Guns in America: Ending the Culture War & Starting a Productive Conversation

Editors Update 03/29/2021: This is not the opinion of AmmoLand News.  It seems we are old school in that we still publish opposing points of view on controversial topics. Our regular readers all know where the ownership of AmmoLand News stands on the issue and we have 10,000’s of articles and over a decade of advocating for the RKBA. Sorry if we offended anyone but we still have the balls to print various opinions, for good or bad. And deciding whether they are right or wrong is left up to you, our readers, to decide. That is why we are one of the few media outlets left where you can freely leave a comment …uncensored. ~ Fredy Riehl, Editor in Chief.

Read Every Article from Rob Pincus on AmmoLand News here.


Open Letter By Dan Gross, Former President of The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence & Rob Pincus

Finger Prints Background checks nics privacy iStock-924058482
Guns in America: Ending the Culture War and Starting a Productive Conversation, iStock

USA –  -(AmmoLand.com)- 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 H.R. 1446, 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 “assault weapons.”

We are two advocates, activists and leaders from opposite sides of the “gun debate” 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.

The key to any meaningful change begins with changing the conversation, from one defined by politicians, lobbying organizations, and the media as a partisan political debate, to one that truly reflects the interests of the American people, whether they own guns or not. Change will never happen just by making “common sense” political proposals in the emotional aftermath of another mass tragedy, and then expecting the truth, a claimed respect for the Second Amendment, a latent overwhelming majority and skillful political strategy to do the rest. We are often asked how terrible a mass shooting must occur in order to inspire real change. We believe that is the wrong question. The fact is, a tragedy of horrific proportions happens every day in our nation, both in terms of the number of deaths and injuries that occur with guns and the extent to which they are preventable.

To expect meaningful and lasting change, we must first change the entire conversation, from one defined by politics to one defined by our common values and goals. This is not just a matter of deciding whether to call it “gun control,” “gun violence prevention,” “responsible gun ownership” or “gun safety.” It is about advocates, leaders and the media considering, far more than they have in the past, the narrative they are helping to create. It is about those who really care about impact, changing that narrative from one that is too-often divisive and counterproductive to one that genuinely unites the American public and provides the foundation that is necessary for real, lasting and fundamental change.

Common Ground Messaging

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.

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’t 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:

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).

We believe that it is essential to root any solution, political or otherwise, in this deceptively simple message.

  • For gun control advocates, it demonstrates an authentic respect for rights, and a compelling context for the most impactful proposed solutions, a context which creates a more powerful whole greater than the sum of its parts.
  • For gun rights advocates, it provides reassurance and tangible demonstration that no one is seeking to take rights away from responsible gun owners.

But simply saying this message is not nearly enough. Advocates must also wholly accept the onus of clearly demonstrating how any proposed solution, legislative or otherwise, actually impacts the number of gun deaths, and does it only by keeping guns from the people gun owners easily agree should not have them. This may be a tough pill to swallow for many of the staunchest gun control activists, most of whom strongly support solutions that have the potential to undermine this message. However, we would hope that the potential for real and significant impact makes that pill go down a little more easily.

Importantly, we must also consider the optics that are being created, often unwittingly, which have the potential to do irreparable damage to the credibility of proposed solutions and chances of their successful implementation. This requires looking at policy and program priorities through the lens of the messages they communicate, particularly to members of the gun-owning community that would otherwise be supportive (and whose support the media and gun control advocates enjoy touting). It also means giving more careful strategic thought to messengers. Truly shifting the narrative requires far more than the usual talking points from the usual suspects. You cannot expect the American public to perceive preventing gun deaths as anything other than a political issue if most of what they hear is from politicians, pundits and organizations that have effectively been cast as partisan.

Most importantly, in the end, true change is going to require an unprecedented degree of empathy and open mindedness from everyone with pure intentions who agrees with the fundamental goal of doing everything we can to prevent gun-involved tragedies without impacting the rights of responsible gun owners. This means all of us accepting, without the appearance of judgment, those who make different choices around gun ownership; This means truly listening in order to gain a deeper understanding of how our words are being perceived and the many, avoidable subtle cues that belie our best intentions and make it easy for those with other motivations to undermine us.

