{"id":66352,"date":"2021-03-30T10:54:20","date_gmt":"2021-03-30T16:54:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=66352"},"modified":"2021-03-30T10:54:20","modified_gmt":"2021-03-30T16:54:20","slug":"66352","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=66352","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Productive Dialogues Don’t Begin With Forfeiting Our Gun Rights<\/a><\/p>\n

Guns are a hot-button issue in this country and they have been for a while. For better or worse, there\u2019s a lot of arguing that goes on and none of it is particularly pleasant. Not when the country already feels like it\u2019s on the brink of civil war.<\/p>\n

There needs to be some way we can sit down and calmly discuss the issue.<\/p>\n

However, there are ways that aren\u2019t really going to fly.<\/p>\n

Over at Ammoland, noted firearm instructor Rob Pincus penned a post with Dan Gross, a former president of the Brady Campaign,\u00a0talking about establishing a productive dialog<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Although many other issues have understandably dominated the news cycle, we are at a critical moment for guns. Over the last year, gun sales have reached unprecedented levels, as have gun-involved homicides, and the House has recently passed\u00a0H.R. 1446<\/a>, The Enhanced Background Check Act of 2021, which is currently being debated in the Senate. Recently, a wave of tragic mass shootings has put the gun issue in national headlines as President Biden has called on the Senate to pass the background check bill, adding that he supports a ban of \u201cassault weapons.\u201d<\/p>\n

We are two advocates, activists and leaders from opposite sides of the \u201cgun debate\u201d who have come together because we both believe we are at a make-or-break moment. Suffice it to say, there is plenty that we disagree on, but for anyone with the genuine goal of reducing the number of preventable gun deaths in our nation, we believe we have an opportunity for real impact that has not existed in years and, if we are not able to seize it, it is likely to have negative repercussions for years to come.<\/p>\n

\u2026<\/p>\n

At the end of the day, every decent American, from those who love guns to those who hate them, and everyone in between, wants the same things: to protect themselves and their loved ones, and to make our homes, schools and communities safer. This common ground provides ample opportunity to achieve historic impact on the gun deaths we all want to prevent.<\/p>\n

But bringing this opportunity to fruition is easier said than done. This basic point of fundamental agreement between people who own guns and those who don\u2019t has always existed. Yet it is still perceived as a culture war and, as a result, little has been achieved. This is because no true counter narrative has ever been established to seriously challenge the polarizing political debate being perpetuated by extremists on both sides and, unwittingly by those with pure intentions. As long this remains the case we cannot expect anything to change. Fortunately, we believe a paradigm-shifting counter narrative exists, specifically:<\/p>\n

Together, we can cut the number of gun-involved deaths in our country in half and make all of us safer, just by keeping guns from the people we all agree should not have them (i.e., people who are a danger to themselves or others).<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

We believe that it is essential to root any solution, political or otherwise, in this deceptively simple message.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n
\n
That\u2019s right, it looks like Pincus is taking a position in support of things like universal background checks.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Now, this is bothersome for me. I don\u2019t know Rob particularly well. We\u2019ve communicated a bit on Facebook a couple of times, but we\u2019re not best buddies or anything. That said, I like Rob.<\/p>\n

If he\u2019s actually taking an anti-gun position, though, I think it\u2019s wrong. Especially when you read this:<\/p>\n

Fortunately, the policy area with the most synergistic message is also the one that represents what we believe is the greatest potential for impact: Expanded Background Checks. The overwhelming majority of gun owners have already accepted that anyone engaged in the business of selling guns commercially, should be required to conduct a background check. At the same time the two of us believe that many private transfers, such as gifting a gun to a family member or letting a fellow member of a gun club borrow a firearm for a competition or hunting event should be legal and remain a private transaction outside of government regulation. We believe any expansion of the Background Check requirement should be focused on transfers to strangers. Sure, there are some important details to work out around exceptions such as specific definitions of \u201cstrangers,\u201d and exceptions that would make it impossible for the government to compile a comprehensive list of gun owners; but we are confident that there are solutions that can make a huge impact if we stick to the principle and message of only keeping guns from the people we all agree shouldn\u2019t have them. This is also how to \u201cwalk the walk\u201d in terms of demonstrating that we are not trying to limit gun ownership among responsible gun owners and how to give substance and true credibility to the claim of respecting gun owners and the Second Amendment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n
\n
This stands in stark contrast to what Pincus has said previously. As the executive vice president of 2AO.org, Pincus wrote the following<\/a>:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Background Checks for private transfers? (Against)<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Second Amendment Organization does not support law mandating background checks for private transfers or making private transfers illegal. The Second Amendment does advocate that responsible firearms owners having any concerns about private sales of firearms to unknown persons conduct the sale through a Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That\u2019s a reasonable position. That doesn\u2019t seem to be what Pincus is saying further up, though.<\/p>\n

