I have a moral issue with liberal attitudes to gun ownership and would like to see the opinions of other people

[Moonbeam]

It's because the NRA are so political and self serving. They know the GOP is more on their side, so they side with them. Republican voters are notoriously ill-informed, easily swayed.

Do you find anything odd in the fact that I would like to own what I have concluded are the best guns to have and am unhappy that liberals have passed laws that say I can't, whereas I have no problem at all if you don't want to own a gun. Would I be wrong to conclude that you think your moral opinion is superior to mine? I disagree. Not only do I believe in the right of self defense, but also in the theory of just war. I believe my beliefs are organically sane and yours are not and further that I have no moral obligation to arm you by force to protect you from the regret you would feel if someone you loved died because you lacked the means to protect them where, had you a gun you would have been so able.

 

[1prophet]

How to turn conservative types and the NRA into liberal gun grabbers.

Just have the wrong type of people exercise their constitutional rights.

The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons | HISTORY

Back in the 1960s, even the NRA supported gun control to disarm the group.

www.history.com

Gun control was always about black/minority control, so they wouldn't get too uppity with the powers that be, especially by the ones that came in on the short end of the stick during the civil war, as a form of oppression, too bad today's so-called woke white liberal progressive types conveniently leave that part out in their quest to ban guns.

The Dark Secret of Jim Crow and the Racist Roots of Gun Control

Gun control is founded on Jim Crow racism

davekopel.org

Actually, gun restrictions will target the black community

For example, stop-and-frisk, infamous for its role in the police harassment of black Americans, is a favorite among policies employed to enforce gun control measures.

thehill.com

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiV7p_Vw9XrAhVhgnIEHXm-Cg8QFjAAegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sedgwickcounty.org%2Fmedia%2F29093%2Fthe-racist-origins-of-us-gun-control.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3rXCoKGtPYhB5k1fo8ynRv

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I believe that most gun control laws are ineffective because they don't address the real problem associated with gun violence

Yeah!

, which is unregulated gun sales that allows guns to get into the hands of criminals and those with mental health issues.

Wait, what? I'm not gonna lie, you had me in the first half. But how is this the "real problem"? Are the majority of gun murders committed due to unregulated guns sales to criminals and the mentally unwell? A lot of numbers I see point the finger at the war on drugs and the lucrative and violent black market created by it.

While I agree with you that these loopholes should be closed, I can't help but feel that you have identified a symptom and not a root of the problem with gun violence in America. There are several roots but I believe the war on drugs to be the largest, the most important, the most effective, and yet unfortunately the toughest to eliminate.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I'll go with that. Putin loves the NRA- the fear mongering, the hatred, the divisiveness & millions of armed & gaslit Americans thinking they'll have to shoot each other, because Freedumb.

This isn't backed by statistical data though, is it? Most COPS will never even fire their gun at another human while on the job. A much smaller percentage of non-cops who own guns for personal protection will ever fire that weapon at another human. It is a tough argument to make that millions of Americans think they need to shoot each other when only a few thousand do, and many of those shootings have more to do with the war on drugs and gang violence than they do with some asshole conservative white gaslit republican shooting someone because Putin and the NRA convinced them to. For the record I'm no longer a fan of the NRA and I've never liked Putin, but tying all this shit to them doesn't help fix anything. Ending the war on drugs would have vastly better consequences than anything else I've ever seen proposed and would have zero cost outside of some corporate vendor who serves jails maybe losing some business.

 

[0roo0roo]

I also believe there would be millions more people voting Democrat were it not for this issue. I also think that if there were millions more people voting Democrat we would in time not have the kind of gun violence we do.

The areas most afflicted with gun violence ALREADY vote democrat, and have so for at least a generation.

What the democrats managed to prove is that the police are only there to protect the politicians, this is why you need the right to bear arms.

and the rest is simply demographics.

 

[ivwshane]

The areas most afflicted with gun violence ALREADY vote democrat, and have so for at least a generation.

What the democrats managed to prove is that the police are only there to protect the politicians, this is why you need the right to bear arms.

and the rest is simply demographics.