Policy And Program Recommendations

We believe there are three major areas of solutions that have the potential to elevate the conversation around guns in our nation from one defined by an ideological political debate to one defined by the common goals outlined above. Most importantly, taken together, the examples below have the potential to add up to an overarching campaign to cut number of gun deaths in our nation in half just by keeping guns from the people almost everyone already agrees should not have them:

(NOTE: These areas are ordered purposely in terms of the messaging that is most meaningful in genuinely engaging the gun-owning community)

  1. Education, Awareness and Norm Change: In the long run, we believe this area represents the greatest opportunity for deep and lasting impact by reducing the staggering number of gun suicides and the far-too-many fully preventable unintentional shootings. Strong evidence also shows this area represents the greatest opportunity to prevent most school shootings. Achieving success here requires fostering a deep appreciation among gun owners of the real dangers of owning and carrying guns and what can be done to mitigate those dangers. Doing that requires a disciplined strategic approach, with messaging and programs that pass the smell test as being completely independent of any policy goal or those advocating for them. This is obviously tricky business, but we are certain there are numerous unscaled initiatives and ideas already out there, such as furthering public education about warning signs of mental illness and suicide that, with the right communications expertise and strategy, have great potential. Another area of education, awareness and action that clearly holds great promise is the work of “violence interrupters” in cities and communities across the country. We believe these efforts are entirely consistent with and complementary to all the ideas reflected in this document.
  2. Simplifying, Clarifying and Enforcing Existing Laws. Of the many opportunities to have impact in this area, the strongest example, and the one entirely consistent with our messaging goals, is the opportunity to substantially reduce gun homicides in urban communities by cracking down on a small number of gun dealers that are clearly bad actors. Most federally licensed dealers are decent, law abiding folks who share in the goals of public safety. Significant evidence shows that there is a shockingly small percentage of dealers that are selling the overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes, and that they are doing it knowingly and illegally, and that this is a major source of the illegal gun trafficking and sales that are disproportionately plaguing too many communities of color across the country. We believe this warrants, at the very least, an investment in further investigation and then a proportionate response from law enforcement.
  3. Policy. In short, we believe the key to success here is establishing a messaging principle, consistent with everything mentioned above:

The greatest opportunity for policy impact lies not in keeping certain guns from all people, but in keeping all guns from certain people (the people almost everyone already agrees should not have them).”

As with other messaging recommendations, unlocking the potential of this one requires political strategists to think about more than near-term expediency. It requires a disciplined messaging approach to policy being pursued, with this as a clearly and consistently articulated goal. Successful policy change also requires giving careful and strategic thought to which policies reinforce this message and which have the potential to undermine it. This means evaluating the viability of policy proposals not only with the onus of demonstrating clear impact, but also through the lens of what they communicate to the responsible gun owners who overwhelmingly support the most impactful measures. This means viewing concerns about confiscation and slippery slope as legitimate, and going to the greatest length possible to avoid policy proposals that can be used to legitimize those concerns.

Expanded Background Checks.

Letters to the AmmoLand Editor
Letters to the AmmoLand Editor: Got something on your mind? Let us know and you can see it here.

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 “strangers,” 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’t have them. This is also how to “walk the walk” 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.

An irony about expanded background checks is that they are perceived by many activists as being “softer” than an assault weapons ban when in fact, evidence shows they would have far greater impact. Considering that, and the potential for conversation about a ban of any kind to provide red meat for those who benefit from perpetuating a polarizing debate, we believe the public face of any policy push should, as entirely as possible, be focused on background checks. The same caution goes for other measures like repealing the second amendment and postures of public protest against gun rights organizations. These create easy opportunities for those with motivations other than our common good.

Finally, we believe an important part of the solution is a significant investment in an overarching, concerted and sustained messaging campaign which contextualizes all of the above solutions, and any others that fit within the recommended common ground goals and messaging as part of a greater unifying effort that transforms a series of on-off initiatives into a far more powerful whole greater than the sum of its parts (e.g., “to cut the number of gun deaths in the U.S. in half in 10 years by keeping guns out of the wrong hands”).

