In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Sides Debate "Gun Safety" and Centrism
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Is Sarah (smoke some moke Camel non-filters) Brady actually trying to feed us the BS that her gun banning group is really a gun safety group?
Sides Debate "Gun Safety" and Centrism12/5/2001 By Dick DahlSpecial to Join Together OnlineEveryone favors gun safety. Only recently, however, has "gun safety" started appearing broadly as a self-descriptive term used by national and state groups traditionally known as "gun control" or "gun-violence prevention" organizations.For many years, "gun safety" remained the virtual property of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other pro-gun organizations who appropriated the term to show that they wanted gun owners to be safe -- and free of governmental regulation. For years, critics have charged that such efforts as the NRA's Eddie Eagle safety program also served to indoctrinate impressionable youngsters into the culture of gun ownership, thus molding future firearms buyers and NRA members. For that reason, the NRA's critics have long perceived "gun safety" as one of the self-serving mantras of an organization that considers it an inextricable part of their uncompromising hands-off position on gun regulation. While traditional gun-violence-prevention organizations may have stated that gun safety is a good idea, they'd been hesitant to use the term to define themselves, their movement, or their purpose. They worked on gun-control legislation and violence-prevention initiatives. Gun safety? That's what the other side did.Lately, though, that's all been changing. For instance, in announcing a Nov. 15 press conference calling for tightening gun laws as a response to terrorism, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence referred to itself and the Center to Prevent Gun Violence (CPGV) as "gun safety organizations."Earlier, on Nov. 9, CSGV issued a press release on the electoral victories of several New Jersey and Virginia state candidates who favor stronger gun laws. The release was topped by a headline proclaiming, "Gun Safety Wins Big in New Jersey, NRA Falls Flat in Home State of Virginia." Its page of text used the term "gun safety" seven times, including one from CSGV president Michael Beard, who said, "Taken together, the results in New Jersey and Virginia are good news for progressive gun safety efforts."Nancy Hwa and Desmond Riley, spokespersons for the Brady Center and CSGV, respectively, both say their increased use of "gun safety" terminology is in large part a semantic one -- "gun violence prevention" being a somewhat unwieldy term and "gun control" falling out of vogue. But the trend toward broad use of the term is clear.While the issue about semantics might seem benign at first glance, the real debate about "gun safety" is far more than a quibble over terminology. The debate is one of symbolism. It is about two starkly divergent strategies on how best to deal with an opponent that is powerful, uncompromising, and exceedingly successful in convincing lawmakers to ignore pollsters' continuous findings of broad public support for stronger gun laws.To some people, "gun safety" is merely a less polarizing term than "gun control" or even "gun-violence prevention." To others, it represents a more literal public-policy move to a middle ground in an attempt to reach compromise with pro-gun extremists.In either case, the increasing use of the term "gun safety" is a symbol, at least to some degree, for giving in. The question is: Is this a good idea or a bad one?Americans for Gun Safety and the Centrist ApproachNo doubt one of the forces behind the trend was the creation last year of Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) by Andrew McKelvey, CEO of TMP Worldwide which owns the job-matching website, Monster.com. Prompted by what he saw as the absence of a middle ground in the polarized gun debate, McKelvey ostensibly created AGS in an attempt to bring the two warring sides together in the spirit of compromise. "For whatever reason, words really matter in this particular debate," says Matthew Bennett, AGS director of public affairs. "They're parsed very carefully by activists on both sides. The kind of traditions, words, and policy initiatives that the gun-control movement has undertaken have in some cases been pretty alienating, not only to (pro-gun) activists on the other side of the movement but also to the 48 percent of voters who live in a house with a gun."AGS' argument, at least it relates to the current Congress, is that it's impossible to pass any kind of meaningful gun laws without compromising on the front end. Which is precisely what they've done in working with Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), in drafting a bill that purports to close the gun-show loophole. Critics say the McCain-Lieberman bill is too weak, that it creates new loopholes. AGS counters that its compromises, such as exempting sales from "private collections" of guns from Brady Law background checks, are sensible and that this is the only way in which gun legislation can make it through a Congress that is hostile to gun laws.AGS also began funding a new organization, States United to Prevent Gun Violence, which organized on its own last year to provide a united voice for state gun-violence-prevention organizations. Initially, AGS funded 29 state groups with monthly $5,000 stipends for a year. Two of those groups changed their name to reflect the centrist approach: The former Texans Against Gun Violence became Texans for Gun Safety and the former Georgians United Against Gun Violence became Georgians for Gun Safety. Not everyone who received the money, however, was happy with what AGS was promoting. Spokesmen for two of those groups, Ceasefire New Jersey and Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence, are