View attachment 29362

Do you say that knowing that the sitting president used law enforcement to clear a path for him to hold up a Bible in front of a church he’s never been to? Or are you saying that after knowing that rand Paul demanded having people, who were protesting him peacefully, be arrested AND THEN investigated.

Lol! Your posts are getting dumber by the minute!

An Atlas of American Gun Violence

Seven years. 240,000 shootings. How has gun violence marked your corner of the country?

www.thetrace.org

 

[Moonbeam]

0roo0roo: The areas most afflicted with gun violence ALREADY vote democrat, and have so for at least a generation.

M: All areas affected by gun violence will be democratic because Democrats are willing to put restrictions on who can buy guns and what kind of guns they can buy. That of course is useless because because the places most affected by gun violence are the places most destroyed by Conservative economics leaving crime as the logical upward mobility path. You are not thinking.

O: What the democrats managed to prove is that the police are only there to protect the politicians, this is why you need the right to bear arms.

M: What the Democrats have notices and are beginning to act on is the fact that Republican repressive police measures are there to enforce the economic system that destroys disadvantaged people. The second amendment will be eliminated if the people ever use arms to fight against that repression.

O: and the rest is simply demographics.

M: An assertion of opinion that has no real meaning, no support, and no explanation. The real issue, of course, is foo. Foo trumps demographics every time.

 

[Muse]

Do you find anything odd in the fact that I would like to own what I have concluded are the best guns to have and am unhappy that liberals have passed laws that say I can't, whereas I have no problem at all if you don't want to own a gun. Would I be wrong to conclude that you think your moral opinion is superior to mine? I disagree. Not only do I believe in the right of self defense, but also in the theory of just war. I believe my beliefs are organically sane and yours are not and further that I have no moral obligation to arm you by force to protect you from the regret you would feel if someone you loved died because you lacked the means to protect them where, had you a gun you would have been so able.

Oh, my... why so defensive? Dude, are you schizophrenic?

I'm not taking a moral position here, that's you. Your word, your take and very distorted view of me, where I"m coming from.

Buy a gun, that's you.

You are so projecting it's not funny:

"Would I be wrong to conclude that you think your moral opinion is superior to mine?"

You took my quote there out of context and got very personal. I think if you inspect your motivations and feelings you might have a clue about this.

 

[kage69]

Byrna Pepperball kit for self defense

A less lethal option I just invested in for a family member. .68, looks like a real semi auto for that 'oh shit she's packin' effect, legal everywhere so good for travelers, and the effects downrange are gruesome enough for me to be ok with it. Might be worth it just as a dog and bear detterant alone. Powerful enough to take out car windows, and using the pepper balls means near instant suffocation/vomit reflex for target. Nasty stuff.

One of the main features for reliability is you carry it with tank untapped...it's linked and ball propelled just by using trigger. No pressure loss overtime from a constantly tapped tank.

Go ahead, forget about it and leave it a bag you take to the airport. You are not in trouble.

 

[Jaskalas]

Where did I go wrong?

To be driven by fear.
To the point of neglecting the harsh reality of an armed society being a more deadly society.
It is safer if we can more generally disarm the public.

 

[pmv]

Would I be wrong to conclude that you think your moral opinion is superior to mine?

isn't that inherent to the nature of all 'moral opinions'? If one didn't believe one's moral opinion was superior to the alternatives, it wouldn't be one's moral opinion, surely? You can hardly believe, say, that "killing people is wrong" and simultaneously believe that it's better to believe that "killing people is fine"

 

[MtnMan]

I'm a liberal who owns guns and has always supported 2a rights. I believe that most gun control laws are ineffective because they don't address the real problem associated with gun violence, which is unregulated gun sales that allows guns to get into the hands of criminals and those with mental health issues. Conservative nutters use the 'liberal wanna take our guns!' fearmongering in order to intentionally avoid fixing that problem, because many of them profit from that largely un-regulated gun trade.

Where are these "unregulated gun sales" occurring? There are examples of where the process in place was not enforced, or simply failed, i.e. Dillon Roof. I'm sure many criminals that deal in illegal drugs, stolen property, etc., and also hook someone up with a gun. Clearly it is not possible to stop the sale of illegal drugs, stolen property, or stolen guns. More laws and restrictions only effect law abiding citizens.