Conclusion

At this unique moment in history, there is a lot of well-intentioned rhetoric about empathy, overcoming divisiveness and uniting our nation around our common good. We propose that there is no greater way to do that than through the gun issue, and that the time to do it is now. But to bring this opportunity to fruition, we must build from the foundation up, giving every bit as much thought to messaging as to political strategy. Change is being made impossible by perceptions of a culture war that does not actually exist. There is no group of Americans that doesn’t care about safety, protecting our children or respecting freedom; yet inaccurate characterizations persist and thwart the possibility of change. To have a truly productive conversation, we must do the hard work of genuinely listening to each other, rather than reflexively retreating to our ideological corners. We must come together based on the common goals that can truly unite us and transform our advocacy efforts into a whole greater than the sum of its parts – a new united voice that results in the real change almost every one of us wants.


About Rob Pincus

Rob Pincus has been educating people about defensive shooting and related personal defense topics for over two decades. He is the Executive Director of the Personal Defense Network and the owner of I.C.E. Training Company. He has authored several books, produced over 100 training DVDs, appeared on several TV & Radio shows, and trained military, law enforcement, and armed individuals around the world. His advice focuses on efficiency and practicality based on his own experiences and continuing research of both real-world events and cutting edge training practices. www.icetraining.us

Rob Pincus
Rob Pincus
Subscribe
Notify of
196 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Get Out
Get Out
2 days ago

IMOA guns, ammo and anything gun related won’t be slowing down anytime soon. There are now to many instances where LE won’t be able to come rescue people in need from the violent mobs in some of our cities today. They’ll have to rely on themselves for their own safety.

The anti-gun POTUS and his minions don’t care that these buffoons are wanting to defund the police and some have already done so by voting to reduce their operation budgets. BLM are currently rioting and Antifa has moved into a couple of cities to riot as well.

Mr. Kalashnikov
Mr. Kalashnikov
6 days ago

The problem with gun control is it only hurts the citizens that follow the laws in the 1st place. Gun control advocates want to tell you more red tape, tax stamps, background checks, gun free zones, arbitrary laws, and etc. Will save lives. 1st it won’t at all. And more lives are lost to the U.S. being a fat unhealthy country than lost to guns any year. And far more lives are lost because of the bad policies and false narratives that our politicians push every year. 2020 has been a shit show. Thousands have died from the lock downs… Read more »

Charlie Foxtrot
Charlie Foxtrot
12 days ago

So, the Biden administration is going after pistol braces and 80% lowers via Executive Orders tomorrow. Still want to have that “conversation”, Rob Pincus?

Oh, right, going after 80% lowers impacts your business. Maybe you can offer them some of our rights you do not care about as a trade, right? Wasn’t that your intention in the first place?

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
12 days ago

Biden elevated the kind of conversations Pincus and Flyknot believe we should be having:

Biden to unveil long-awaited executive action on guns – POLITICO

Biden is not falling back on the old, tired, and frankly, irrational arguments of “no compromise.” He’s going to do something – tomorrow.

Biden believes it is possible for human beings to agree on a system that would keep guns out of the hands murderers, school shooters, and or grocery store shooters, and that would be, in its purest sense, a good thing.

Congrats Pincus and Flyknot!

No need to have that conversation after all!

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
12 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Flyknot,

Now have you had enough? Can you now join the “no more compromise group?”

Or, do you think even with these new gun control regulations it is still irrational to say “no more compromise?”

How much more regulation will there need to be before you think it will be rational to say “no more compromise?”

