For your consideration, nothing more.

[flamin lib]

Some here get their tender feelings hurt over an imagined attack on “gun culture” like the war on Christmas. Well, let me say right out loud that such an attack, if it exists, isn't necessarily a bad thing for society at large or for responsible gun owners.

Some would say we (anti gun violence activists) should treat guns like tobacco but I reject that approach because I can think of nothing good or benign about smoking tobacco. The fringe of my movement might disagree but I see no inherent evil in firearms.

A much better model would be MADD. MADD's goal was never to ban cars or end drinking, only to reduce as much as possible the ill effects to combining the two. The campaign was very successful in that it greatly reduced the carnage of drunk driving. Do people still die in DUI “accidents”? Yeah, but not as many as before. Do people still enjoy competitive driving sports like drag racing, road courses and rallies? Sure they do. Do people still enjoy cocktail parties? Oh hell yes. Just not as many of us combine the two as before.

What would I hope to see from such an approach? An awareness in the general public that some people just shouldn't have access to guns. I'd like that awareness to include those who may currently want to have guns. Take the guy going through a nasty divorce with child custody at stake. I'd like to see that person consider removing guns from the situation until it is fully resolved. Voluntarily put them in the possession of someone he trusts to be fair and distanced from the emotional strain.

I'd like to see someone who has a substance abuse problem recognize that having a gun around isn't a good idea. I'd like the idea to at least occur to them that perhaps guns and bourbon by the bottle aren't a good combination.

I'd like to see someone suffering from depression or PTSD consider the danger of having a gun readily available. I'd like them to take the affirmative action of placing their guns in the hands of someone they trust until they are better.

That's what MADD did. They changed the way the public and in particular the people who drive and enjoy alcohol think about both cars and alcohol.

If we activists could accomplish that would everyone still be able to enjoy hunting, sports shooting and collecting? Yes. Would the population at large develop a more relaxed view of responsible gun owners? I think so. Would the level of carnage decrease a bit? I believe it would.

Call this a drive by or whatever but I don't intend to engage the usual suspects. It's just here for your consideration.

[DonP]

1. "Call this a drive by or whatever but I don't intend to engage the usual suspects"

OK, we'll respectfully honor your request.

Read, considered, rejected.

[pablo_marmol]

21. + 1,000,000,000 NT

[randys1]

2. MADD also SHAMED people who drank and drove especially if in accidents, etc.

I can personally remember hearing them on the radio many years ago when I was still drinking and it made me feel like shit were I to drive and drink.

I dont think you can shame gun owners.

Well, you cant shame the adamant ones that think they have some special right to own guns.

Some of them are reasonable people who could ultimately admit that guns are bad for society, but not most.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. What about people who drink but don't drive drunk?

[sarisataka]

9. You felt shame

Because you were engaged in the activity that was targeted. Had you been drinking and took a cab or abstained and drove most likely you would not have felt any shame. You would have been doing the right thing.

That is the failing of gun control's shame plan. They lunp everyone into the category of 'gun owner' and assume they are doing something wrong. Naturally those who are responsible and do the right things don't feel shamed. Instead they feel resentment, just as the drinker in the cab would have felt resentment for being lumped in with drunk drivers.

[randys1]

10. AT this point seeing the harm done by guns, if you are not for getting rid of them for the

betterment of all, you deserve shame.

[sarisataka]

11. You can't even see

why you fail, even when it is right in front of you.

[randys1]

12. You betcha, I fail yet I am the one for less death by getting rid of unecessary

weapons.

You really shouldn't embarrass yourself like this


You see it is one thing that maybe 51% or more of the American people want guns, and at the same time that those of us who want to get rid of them are still on the right side of history.

We are, you are not.

[sarisataka]

13. MADD never, as you noted,

tried to ban alcohol. Do you suppose there is a reason for that?

You want to get rid of guns. I want to get rid of violence. I am not embarrassed at all.