Minimal to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer, is with a call to the NICS for approval. That system has it flaws because of its design, and it is dependent on every court or mental health facility forwarding information in a timely manner to NICS. It failed in the Dillon Roof case (Charleston church shooter).

Some states have more stringent requirements, especially for handguns. Some are literally draconian. NY for example, you can't go into a gun store and ask to see a handgun, without first proving you can own a handgun, which is hard in NY. My state (NC) to buy a handgun you must either have a PPP (Pistol Purchase Permit) issued by the Sheriff, after they have run a background check (takes 2 - 3 weeks on average), or have a CHP (Concealed Handgun Permit) which is only issued after an extensive background check (takes 3+ months) by the Sheriff. Long guns are either of the above or NICS check.

I know a lot of gun owners, and have bought/sold guns from/to private individuals, which IS legal, if the seller determines that the buyer has either a PPP or a CHP. Of the many people I know both liberal and conservative, they will not sell to someone that can't show they are allow to buy a gun.

 

[MtnMan]

To be driven by fear.
To the point of neglecting the harsh reality of an armed society being a more deadly society.
It is safer if we can more generally disarm the public.

Everyone wants to disarm the "public". No one has a plan to disarm the "criminal". When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

 

[Muse]

Everyone wants to disarm the "public". No one has a plan to disarm the "criminal". When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Well here's the deal and I've been saying this for years. If it's strictly forbidden for you to possess a gun, what possible good can it do you? That works for everybody, law abiding and criminal alike. If that gun is jail bait it's suddenly not so precious and comforting, is it? Patience is the watch word. It would/will take years but outlawing gun possession would eventually disarm any nation, USA included.

 

[shortylickens]

I'm a liberal gun owner.

When things go bad you will need to defend yourself, and despite what MacGuyver would like you to believe, a trusty firearm is the most realistic solution.

 

[Homerboy]

I'm a liberal who has no problem with gun ownership. Personally, I don't want one nor feel the immediate need for one for that matter.
I do have a problem with America's lust and admiration for guns. I mean, I get people have their interests and such, but that just seems like a weird one to me - but to each his own. I think there needs to be more sensible gun laws but by no means do I want to "take guns away" from people either. I think the bastardization of the 2A has gotten us into a lot trouble and it's becoming a problem.

 

[MtnMan]

Well here's the deal and I've been saying this for years. If it's strictly forbidden for you to possess a gun, what possible good can it do you? That works for everybody, law abiding and criminal alike. If that gun is jail bait it's suddenly not so precious and comforting, is it? Patience is the watch word. It would/will take years but outlawing gun possession would eventually disarm any nation, USA included.

You are aware that 'the threat of jail' is not a deterrent, aren't you? Being armed while committing another crime really ups the game, and the time if caught, yet which criminal has that stopped? Criminals would love your world, as it becomes much safer for them when victims loose the right of self-defense.

It can save my life, or that of a loved one. It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

It is strictly forbidden to have/sell cocaine, LSD, or heroin, has been for years. How's that working out?
It is strictly forbidden to drive drunk, has been for years. How is that working out?
It is strictly forbidden to rob banks, has been for years. How is that working out?
...

 

[Moonbeam]

isn't that inherent to the nature of all 'moral opinions'? If one didn't believe one's moral opinion was superior to the alternatives, it wouldn't be one's moral opinion, surely? You can hardly believe, say, that "killing people is wrong" and simultaneously believe that it's better to believe that "killing people is fine"

I agree and I stated that I believe in the right of self defense and a corollary, 'just war' to be a morally superior position to trying to ban guns via state laws. I asked Muse where he was on that and he decided I was being defensive and possibly schizophrenic. If I am not mistaken Socrates may have had the same problem. My feeling is that I may have put him on the spot by the manner in which I framed the question(s). I started this thread because I am a liberal who thinks liberals are wrong to take an anti gun stand, but because I felt that most liberals disagreed with that position, I started this thread. I wanted to challenge that notion by asking others for their opinion.