Flyknot
Flyknot
12 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

I didn’t vote for Joe Biden, I am Libertarian, so any repercussions that fall out from this presidents actions fall squarely into the hands of they who decided that an ego-centric petulant child and an aging automaton were the best choices for their parties. The downside of an all or nothing approach to negotiations is that sometimse you get nothing. Well here it comes. Enjoy. I encourage you to bandy about “Flyknot and Pincus” all you want -after 24 years in the Military intimidation by the irrational is heartwarming. You’ll need the last word based on your social interaction methodolgy,… Read more »

Charlie Foxtrot
Charlie Foxtrot
12 days ago
Reply to  Flyknot

When did we get something as part of a compromise? I am curious.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
11 days ago
Reply to  Flyknot

Lots of veterans want never-ending gun control, why do you bring up what you used to do for a paycheck?

Intimidation? Good grief! You wanted to compromise. Is this enough gun control? This is what has been happening all along. Anti 2nd Amendment activists clamor for “compromise,” they get laws passed, and then come right back for more gun control laws and claim people who won’t “compromise” are being irrational.

Will you never say “enough?”

Brown conservative 77
Brown conservative 77
12 days ago

Look, just by budging an inch you lose with these people, all this is straight out of Bloombergs play book, GOD GIVEN RIGHTS ARE NOT DEBATABLE, PERIOD!!!

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
2 days ago

I hope that because your name has brown in it that you are a person of color and it’s nice to know you are a brother/sister and you have a brain and have common sense. Peace!

Flyknot
Flyknot
12 days ago

In a world where “sense is not common”, I believe the article elevated the kind of conversations we should be having; instead falling back on the old, tired, and frankly, irrational arguments of “no compromise”. Civil discourse is an actual process. In the social debate over theses issue, we are “out gunned”, “out maneuvered” and simple “overwhelmed” by the “opposition” (if that is in fact what they are). Our playground response are not wining anyone over. The messaging is being controlled by “them”. The “Them” in this “debate” is what is seemingly the new national pastime of – “othering”. Human… Read more »

Last edited 12 days ago by Flyknot
JSNMGC
JSNMGC
12 days ago
Reply to  Flyknot

Most people did read/listen and thought about what he wrote and later what he said during interviews. Reading what he wrote and listening to him was painful because he is a terrible communicator. A lot of people have come to a different conclusion than Pincus and he cannot comprehend that smart people do not agree with him. Many have concluded that it is time for “pro 2nd Amendment” politicians to stop agreeing to any new restrictions. They don’t want to trade something they currently have for something Pincus believes is valuable. Many have concluded that it is time for firearm… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
12 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Flyknot,

Provide an example of the type of person who would have to go through a background check to purchase a firearm from a non-FFL (under Pincus’s proposal).

Assume the person lives in a state where there are currently no restrictions on residents from buying/selling among themselves.

Last edited 12 days ago by JSNMGC
JSNMGC
JSNMGC
12 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Flyknot?

Flyknot
Flyknot
12 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

If you’re asking where does the handle come from. I am fly fisherman, and its a play on “why not” and a Fly Knot. It’s been around for me for a while.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
12 days ago
Reply to  Flyknot

No – I was impatient and was prompting you to reply. Your reply was made at almost the same time I posted the prompt.

I encourage you to continue the conversation. But it’s time to get into specifics.

Last edited 12 days ago by JSNMGC
Flyknot
Flyknot
12 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Was it a proposal? I didn’t see that, I saw a suggestion about a possible argument position or starting point. I couldn’t provide an example without context, the type of content gleaned from actually reading a proposal. It’s like when a CCW student gives you a “what if” scenario – It’s impossible to answer without the totality of circumstances or facts; so any answer is beneficial only to a specific totality of circumstance. I am merely suggesting that we considering discussing opportunities for commonality without using absolutism as crutch for the lack of ideas. I can be as armed as… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
12 days ago
Reply to  Flyknot

Do you agree with Pincus? Can you make an actual proposal on requiring background checks on non-FFL sales – a proposal that tomorrow you will refer to as a proposal? Who should go through a background check when buying a firearm from a non-FFL? Pincus gave numerous examples of exemptions, but who should go through a background check? Again, for this example assume the person is a resident of a state that does not currently regulate sales between non-FFLs. Let’s continue the conversation about enhanced background checks for non-FFL sales. That’s what you and Pincus want is a conversation. Regarding… Read more »