Now, don\u2019t get me wrong. I want a productive dialog with gun control advocates as well. I think we\u2019d probably be better off if we could have such a thing.<\/p>\n

I just don\u2019t see why starting that should require us taking yet another step back.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s note that gun folks rolled over for the National Firearms Act in 1934 and the Gun Control Act in 1968. They played nice during the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994. And there are plenty of other examples.<\/p>\n

But what did we get in return? Each time we tried to give a little, we got nothing in return. What we got is more and more encroachment into our rights with zero regard for anything. It didn\u2019t create a productive dialog, it simply encouraged the other side to push further knowing full good and well that they weren\u2019t going to have to actually give up anything.<\/p>\n

Compromise in the gun debate has typically been gun control advocates agreeing to not take as much as they want. That\u2019s not compromise, that\u2019s still surrender.<\/p>\n

What that won\u2019t be, though, is productive dialog. It\u2019s nothing more than giving in to your long-time abuser and hoping they\u2019ll start playing nice. As an abuse victim myself, I\u2019m not really interested in playing that game, nor should anyone else.<\/p>\n

Yet is that was Pincus is saying? Seems pretty straightforward, doesn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n

Well, it may seem that way, but I reached out to Pincus to get his take. Here\u2019s what he replied:<\/p>\n

I do not support ANY background check.<\/p>\n

A comparative conversation about \u201cwhat\u2019s worse?\u201d or \u201cwhat\u2019s better?\u201d is a nuanced thing that most people in the gun community are afraid to have. When you look at magazine capacity limits, feature\/function based bans and background checks, what you think is the worst type of gun control in regard to reducing negative outcomes? I think it\u2019s a pretty simple question. Unfortunately, if you pick one, you will get picked on in the gun world for not simply pounding on the table and childishly asking \u201cWhat part of \u2018shall not be infringed\u2019 don\u2019t you understand?\u201d<\/p>\n

Having a discussion with a lawmaker that wants to pass gun control laws about \u201cbetter\u201d or \u201cworse\u201d doesn\u2019t mean one supports gun control laws. Some people take the position that they won\u2019t talk to people who are trying to write gun control laws because it\u2019s politically safer to just say \u201cI oppose any law!\u201d \u2026. I oppose gun control laws, but that doesn\u2019t mean I want anti-gun people writing them without any influence, education or gun rights protections involved. Take Red Flag Laws. I oppose them\u2026 but, if one is going to be enacted, I\u2019d much rather it had a clear timeline for the restoration of rights, mandate for a court appointed attorney and stiff penalties for abuse.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Firearms involved Suicide is the biggest problem the gun community faces. As the article points out, education and voluntary programs are the best ways to address that issue (and any other).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
When it comes to policy, it only takes 1 bullet from the most archaic firearm to kill yourself.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
So, allowing \u201csuicide prevention\u201d to even be part of a conversation that leads to any limit or ban as a viable option is a failure. Any gun control proponent who mentions either option and suicide prevention in the same breath is being disingenuous. At least there is an articulable path they could take with background checks.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
He also included a link to Dan\u2019s speech at a Second Amendment rally back in 2019<\/a>\u00a0to address the point that you can actually change minds.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

In other words, Pincus says there\u2019s a lot of nuance to the article that people, myself included, may have missed. That\u2019s certainly fair. Pincus also points out a fair bit of hypocrisy in the firearm community. \u201cWe have plenty of people that DO pound the table saying \u2018all gun laws are infringements!\u2019 With a CCW permit in their wallet,\u201d he told me, also pointing out to those who talk about being ungovernable while filling out their 4473s and paying their tax stamps on suppressors and full-auto weapons.<\/p>\n

Pincus also points out the \u201cexceptions\u201d listed above. He notes that there are a number of states already have universal background checks with no exceptions. Implementing something like this would potentially override those laws and actually help expand gun rights for millions of Americans.<\/p>\n

He also notes that what he\u2019s talking about in the Ammoland article is about expanded background checks, not universal background checks.<\/p>\n

Now, for many people, that\u2019s a nuance without a difference, but it\u00a0is<\/em>\u00a0different.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not saying I agree with Rob, here, but I get what he\u2019s saying. It\u2019s a discussion we need to have. However, I also maintain that I don\u2019t see how taking steps backward actually wins us anything.<\/p>\n

Right now, a lot of people are blasting Pincus, calling him all sorts of names because he has made a stand different from us. I don\u2019t think that\u2019s fair. He\u2019s taking a different approach, which can and should be discussed, but to automatically dismiss him because of that isn\u2019t really going to accomplish much of anything.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Productive Dialogues Don’t Begin With Forfeiting Our Gun Rights Guns are a hot-button issue in this country and they have been for a while. For better or worse, there\u2019s a lot of arguing that goes on and none of it is particularly pleasant. Not when the country already feels like it\u2019s on the brink of … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66352","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66352","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=66352"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66352\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":66353,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66352\/revisions\/66353"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=66352"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=66352"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=66352"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}