I am not sure how defending a position makes me defensive. For example, you mentioned that in Europe fewer socially divisive issues lead to high numbers of gun related deaths as compared to here. I agree, but I also know what happened to Poland when the Germans marched in. I am also fully aware that a decent but illegal hand gun, were one owned by every Californian would not prevent the US Military from taking over the state, if such a thing could ever happen. Probably the best defense against that is the next election.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well here's the deal and I've been saying this for years. If it's strictly forbidden for you to possess a gun, what possible good can it do you? That works for everybody, law abiding and criminal alike. If that gun is jail bait it's suddenly not so precious and comforting, is it? Patience is the watch word. It would/will take years but outlawing gun possession would eventually disarm any nation, USA included.

Probably by then any well educated and bullied, teenager, flipping the crazy switch, will be able to build a self-replicating nanobot molecular disassembler that can turn the surface of the earth into poweder.

 

[Moonbeam]

You are aware that 'the threat of jail' is not a deterrent, aren't you? Being armed while committing another crime really ups the game, and the time if caught, yet which criminal has that stopped? Criminals would love your world, as it becomes much safer for them when victims loose the right of self-defense.

It can save my life, or that of a loved one. It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

It is strictly forbidden to have/sell cocaine, LSD, or heroin, has been for years. How's that working out?
It is strictly forbidden to drive drunk, has been for years. How is that working out?
It is strictly forbidden to rob banks, has been for years. How is that working out?
...

Well, of course, just because laws are broken doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. Jail can also be a place where respect for law that people willing to commit crimes missed out on as children can be given another chance to take root with proper psychological education. We can certainly do better, I think. Breaking laws is the only way some children can get noticed and negative attention is better than none for such kids. Children need love.

 

[sandorski]

You are aware that 'the threat of jail' is not a deterrent, aren't you? Being armed while committing another crime really ups the game, and the time if caught, yet which criminal has that stopped? Criminals would love your world, as it becomes much safer for them when victims loose the right of self-defense.

...

In Societies that have strict Gun Controls, the Bolded is Not True:

1) Criminals tend to not Arm themselves as often or they do with less lethal weapons
2) Far fewer people Die in Criminal Events
3) There are fewer Murders
4) Anyone possessing a Gun on their person has to keep it Concealed or else they risk being Arrested or at least being noticed. So they have a strong Incentive to only carry/use a Gun when it is absolutely necessary.
5) The Police are less compelled to use their Guns as they know that even among Criminals they have a Low Risk of being confronted with a Gun.

 

[kage69]

You are aware that 'the threat of jail' is not a deterrent, aren't you? Being armed while committing another crime really ups the game, and the time if caught, yet which criminal has that stopped? Criminals would love your world, as it becomes much safer for them when victims loose the right of self-defense.

It can save my life, or that of a loved one. It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

It is strictly forbidden to have/sell cocaine, LSD, or heroin, has been for years. How's that working out?
It is strictly forbidden to drive drunk, has been for years. How is that working out?
It is strictly forbidden to rob banks, has been for years. How is that working out?
...

Is it a SIG, on your hip, with an extra 'clip'?

 

[pmv]

I agree and I stated that I believe in the right of self defense and a corollary, 'just war' to be a morally superior position to trying to ban guns via state laws. I asked Muse where he was on that and he decided I was being defensive and possibly schizophrenic. If I am not mistaken Socrates may have had the same problem. My feeling is that I may have put him on the spot by the manner in which I framed the question(s). I started this thread because I am a liberal who thinks liberals are wrong to take an anti gun stand, but because I felt that most liberals disagreed with that position, I started this thread. I wanted to challenge that notion by asking others for their opinion.

I am not sure how defending a position makes me defensive. For example, you mentioned that in Europe fewer socially divisive issues lead to high numbers of gun related deaths as compared to here. I agree, but I also know what happened to Poland when the Germans marched in. I am also fully aware that a decent but illegal hand gun, were one owned by every Californian would not prevent the US Military from taking over the state, if such a thing could ever happen. Probably the best defense against that is the next election.