Finnky
Finnky
12 days ago
Reply to  Flyknot

@Flyknot – Sounds to me as though you have lofty goals. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending upon your point of view) achieving the nirvana you aspire to is simply impossible. When anyone wishes to change the law, particularly dramatic changes and changes unevenly spreading costs among citizens – they need to have hard proof that their proposals WILL have sufficiently large benefits to justify social costs and fair compensation to individuals being negatively impacted. In no case have I seen even soft “proof” that any gun control proposal will do anything to make anyone safer – other than perhaps the more… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
12 days ago
Reply to  Finnky

shhhhh. . . he only wants to be perceived as wanting to have a conversation and wanting to be perceived as willing to propose something reasonable (because continuing to lose is winning). However, he (just like Pincus) will not describe what “enhanced background checks” should look like. They just want to have a conversation about the need to have a conversation. Flyknot: Specifically, in states that currently do not regulate the transfers of firearms between non-FFL residents, what new law do you want? Pincus gave examples of exemptions, but describe a person who would be required to have a background… Read more »

Flyknot
Flyknot
12 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

I don’t believe he (Pincus) was offering any specific suggestion or was being purposefully vague in his offerings. I believe the intent to begin a conversation that most are nearly unequivocally unwilling to have. Perhaps even asking all of us to consider changing the premise of the debate. Two polar position, where the participants are set in stone results in nothing being accomploshed, or worse one side winning the emotional debate among the millions of ill-informed voters. I am doing the work, with my students I make principled arguments on Should vs. Could, rights come with responsibilities, and that carrying… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
12 days ago
Reply to  Flyknot

The argument isn’t even being made. How many politicians have argued against the lies that are the foundation for each and every gun control bill that is currently being considered? How many politicians have pointed out that the homicide rate in the Englewood neighborhood of Chicago is 15,000% higher than many other neighborhoods in the country? None. That is the same number who pointed out that many of those low homicide rate neighborhoods have a much higher rate of firearm ownership than Englewood. The homicide rate in Englewood (and over 20 other high crime neighborhoods on the south and west… Read more »

RoyD
RoyD
12 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

the root cause of that violence” If only we had some clue as to what that might be. As Arsenio used to say, “Hmmm.”

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
12 days ago
Reply to  RoyD

Flyknot refuses to accept that some people have different proposals than he kind of sort of, but not really, is making. I can’t make it any clearer for him, my proposals are to: Educate the voters (by giving them facts in a logical manner) who may vote differently if they are told the truth repeatedly; Improve the micro-culture in high crime areas; and Increase the arrest rates, conviction rates, and length of sentences; Decrease the number of paroles; and Improve the resources available to people with mental health issues. Those are not the current arguments of pro 2nd Amendment politicians.… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
12 days ago
Reply to  RoyD

Posted a reply – its on hold.

Flyknot
Flyknot
12 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

I can agree that I am not going to change your mind. You continue to ascribe comments or insinuations I did not make. I didn’t offer any proposal or say that I had the answer, I merely suggested that current arguments are not changing any ones mind with any significant impact. So why stay stuck on that position. Here is the current positions from both sides “No it isn’t” “yes it is” no it isn’t” and so on and so on ad infinitum. If we cannot find common ground on back ground checks, and your suggestion is let’s start with… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
12 days ago
Reply to  Flyknot

Read what I wrote – I want to change the argument. Do you agree with Pincus that background checks should be required for purchases from non-FFLs? If so, describe the type of person who should have a background check performed on them (someone who is not exempted). My suggestion is not to start with why humans are violent – my suggestion is to improve the micro-culture in neighborhoods where the humans are 15,000% more violent than humans in other neighborhoods. The reason for the violence is clear – it is the decisions being made by the people living in those… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
12 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Flyknot, I thought you wanted to have a conversation?

Last edited 12 days ago by JSNMGC
Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
2 days ago
Reply to  Flyknot

The increase in firearms sales over the past couple of years would indicate we are changing minds.

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
2 days ago

I think it is because things are getting out of control and people are scared that the police won’t be able to protect them and that goes for people of all color and especially women.