[Eleanors38]

15. Oops. I think his rolly-poly stopped.

[Eleanors38]

17. Well, randys1, you clearly enjoy your sweet moral pleasures more than anything else.

That's why gun control is not a movement, only a shabby little shack on your side of history where the heathen can be shamed to the muffled snickers and coos of a few elites.

It's an end in itself, right?

[Straw Man]

20. Who deserves shame?

AT this point seeing the harm done by guns, if you are not for getting rid of them for the

betterment of all, you deserve shame.

You drove drunk, deliberately and callously endangering the lives of your fellow citizens. I own guns. I have never fired them when drunk -- have never even touched them while drinking alcohol, for that matter. I am certified to teach the safe storage, handling, and use of firearms. I make every effort to be safe in my own behavior and to encourage safe behavior in others.

Who should be ashamed?

[beardown]

16. Shaming credentials check.

Your statement makes it hard not to come to the conclusion that before the MADD campaign against drunk driving that you did not feel shame about driving drunk. The intricate way that you structured your "...made me feel like shit were I to drive and drink..." could be merely clumsy writing, but it sure sounds like you drank and drove too, especially as why would you feel shame for something that you were not doing before the campaign.

So at the very least, a person that needed a national campaign to be shamed about drunk driving is now schooling law abiding gun owning citizens on shame. This also kind of works against you being a good judge of what 'reasonable people' means too.

[randys1]

18. This is why arguing with the gun crowd is a waste of time.

I thought I had stopped, I now see which forum I am in so this is my fault.

Shame on me for being in this forum...

[GGJohn]

19. "Well, you cant shame the adamant ones that think they have some special right to own guns."

A "special right"?
Why do you call it a special right?
It's not a "special right" as you claim, it's an individual right not connected to militia service as defined by the SCOTUS.

It's because of people like you that firearm owners dig in their heels and refuse to negotiate away our 2A.

[edgineered]

3. Thank you for recognizing this group as being open to suggestions.

Currently there are 308 subscribers to this group, with only 2 posters banned. Compare that to another group relating to gun culture; we see that group with 162 subscribers and 50 banned posters. It boils down to this group having twice the support and 25 times the willingness to discuss things.

No need to post and run.

[freebrew]

4. MADD screwed everyone...

except the prison and cop industry. They were such arrogant asses, they refused to accept donations from the Busch(not Bush) family. They campaigned for the .08% law in effect throughout the nation, when the .12% was just fine(no significant reduction in accidents).

The draconian laws they have pushed through have ruined countless more lives than they have saved, IMHO.

[ileus]

6. hunting, sports shooting, and collecting....what about self defense???

[beardown]

7. I've used the MADD campaign as a example

Without banning cars, without banning booze (coincidentally the 18th amendment considerably ramped up gun violence), the campaign against drunk driving has greatly reduced drunk driving and changed attitudes. As noted by an earlier reply, there were certainly excesses and yet another large step in the erosion of Constitutional rights, but there were no outright national confiscations of all booze or all cars. Heck, I wouldn't mind a similar campaign, albeit with significantly more respect for Constitutional protections, against texting and driving, but texting and killing isn't frowned on by white middle class moms the same way that they frowned on drunk guys driving.

However, with the current crippling lack of trust between the two sides and the aforementioned weakening of Constitutional rights prompted by the MADD campaign and the ever broadening definition of 'drunk driver', it will be an extremely difficult campaign to replicate for gun violence abatement.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. "They changed the way the public and in particular the people who drive and enjoy alcohol think"

I'm all for that. I applaud that.

Alas, I think those who are invested in demonizing gun owners will be far more of a hindrance than those who seek to protect the RKBA.

[beevul]

14. Will you put your money where your mouth is though?

Will you put your money where your mouth is though?

Such as speaking up whenever you see one of your anti-gun colleagues say something like "all gun owners have blood on their hands" and similar broad brush smears?

MADD didn't go around smearing all drinkers, or all drivers, so theres definitely a parallel there...The question is, will you speak out, or will you turn a blind eye to it?