outspoken in their criticism of AGS, contending that it's not really a gun-violence-prevention organization. Bryan Miller, executive director of New Jersey Ceasefire, is particularly adamant, saying, "I think that AGS, whether intentionally or not, is a stalking horse for the NRA." John Johnson, executive director of the Iowa group, says, "I refer to AGS as a pro-gun group." Miller and Johnson say that they chose not to reapply for funding. The first year of AGS-funded States United operation has been completed, and according to Bennett, AGS is now "in the process" of finalizing a list for the second year of funding based on state groups' responses to requests for proposals. He said the recipients should number between six and 10 organizations who "agreed to work with AGS on our agenda."Responding to the kinds of criticism leveled by Johnson and Miller, Bennett counters that the traditional legislative approaches by gun-control groups have been ineffective. The traditional method of working for strong legislation with an eye toward subsequent compromise "just does not work in the gun debate," Bennett said, "and it certainly doesn't work when you've got a House of Representatives dominated by incredibly hostile forces and a President who's not really interested in gun-safety issues. It didn't even work when you had a President who was, in the last Congress." Bennett says that part of the alleged ineffectiveness of gun control has been an unwillingness to seek mainstream public support. "We believe firmly that the vast majority of gun owners do not share the NRA's extreme views on this issue," he says. "They are responsible people who support responsible gun laws. That's the group we're trying to speak to."Carolynne Jarvis, executive director of the Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, one of AGS recipient groups, agrees. "Any time you're trying to get a message across, you have to introduce it in language that's going to allow people to keep listening," she says, "If your initial words or the title for your name are polarizing, then you're only going to be talking to people who already agree with you."In an apparent effort to gain the ear of gun owners and the mainstream public, AGS has done things that traditional gun-violence-prevention groups consider highly unusual. First, while AGS hasn't quite gone so far as to endorse a Second Amendment interpretation that individuals have an absolute constitutional right to have a gun, the group is very forthright in acknowledging its belief in a general right. Second, it operates a website that not only provides information on gun safety; it also provides helpful hints on how shooters should align their bodies to fire most accurately. The site makes shooting sound enticing.Acknowledging the criticism, Bennett says, "It only seems strange if your view is that shooting is inherently bad, and that's just not our view. That may be jarring to people who have been on the left of this debate for a long time. But we believe there needs to be a group that says to the 85 million people who own guns and the 48 percent of the voters who live in houses with guns, "There's nothing wrong with owning a gun as long you're not a prohibited person and as long as you're responsible about it." The Anti-Centrist ArgumentAs an organization that is trying to claim a middle ground in the gun debate, AGS has been attacked by both the NRA, which considers it a gun-control group in sheep's clothing, and from some gun-violence-prevention groups.The Violence Policy Center (VPC), for one, is particularly adamant about AGS and the way in which it is perceived. "There's been a tendency to include American for Gun Safety as a gun-control group," says VPC Public Policy Director Joe Sudbay. "But they're really not. They don't want to be. They promote guns and gun ownership, they promote hunting. That's their prerogative, but I think we should all be very wary of an organization that's promoting a bill like McCain-Lieberman. If their agenda's different from ours, their legislative agenda's going to be different too." Like many other analysts, Sudbay believes that gun control has been wrongfully scapegoated by Democrats as a losing political issue in the last election. A valid case has been made by a number of analysts that the issue delivered (ultimately) a Senate majority to the Democrats. Many also believe that Al Gore committed a grievous tactical error in dropping the issue in his vain attempts to win the votes of rural men who weren't going to vote for him anyway in several closely contested heartland "swing states," thus losing many women who were far more likely to have voted on the gun issue. Nevertheless, gun control is now widely perceived as a losing issue, "and this Americans for Gun Safety, crawling-to-the-middle approach reinforces that," Sudbay contends.In tactical terms, the trouble with moving to the middle, according to Sudbay, is that the middle should be the point where you end up, not the starting point. "The advocate needs to drive the debate so that when you get to the middle, you really are on the middle ground. You force the other side to give as well. That's not what's happening."Sudbay dismisses AGS' contention that the McCain-Lieberman bill is the only way Congress will close the gun-show loophole. VPC believes there are enough votes in Congress to pass a much stronger gun-show bill that's been offered by Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), "and if Americans for Gun Safety really wanted to close the gun-show loophole they would have joined with us on the Reed bill. But they want to create a reason for themselves to exist, so they came up with this McCain-Lieberman bill, which is very complicated, which creates new loopholes, and which doesn't close the gun-show loophole the way it should be."AGS' support of McCain-Lieberman is one of the reasons Johnson of the Iowa