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
2 days ago
Reply to  Flyknot

Your reasoned, moderate, willinness to compromise attitude is why we are in this compromised position we gind ourselves in today. Every time we compromise, we end up revisiting the discussion at a later date, from a position a little further Left. Now we start any reasonable discussion from a starting point of already having 20k gun laws. But you are willing to accept more? Scrap them all, every last one, and fall back on our Judeo Christian prohibitions on assault and murder. And what makes you think you are qualified to have students? That reeks of delusions of grandeur. Have… Read more »

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
2 days ago

Shinoda.

Brown conservative 77
Brown conservative 77
12 days ago
Reply to  Flyknot

You can’t have a conversation with THEM at all, Jesus are you even on the same planet, God given rights are not debatable!

Jim
Jim
14 days ago

In my experience with Pincus, I’ve found him to be an arrogant, self-aggrandizing ass who thinks his opinion is the only ones that is meaningful and anyone who disagrees with him is “stupid” which is what he called me in a conversation a few years ago.

DavidT
DavidT
15 days ago

Ammoland – good on you for posting articles from may different opinions and letting your readers decide for themselves what they think.
Rob – No. Regardless of what you have said or done in the past you are now part of the problem, not the solution.
At this point you are not worth paying attention to.

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
16 days ago

Gross is an asshat.

wally
wally
16 days ago

since when has compromising ever worked?
since when has a “gun law” ever stopped shooter/murderer?

i’ll keep it brief…

this article is absurd…

wally

Mogar
Mogar
17 days ago

FUDD

Hogleg
Hogleg
17 days ago

Who says a culture war does not exist. How could anyone not see that there is a culture war raging in America right now.
If he is missing this obvious fact then then I am left to wonder what else does he not see?
Wasted to much time researching these two clueless lefties.

H.H.

AnarchistAlien
AnarchistAlien
17 days ago

It boggles my mind that people can write such idiotic stuff without catching the fallacies of their own statements. It clearly communicates to me that Rob has not taken the appropriate amount of time to think critically about his opinions. For Example, one CANNOT be accepting of this statement: “The greatest opportunity for policy impact lies not in keeping certain guns from all people, but in keeping all guns from certain people (the people almost everyone already agrees should not have them).” and then make this statement: “For gun control advocates, it demonstrates an authentic respect for rights, and a… Read more »

NoApologizes
NoApologizes
17 days ago

Rob, you are a yella-belly, coward, just a back-stabbing, traitor! Go on over to CNN. I’m sure they will welcome you there, with open arms. I cant believe I actually subscribed to your PDN network. Never Again buddy. Never, ever, again.

Starblast
Starblast
17 days ago

Background checks period produce almost ZERO response of any kind. It’s a subjugating law imposed entirely on the law abiding. One does not vanquish evil by imposing upon the good. What’s worse is the sense of security that comes with these infringements.

The yoke of the criminal ought not be foisted upon the law abiding. If your answer is “lets treat everyone like criminals so we can catch the real ones easier” keep it to yourself.

The_Last_Rebel
The_Last_Rebel
18 days ago

Some people will NEVER learn two obvious things: gun control ALWAYS leads to more gun control and NO ONE can legislate EVIL from the hearts of EVIL men! CRIMINALS DO NOT ABIDE BY THE LAW. Stop “straw-buyers and outlaws” by punishing the hell out of them! And stop the mentally unfit to own by 1)reporting their condition(I know, privacy, but we’ve got to protect the innocent from the harmful) 2)helping them get treatment for their condition. STOP MAKING SIMPLE SOLUTIONS COMPLICATED!! IT’S NOT!!

