics are plummeting.

[yance]

I would start by looking together at what laws are in place and how they are, or are not, being enforced, a lot of the problem is plea bargains. There are a lot of criminals who are back on the streets without serving jail time for an offense that would require it.  Some criminals who accept a lesser plea bargain are not barred from buying a firearm because of the lower infraction they plead to.  I would explain that we do not need more laws or even harsher laws to make his city safer, the laws that are in place simply need to be enforced.  I dont think he will be able to disagree with that and it might prove a good starting point.  Instead of looking at how to revamp our system lets look at how our current system can work.

[bigt8261]

Great stuff everyone. My favorite response was probably one METL left in the Government Abuse thread.

Anyways, I hope the mayor will see that you're not just some yahoo with a gun and are a real person with logical and well though out ideas and rationale. We aren't just back woods bubba-hicks shootin off our guns and 'splodin things...    We're reasoned, pragmatic people who have carefully weighed our options and made a conscious decision to take on the responsibility of being armed within our society, side by side with our unarmed fellow citizens.

Most of us didn't just wake up one day and say "i'm buying a gun, yaaaahoooo!!!!"  There was a reason the bug was put in our head, leading to research, leading to more research, leading to MORE research, leading to purchasing, leading to CPL, and even leading to additional training for many people as well as hobby shooting monthly or more.

We aren't just some lame brain with a gun he's never shot. 

I guess at the very least I hope to accomplish that. In my efforts to engage the other side in rational conversation, I have to constantly remind myself to not dehumanize them as they so frequently do to us. To me, much of their attitude is the result of addict mentality. Facts be damned, I'll do what I want that makes me feel good.

Maybe, just maybe, I will be able to break through the wall for a few people. Or perhaps I'm just a naive idiot with a pipe dream.

If I'm going to get anywhere with the other side, I'm going to need ideas. Ideas that will get them to shift their perspective of me and actually start to listen to some of the stuff that I say.

I'm going to combine stricter punishment and enforcing laws into one item. The responses so far have done a very good job of demonstrating the link between them. If I change the goal to keeping violent criminals off the streets longer, does that suffice for anyone? To boil it down even more, how do we go after violent people instead of creating more ways for law abiding people to be tripped up?

Also, what other ideas do you have? Again, great stuff. Please keep it going.

[jgillmanjr]

Only have laws on the books for activities that are malum in se?

</troll>

[TheQ]

Only have laws on the books for activities that are malum in se?

</troll>

How about getting rid of crimes where the only victim is the state?

[WilDChilD]

How about getting rid of crimes where the only victim is the state?

Or ones where there is no victim at all.

[METL]

Great stuff everyone. My favorite response was probably one METL left in the Government Abuse thread.

I guess at the very least I hope to accomplish that. In my efforts to engage the other side in rational conversation, I have to constantly remind myself to not dehumanize them as they so frequently do to us. To me, much of their attitude is the result of addict mentality. Facts be damned, I'll do what I want that makes me feel good.

Maybe, just maybe, I will be able to break through the wall for a few people. Or perhaps I'm just a naive idiot with a pipe dream.

If I'm going to get anywhere with the other side, I'm going to need ideas. Ideas that will get them to shift their perspective of me and actually start to listen to some of the stuff that I say.

I'm going to combine stricter punishment and enforcing laws into one item. The responses so far have done a very good job of demonstrating the link between them. If I change the goal to keeping violent criminals off the streets longer, does that suffice for anyone? To boil it down even more, how do we go after violent people instead of creating more ways for law abiding people to be tripped up?

Also, what other ideas do you have? Again, great stuff. Please keep it going.

Once in a great while I have something worth while to say.   

I like some of the angles you have been taking...  and honing your skills, developing arguments, evaluating what the other side says and coming up with ways to counter it...    all good stuff.   You're doing very well.

[bigt8261]

Today's the big day. The meeting is at 3pm. Any last thoughts comments?

[TheQ]

Today's the big day. The meeting is at 3pm. Any last thoughts comments?

Give George my regards. Pass on my invite to go to the range with him sometimes.

[Veeper]

Give George my regards. Pass on my invite to go to the range with him sometimes.

I've got two range passes to SB in my wallet either of you can have if he accepts.

T - Swing over to my office and tell me how it went! 

[Donut]

Things are changing and will ever be the same again.
If a business says no guns then that business should be totally responsible for your safety especially if they take your rights to protect yourself, family, and the ones around you and this dose not mean a 911 call , in a situation counts not minutes but seconds.
I know it s not this way but this is my opinion.
All business should have to abide by all state laws and regulations meaning that the minute any business that open's its doors to the public that it should be required to abide by state law's . They have to abide by other state laws so why are they allowed to pick and choose what laws they want to abide by.
A private business (one that is not open to the public Ie: manufacturing, private offices that do not have the public crossing the door threshold.  But once the business opens their doors then they should have to abide by state lays and not be allowed to post a no gun sign. And yes there would have to be exceptions like the serving acholol like the one that is already on the books.
one other thing.
It would be nice if the law would be changed that you could carry in places that do serve acholol as long as you do not consume any. I know of some good places that serve really good food and I can't go in to eat at.

Not sure if this is the type of info you are asking for.

Doug