group didn't seek continued funding from he organization. Johnson thinks that if a strong gun-show bill can't be passed, it would be best to wait. "I think that rather than weaken our proposals to get them through Congress, we need to strengthen the Congress," he says.Legislative tactics aside, Johnson has other issues with AGS. Semantic ones. "I tend to not use the words 'gun' and 'safety' in the same sentence," he says. "The real issue with guns is that they terrorize other people. It's not a safety issue. You'll never make guns safe as long as you make guns that do what they're intended to do, which is kill people."Sudbay contends that no other issue is so willingly being moved to the center by activists as the gun issue. He points out that the other side -- the NRA (which scoffs at AGS) and its many Congressional supporters -- hasn't bothered to respond in kind. "Why should they?," he asks."Instead of stiffening our resolve and making our positions clear, we're trying to muddle our message and go to the middle," Sudbay says. "Change may occur in the middle, but it happens because advocacy groups that have strong positions force it there. If we're going to be in a debate with the NRA and they're not compromising, we're just compromising with ourselves by taking this approach. It's inconsistent with every other progressive issue that exists. And it's detrimental to gun control."Centrists, of course, disagree. And they do make a good case. Jarvis, of the Michigan Partnership contends that the argument about being as uncompromising as the NRA misses a point or two. "The NRA is uncompromising in what it is they want and what their goals are," she says. "But they are very compromising in terms of the language they use. They are speaking to those nonpolarized people that we would like to speak to. They are definitely and intentionally reaching out through plain language to people who may never have owned a gun before to try to make gun ownership the family thing to do."She thinks any group can take a lesson from the NRA method. "You can make partners of people or you can make instant enemies of them, depending on how you address the problem," she says. "All of us respond to some words better than others. I think that's what 'gun safety' is. It's something that people understand."Sudbay, however, points to the polls, which show that Americans are already in favor of toughening the nation's gun laws and questions how much language-friendly selling is necessary. In June, for instance, a poll conducted for the Brady group by Opinion Research Corporation International showed overwhelming public support for a variety of gun-control measures, including 83 percent support for a requirement mandating background checks on every buyer at gun shows and 73 percent support for a law that would limit handgun purchases to no more than one per month."The American people are on our side," he says. "We should be more firm in our commitments. But instead of pushing our agenda, we've gotten mushier and mushier." http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,546736,00.html
Sides Debate "Gun Safety" and Centrism12/5/2001 By Dick DahlSpecial to Join Together OnlineEveryone favors gun safety. Only recently, however, has "gun safety" started appearing broadly as a self-descriptive term used by national and state groups traditionally known as "gun control" or "gun-violence prevention" organizations.For many years, "gun safety" remained the virtual property of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other pro-gun organizations who appropriated the term to show that they wanted gun owners to be safe -- and free of governmental regulation. For years, critics have charged that such efforts as the NRA's Eddie Eagle safety program also served to indoctrinate impressionable youngsters into the culture of gun ownership, thus molding future firearms buyers and NRA members. For that reason, the NRA's critics have long perceived "gun safety" as one of the self-serving mantras of an organization that considers it an inextricable part of their uncompromising hands-off position on gun regulation. While traditional gun-violence-prevention organizations may have stated that gun safety is a good idea, they'd been hesitant to use the term to define themselves, their movement, or their purpose. They worked on gun-control legislation and violence-prevention initiatives. Gun safety? That's what the other side did.Lately, though, that's all been changing. For instance, in announcing a Nov. 15 press conference calling for tightening gun laws as a response to terrorism, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence referred to itself and the Center to Prevent Gun Violence (CPGV) as "gun safety organizations."Earlier, on Nov. 9, CSGV issued a press release on the electoral victories of several New Jersey and Virginia state candidates who favor stronger gun laws. The release was topped by a headline proclaiming, "Gun Safety Wins Big in New Jersey, NRA Falls Flat in Home State of Virginia." Its page of text used the term "gun safety" seven times, including one from CSGV president Michael Beard, who said, "Taken together, the results in New Jersey and Virginia are good news for progressive gun safety efforts."Nancy Hwa and Desmond Riley, spokespersons for the Brady Center and CSGV, respectively, both say their increased use of "gun safety" terminology is in large part a semantic one -- "gun violence prevention" being a somewhat unwieldy term and "gun control" falling out of vogue. But the trend toward broad use of the term is clear.While the issue about semantics might seem benign at first glance, the real debate about "gun safety" is far more than a quibble over terminology. The debate is one of symbolism. It is about two starkly divergent strategies on how best to deal with an opponent that is powerful, uncompromising, and exceedingly successful in