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
16 days ago
Reply to  The_Last_Rebel

“Straw buyers and outlaws”? Please do not demonize the firearms.

dbeall
dbeall
18 days ago

I have no desire to end the culture war. I intend to WIN the culture war.

iasonasVanDer
iasonasVanDer
19 days ago

Hey, Gross-Pincus: Want to “cut the number of gun-involved deaths in our country in half ?” Then focus on the mostly urban, mostly black-on-black crime that FBI and other stats show are responsible for over half the homicide and fully 85% (or more!) of the gun violence in the US (in parts of NYC, it’s virtually all gun-involved crime). Instead of unfairly scrutinizing millions of law abiding gun owners, focus on a few thousand gang bangers and other career criminals, many of whom are already known to law enforcement. If it weren’t for that rampant, rising, and out of control violence in about a dozen (mostly… Read more »

azhnt3r
azhnt3r
19 days ago

No more compromising. We need to draw a line, now.

NO_COMPROMISE!!
NO_COMPROMISE!!
19 days ago

Rob Pincus is a has-been, a sellout, and a traitor! He does NOT speak for me!

NO_COMPROMISE!!
NO_COMPROMISE!!
19 days ago

We have been “compromising” our rights away for DECADES!! The only “compromise” we should be talking about, as liberty lovers AND as compassionate citizens who want to protect the innocent is what can we do to make it EASIER for good people to get the means to protect themselves! Oh, and by the way… we are ALL supposed to be assumed “GOOD”, until we have proven ourselves not to be!

Ammonia717
Ammonia717
19 days ago

I will not compromise on my right. Not one more inch. Period.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
19 days ago
Reply to  Ammonia717
NO_COMPROMISE!!
NO_COMPROMISE!!
19 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

HELL NO.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
19 days ago

You realize I was mocking the concept, right?

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
16 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Oh. Sorry, no; your delivery was rather dry.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
16 days ago

No more gun control. All Republican candidates must unequivocally state this as part of their platform. The NRA must go away – it is not salvageable. All other pro 2nd Amendment groups must step up and immediately and very publicly condemn any Republican politician or candidate who supports any gun control. They must also provide greater transparency into their operations so we never have a repeat of the NRA disaster. Republican candidates must be called out to actually do something and not just use the 2nd Amendment as a campaign slogan. They need to use facts, data, and logical arguments… Read more »

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
12 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Yup, works for me.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
12 days ago

It’s an upside down world. I frequently use sarcasm out of frustration with all the nonsense.

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
2 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Same here. We have become to dam serious all the time. Where is the openness and the laughter that we used to all share.

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
16 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Not even. Do away with background checks. If a citizen cannot be trusted with a gun, lock him up.

pilot25
pilot25
20 days ago

This is the second anti-gun article I have read on here in the last couple months. If I wanted anti-gun news I can go to thousands of other sites. The editors won’t admit they didn’t proof the article because it was from now Benedict Arnold Pincus. He needs to be ostracized from the community and stripped from any and all positions of power. Having a traitor in the ranks is unacceptable. Ammoland needs to do better.

Dave in Fairfax
Editor
Dave in Fairfax
20 days ago
Reply to  pilot25

pilot25, There is no admission because you are wrong. Articles are proofread by at least 2 editors. Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem. WE don’t censor viewpoints. If that’s what you want, you’re right, most other sites will treat you like a child and only let you read 1/2 the story. We treat people like adults and let you read and decide. If hearing both sides of an argument bothers you, you have my sympathy – no, my pity. I get it, you don’t agree with Pincus. If you’ve been reading the comments you know that you’re not the… Read more »

pilot25
pilot25
20 days ago

So much for Ammoland. Another crap website in a sea of crap. You and your “editors” missed the point and the fact you had to write an “editors update” says as much. This isn’t just some writer. It is Rob Pincus. A now self expose traitor among the ranks.

You want to push anti-gun information out. Have a blast. I’ll find another website to read. You are right, I’m not the only one who thinks as such. I can get the drivel you now are pushing from CNN too.

Last edited 20 days ago by pilot25
Dee
Dee
20 days ago

Dave you right! I won’t be silent even though folks on Ammoland can’t stand it. Go ahead everyone….dislike away!! But we all have opinions even Pincus!!

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
12 days ago
Reply to  Dee

Everybody has a right to their own opinion; but some folks ought to keep their opinions to themselves.

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
2 days ago
Reply to  Dee

Ya but in your mind if we disagree with your opinion we are racists. There is a difference but I no longer expect you to understand that because I realize you are brain washed and just plain ignorant.

