>> Ames is presenting an entirely new approach to the subject.
>
> the article is of note precisely because it announces Ames'
> break with the very position you've been arguing here ...
I'll say it again: Ames' article is of note because he breaks with the whole discussion, not because he says a few things that, IMHO, he added to make sure that no one takes him for being against gun control in general. It's too bad that he feels he has to do that -- the article is dripping with "don't get me wrong" -- but I think it's an honest reflection of the typical knee-jerk response to anyone who doesn't drool "Mmmm ... guns ... bad" ...
I think it's indicative of the direction of his piece that he has to say that kind of thing. Because what he is proposing goes against the grain of prohibitionists. And to be clear, he's not advocating a position or a solution; he's asking people to take a look at where this action is coming from and who it is impacting and how it is shaping the larger discussion. In Ames' view, guns are neither the problem nor the solution: they are just a wedge used to distract everyone from the larger questions.
> ... in your rather snide schoolboy manner for days
No need to get snippy.
> - a position Ames describes below as his formerly "reflexive
> contempt for people…who tell you that gun control laws are
> the answer."
That's of course not my position at all. My position is that when someone says "20 children masacred! We have to ban high powered automatic assault rifles!" I have no choice but to try to loosen their grip on fantasy. I was hoping it would help you to look at reality, that it might help sharpen your position. I guess I picked the wrong guy to try to help :)
> Or at least that was the view you were tenaciously clinging
> to until the day before yesterday, when you suddenly declared
> with doe-eyed innocence: "Who said I was against gun control?"
Check the archives: this is not a change in my position.
> That mild retreat constituted progress of a sort ...
Heh, you think that was some kind of progress? You slay me.
> although I'm still awaiting a reply to my query about which
> gun measures you now favour.
I've discussed my position in length on this list over the years; I don't feel like your change-of-direction of the subject is worth a repeat here, especially when yo've not responded to any of my points. Also, I responded in depth to Wojtek's proposals. We were discussing you and your position that, as evidenced by the Newtown incident, "automatic" weapons and "assault rifles" were far too easy to come by, and limiting their access should be the way forward to stop those incidents from happening.
> In any event, here is Ames:
>
> "There’ve been other massacres [...]
> They’re rare and often spectacular. [...]
Yes, I read the article, a few times, thanks.
> [...] gun proliferation doesn’t explain why 'going postal'
> first exploded into the culture in the late 1980s
Ames is a careful student.
> Gun control or lack thereof doesn’t explain why these kinds
> of rampage shootings only appeared in the late Reagan era
> and spread ever since then.
I like how he built the case in his book that the Reagan era was the turning point for these kinds of incidents. Like I said: he seems to be on to some good ideas.
So far everything you quoted supports me and doesn't support you.
> "Well, guess what? Their knee-jerk solution is more right than mine.
Do you get that what he's saying is that he's coming to the conclusion that, for reasons *other* than what you've offered, the *whole conversation* is corrupting? He's not saying that the other position is right and his is wrong: he's saying that his "reflexive contempt" (note that the use of the word 'reflexive' here connotes a negative) vs the characterization of those who tell you "gun control is the answer" -- he labels them as "who haven't gone shooting", i.e., also a negative connotation -- are missing a point which, regardless of which side is right, should have an over-arching priority.
His point is that the "gun nut" vs "gun grabber" meme was essentially manufactured by folks like the Koch brothers in order to distract, divide., and ultimately make docile a whole segment of the population. Like I said, this is all new to me and I gather to him as well, and I haven't had the time to look into it deeply, but at first blush I see this as a totally different way of looking at the issue.
I want to listen to Doug's interview, but I get the sense that this is something Ames has recently come up with and is still developing it. If I'm reading him right, his point is that if we could stop the conversation -- most easily, in his mind, by ratcheting up gun laws to international standards, though I see that as a hard way forward -- then we could get back to forming more progressive political action instead of bickering over things like private sale loopholes (one of the items I listed as not being against, FWIW) or magazine capacity limits.
> As Ames shows, it's ok to change your mind - for whatever
> reason.
If you think that supports your last few posts, well, go for it.
> So if you're as enthusiastic about Ames' article as you profess
> to be, this can only be understand to mean that you concur with
> his turn from opposition to support of the growing demand for
> effective gun control legislation.
I'm enthusiastic because it's a fresh idea. I'm still digesting it. You would do well to also, because I think you got the wrong idea from skimming it.
The problem you seem to be having is that you've projected a position onto me that I neither claim nor support. You've been fighting with a ghost. A full half of my postings have just been trying to correct your false claims about me. Another 40% of them have been knocking down your baseless claims that you toss into the air without consideration of reality, statistics, or even good sense. That I challenge you on these falsehoods makes me into a "gun nut" in your eyes, falling for exactly the trap that Ames claims was laid for you by Dark, Powerful Forces.
Whatever, dude.
/jordan