News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Pistol sights. Parent comment

Re:Pistol sights by CWuestefeld on Tuesday June 13, 2017 @04:06PM (#14548138)
It's a standard "motte and bailey" argument [1]. What you're saying is the reasonable argument that anti-gun folks fall back to. But for many of them, they're always reaching for the whole enchilada. For example, although the Brady Campaign is only pushing for strong background checks at this stage, we know that their ultimate goal is an outright ban.

[1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bric...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Pistol sights by tetromino_ on Tuesday June 13, 2017 @05:38PM (#14548890)
> we know that their ultimate goal is an outright ban

You think you know someone's ultimate, real goal? Assuming that they didn't publicize that goal - how do you know it? Are you privy to their confidential discussions, was an internal whitepaper of theirs leaked?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Pistol sights by CWuestefeld on Tuesday June 13, 2017 @06:13PM (#14549125)
You think you know someone's ultimate, real goal?

Yes, I always get steamed when someone tries to impute motives to some other actor. But I'm not resorting to such here. I know it because the head of the organization (a while back, when it was named NCCH) said so:

The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal.

Support of this claim, and mention of other organizations that make an explicit goal of bans, here: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/07/24/david-kopel/one-mans...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Pistol sights by tetromino_ on Tuesday June 13, 2017 @08:41PM (#14549940)
Thanks for responding and for the interesting link. Though AFAICT he seemed to be calling only for a ban on handguns (not all guns) - which, as gun control measures go, is much more rational than e.g. the assault weapon ban.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Pistol sights by JoshMnem on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @01:53AM (#14550876)
That comment sounds a bit polarized. I've never heard anyone in the US advocate banning all guns.

I generally hear two perspectives from people:

1. the view that people should be allowed to buy guns after background checks and mandatory training.

2. the view that no checks or restrictions should be put on guns at all.

I haven't heard very many other proposals.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Pistol sights by CWuestefeld on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @09:54AM (#14552689)
That is, indeed, the point of the "motte and bailey" strategy. When pressed on unreasonable demands, they'll re-frame the position as something within the Overton Window, but without actually abandoning the goal.

See my nearby citation of the guy who was heading the organization that later became the Brady Campaign:

"The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal."

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Pistol sights by JoshMnem on Friday June 16, 2017 @12:51AM (#14566746)
You're quoting a guy from 40 years ago (1976) and making a slippery slope argument. Here is some more information on the Brady Campaign:

"In November 2008, Brady president Helmke, a former Republican mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, endorsed the American Hunters and Shooters Association saying, 'I see our issues as complementary to theirs.' He said, 'The Brady Campaign is not just East Coast liberal Democrats.'"

Most people who want to see more gun control are not out to ban all guns. Many of them own guns.

[ Parent | on HN ]