convincing lawmakers to ignore pollsters' continuous findings of broad public support for stronger gun laws.To some people, "gun safety" is merely a less polarizing term than "gun control" or even "gun-violence prevention." To others, it represents a more literal public-policy move to a middle ground in an attempt to reach compromise with pro-gun extremists.In either case, the increasing use of the term "gun safety" is a symbol, at least to some degree, for giving in. The question is: Is this a good idea or a bad one?Americans for Gun Safety and the Centrist ApproachNo doubt one of the forces behind the trend was the creation last year of Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) by Andrew McKelvey, CEO of TMP Worldwide which owns the job-matching website, Monster.com. Prompted by what he saw as the absence of a middle ground in the polarized gun debate, McKelvey ostensibly created AGS in an attempt to bring the two warring sides together in the spirit of compromise. "For whatever reason, words really matter in this particular debate," says Matthew Bennett, AGS director of public affairs. "They're parsed very carefully by activists on both sides. The kind of traditions, words, and policy initiatives that the gun-control movement has undertaken have in some cases been pretty alienating, not only to (pro-gun) activists on the other side of the movement but also to the 48 percent of voters who live in a house with a gun."AGS' argument, at least it relates to the current Congress, is that it's impossible to pass any kind of meaningful gun laws without compromising on the front end. Which is precisely what they've done in working with Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), in drafting a bill that purports to close the gun-show loophole. Critics say the McCain-Lieberman bill is too weak, that it creates new loopholes. AGS counters that its compromises, such as exempting sales from "private collections" of guns from Brady Law background checks, are sensible and that this is the only way in which gun legislation can make it through a Congress that is hostile to gun laws.AGS also began funding a new organization, States United to Prevent Gun Violence, which organized on its own last year to provide a united voice for state gun-violence-prevention organizations. Initially, AGS funded 29 state groups with monthly $5,000 stipends for a year. Two of those groups changed their name to reflect the centrist approach: The former Texans Against Gun Violence became Texans for Gun Safety and the former Georgians United Against Gun Violence became Georgians for Gun Safety. Not everyone who received the money, however, was happy with what AGS was promoting. Spokesmen for two of those groups, Ceasefire New Jersey and Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence, are outspoken in their criticism of AGS, contending that it's not really a gun-violence-prevention organization. Bryan Miller, executive director of New Jersey Ceasefire, is particularly adamant, saying, "I think that AGS, whether intentionally or not, is a stalking horse for the NRA." John Johnson, executive director of the Iowa group, says, "I refer to AGS as a pro-gun group." Miller and Johnson say that they chose not to reapply for funding. The first year of AGS-funded States United operation has been completed, and according to Bennett, AGS is now "in the process" of finalizing a list for the second year of funding based on state groups' responses to requests for proposals. He said the recipients should number between six and 10 organizations who "agreed to work with AGS on our agenda."Responding to the kinds of criticism leveled by Johnson and Miller, Bennett counters that the traditional legislative approaches by gun-control groups have been ineffective. The traditional method of working for strong legislation with an eye toward subsequent compromise "just does not work in the gun debate," Bennett said, "and it certainly doesn't work when you've got a House of Representatives dominated by incredibly hostile forces and a President who's not really interested in gun-safety issues. It didn't even work when you had a President who was, in the last Congress." Bennett says that part of the alleged ineffectiveness of gun control has been an unwillingness to seek mainstream public support. "We believe firmly that the vast majority of gun owners do not share the NRA's extreme views on this issue," he says. "They are responsible people who support responsible gun laws. That's the group we're trying to speak to."Carolynne Jarvis, executive director of the Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, one of AGS recipient groups, agrees. "Any time you're trying to get a message across, you have to introduce it in language that's going to allow people to keep listening," she says, "If your initial words or the title for your name are polarizing, then you're only going to be talking to people who already agree with you."In an apparent effort to gain the ear of gun owners and the mainstream public, AGS has done things that traditional gun-violence-prevention groups consider highly unusual. First, while AGS hasn't quite gone so far as to endorse a Second Amendment interpretation that individuals have an absolute constitutional right to have a gun, the group is very forthright in acknowledging its belief in a general right. Second, it operates a website that not only provides information on gun safety; it also provides helpful hints on how shooters should align their bodies to fire most accurately. The site makes shooting sound enticing.Acknowledging the criticism, Bennett says, "It only seems strange if your view is that shooting is inherently bad, and that's just not our view. That may be jarring to people who have been on the left of this debate for a long time. But we believe there needs to be a group that says to the 85 million people who own guns and the 48 