Dasher_Dork
Dasher_Dork
20 days ago

I heard Rob and Harold are roommates….

L84Cabo
L84Cabo
20 days ago

If ever there was a person who liked to hear himself talk it’s Rob Pincus. The dude writes a freaking novel to finally get to the point of saying he is for Universal Background Checks (UBC’s). And anyone with half a brain knows that UBC’s are NOT the endgame. The point of UBC’s is to instill universal GUN REGISTRATION! Because UBC’s are worthless without a database to track the sales and go back and reference them. Yet not a single mention in his word salad novel of how he intends to overcome that small problem.

PMinFl
PMinFl
20 days ago

I went back to read this opinion piece, and was sorely disappointed in the surrender stance taken by Pincus. As a self proclaimed spokesperson for gun owners Pincus shows a complete dishonesty in making a deal with the devil. EVERY concession is taken and more is expected from the firearms community, without any negotiation from the gun grabbers (not much left of our piece of cake). With friends like Pincus who needs enemies?

Larry
Larry
20 days ago

Looks like my comment yesterday was censored, so let me try again… For gun rights advocates, it provides reassurance and tangible demonstration that no one is seeking to take rights away from responsible gun owners. Because the limits you set today to protect “responsible gun owners” will never, ever be ignored by a future hoplophobe, right? Let me tell you a story: The Washington, D.C., city council considered (but did not enact) a proposal to use registration lists to confiscate all shotguns and handguns in the city. When reminded that the registration plan had been enacted with the explicit promise… Read more »

Last edited 20 days ago by Larry
DIYinSTL
DIYinSTL
20 days ago

Rob, there is far more evidence and rational thought supporting the existence of Santa Clause than there is for the possibility of your background check ‘enhancements’ ever working. The best you could hope for would be an increase in burglaries, robberies, and car break-ins as the demand for stolen guns rise.

Thank you AmmoLand for publishing this article. We need to be well informed even if what we read is distasteful.

Torcido308
Torcido308
20 days ago

There are two words in Gun Violence. Everyone stops at the first in order to control it. No one has taken on the root of the issue, it’s just violence (PERIOD). It’s not the gun it’s the violent human behind it!

Mike L
Mike L
20 days ago

by keeping guns from the people we all agree should not have them”

I’m glad Rob has a magic 8 ball and can identify people who should not have guns. I guess we can also cut auto deaths by identifying people who should not have cars before they buy one. People who should not own pools, before they buy one. People who should not have knives, before they buy one. All we need are those pre-cogs to identify precrime for us.

TypicalWhitePerson
TypicalWhitePerson
19 days ago
Reply to  Mike L

Robbie Pinko should not have guns.

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
16 days ago
Reply to  Mike L

Trust me, “Predictive Policing” is really a thing.

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
2 days ago

Yes, they are showing it now on tv shows saying that they can predict who is going to be a cereal killer because of their M. O..

Guy driving down the road picks up a hitch hiker. The hiker says you really are trusting pulling over and giving me a ride and not knowing who I really am! I could be a serial killer. The driver turns and looks at the hiker and says “now what are the odds of two serial killers being in the same car at the same time”.

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
2 days ago
Reply to  Mike L

Too bad he cant identify people who are going to have democrats so we can sterilize them. Bad joke I know.

Thoricuncle
Thoricuncle
20 days ago

Is this the same Rob Pincus that eviscerated Jerry Tsai from Recoil in 2012?

Larry
Larry
20 days ago

For gun rights advocates, it provides reassurance and tangible demonstration that no one is seeking to take rights away from responsible gun owners. Yeah, because the limits you propose today will bind hoplophobes and tyrants forever, right? Here’s a little reminder for you… The Washington, D.C., city council considered (but did not enact) a proposal to use registration lists to confiscate all shotguns and handguns in the city. When reminded that the registration plan had been enacted with the explicit promise to gun owners that it would not be used for confiscation, the confiscation’s sponsor retorted, “Well, I never promised… Read more »