percent of the voters who live in houses with guns, "There's nothing wrong with owning a gun as long you're not a prohibited person and as long as you're responsible about it." The Anti-Centrist ArgumentAs an organization that is trying to claim a middle ground in the gun debate, AGS has been attacked by both the NRA, which considers it a gun-control group in sheep's clothing, and from some gun-violence-prevention groups.The Violence Policy Center (VPC), for one, is particularly adamant about AGS and the way in which it is perceived. "There's been a tendency to include American for Gun Safety as a gun-control group," says VPC Public Policy Director Joe Sudbay. "But they're really not. They don't want to be. They promote guns and gun ownership, they promote hunting. That's their prerogative, but I think we should all be very wary of an organization that's promoting a bill like McCain-Lieberman. If their agenda's different from ours, their legislative agenda's going to be different too." Like many other analysts, Sudbay believes that gun control has been wrongfully scapegoated by Democrats as a losing political issue in the last election. A valid case has been made by a number of analysts that the issue delivered (ultimately) a Senate majority to the Democrats. Many also believe that Al Gore committed a grievous tactical error in dropping the issue in his vain attempts to win the votes of rural men who weren't going to vote for him anyway in several closely contested heartland "swing states," thus losing many women who were far more likely to have voted on the gun issue. Nevertheless, gun control is now widely perceived as a losing issue, "and this Americans for Gun Safety, crawling-to-the-middle approach reinforces that," Sudbay contends.In tactical terms, the trouble with moving to the middle, according to Sudbay, is that the middle should be the point where you end up, not the starting point. "The advocate needs to drive the debate so that when you get to the middle, you really are on the middle ground. You force the other side to give as well. That's not what's happening."Sudbay dismisses AGS' contention that the McCain-Lieberman bill is the only way Congress will close the gun-show loophole. VPC believes there are enough votes in Congress to pass a much stronger gun-show bill that's been offered by Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), "and if Americans for Gun Safety really wanted to close the gun-show loophole they would have joined with us on the Reed bill. But they want to create a reason for themselves to exist, so they came up with this McCain-Lieberman bill, which is very complicated, which creates new loopholes, and which doesn't close the gun-show loophole the way it should be."AGS' support of McCain-Lieberman is one of the reasons Johnson of the Iowa group didn't seek continued funding from he organization. Johnson thinks that if a strong gun-show bill can't be passed, it would be best to wait. "I think that rather than weaken our proposals to get them through Congress, we need to strengthen the Congress," he says.Legislative tactics aside, Johnson has other issues with AGS. Semantic ones. "I tend to not use the words 'gun' and 'safety' in the same sentence," he says. "The real issue with guns is that they terrorize other people. It's not a safety issue. You'll never make guns safe as long as you make guns that do what they're intended to do, which is kill people."Sudbay contends that no other issue is so willingly being moved to the center by activists as the gun issue. He points out that the other side -- the NRA (which scoffs at AGS) and its many Congressional supporters -- hasn't bothered to respond in kind. "Why should they?," he asks."Instead of stiffening our resolve and making our positions clear, we're trying to muddle our message and go to the middle," Sudbay says. "Change may occur in the middle, but it happens because advocacy groups that have strong positions force it there. If we're going to be in a debate with the NRA and they're not compromising, we're just compromising with ourselves by taking this approach. It's inconsistent with every other progressive issue that exists. And it's detrimental to gun control."Centrists, of course, disagree. And they do make a good case. Jarvis, of the Michigan Partnership contends that the argument about being as uncompromising as the NRA misses a point or two. "The NRA is uncompromising in what it is they want and what their goals are," she says. "But they are very compromising in terms of the language they use. They are speaking to those nonpolarized people that we would like to speak to. They are definitely and intentionally reaching out through plain language to people who may never have owned a gun before to try to make gun ownership the family thing to do."She thinks any group can take a lesson from the NRA method. "You can make partners of people or you can make instant enemies of them, depending on how you address the problem," she says. "All of us respond to some words better than others. I think that's what 'gun safety' is. It's something that people understand."Sudbay, however, points to the polls, which show that Americans are already in favor of toughening the nation's gun laws and questions how much language-friendly selling is necessary. In June, for instance, a poll conducted for the Brady group by Opinion Research Corporation International showed overwhelming public support for a variety of gun-control measures, including 83 percent support for a requirement mandating background checks on every buyer at gun shows and 73 percent support for a law that would limit handgun purchases to no more than one per month."The American people are on our side," he says. "We should be more firm in our commitments. But instead of pushing our agenda, we've gotten mushier and mushier." http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,546736,00.html