I don't know that individual Poles owning guns (and I don't know whether they did or not in the 1930s, but I'm guessing they did for hunting etc) would have made any difference when it came to facing German Panzers. It was common for individual households to own guns in Saddam's Iraq, and indeed it seems like some of the problems there were caused by US troops efforts at 'gun control', in going round trying to sieze those weapons, ironically enough.

To be honest my opinion on the topic has changed many times in my life. Sometimes I think 'guns don't kill people, capitalism kills people', and that it's not worth 'the left' throwing away votes on the issue of guns if people are really attached to owning them (I suspect Bernie Sanders thinks that at some level). Other times - usually after yet another American gun massacre (or a police shooting and subsequent civil disorder - US police behaviour and the armed population are completely intertwined) - I thank the Lord people here mostly don't want the things and very few have the weird fetish for them that some Americans seem to have.

I do feel there's a possible inconsistency between seeing 'the right' as an ever-present threat, along with being conscious that our political and economic system is very prone to crisis (both positions I can't help but hold), and at the same time being very happy that this country (the UK) doesn't have the gun culture of the US - because it makes everyday life, when not in political crisis, just safer and less stressful. I just have to live with knowing I'm inconsistent, I suppose.

One thing that continues to surprise me, is that there have been so few Islamist attacks in the US using guns. That there have been so few of them, despite guns being easily available (and none on the real centres of power in the country - the only shooting by Muslims I've seen reported seems to have been as much a 'workplace shooting' with personal motivations as it was anything ideological) just says to me that there are microscopically small numbers of the US Muslim population who are seriously sympathetic to extremism. [edit - I'm sure someone will be along to post a pre-prepared list of 'shootings by Muslims', but come to think of it, the only two I can think of both had a direct Saudi connection...the problem seems more to do with 'Saudi Arabia' than domestic Muslims or even any other Muslim country]

 

[soulcougher73]

Well here's the deal and I've been saying this for years. If it's strictly forbidden for you to possess a gun, what possible good can it do you? That works for everybody, law abiding and criminal alike. If that gun is jail bait it's suddenly not so precious and comforting, is it? Patience is the watch word. It would/will take years but outlawing gun possession would eventually disarm any nation, USA included.

Why would the criminal care if a gun is jailbait? His crimes are already jailbait if he gets caught.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't know that individual Poles owning guns (and I don't know whether they did or not in the 1930s, but I'm guessing they did for hunting etc) would have made any difference when it came to facing German Panzers. It was common for individual households to own guns in Saddam's Iraq, and indeed it seems like some of the problems there were caused by US troops efforts at 'gun control', in going round trying to sieze those weapons, ironically enough.

To be honest my opinion on the topic has changed many times in my life. Sometimes I think 'guns don't kill people, capitalism kills people', and that it's not worth 'the left' throwing away votes on the issue of guns if people are really attached to owning them (I suspect Bernie Sanders thinks that at some level). Other times - usually after yet another American gun massacre (or a police shooting and subsequent civil disorder - US police behaviour and the armed population are completely intertwined) - I thank the Lord people here mostly don't want the things and very few have the weird fetish for them that some Americans seem to have.

I do feel there's a possible inconsistency between seeing 'the right' as an ever-present threat, along with being conscious that our political and economic system is very prone to crisis (both positions I can't help but hold), and at the same time being very happy that this country (the UK) doesn't have the gun culture of the US - because it makes everyday life, when not in political crisis, just safer and less stressful. I just have to live with knowing I'm inconsistent, I suppose.

One thing that continues to surprise me, is that there have been so few Islamist attacks in the US using guns. That there have been so few of them, despite guns being easily available (and none on the real centres of power in the country - the only shooting by Muslims I've seen reported seems to have been as much a 'workplace shooting' with personal motivations as it was anything ideological) just says to me that there are microscopically small numbers of the US Muslim population who are seriously sympathetic to extremism. [edit - I'm sure someone will be along to post a pre-prepared list of 'shootings by Muslims', but come to think of it, the only two I can think of both had a direct Saudi connection...the problem seems more to do with 'Saudi Arabia' than domestic Muslims or even any other Muslim country]

Nice post. Had a nap read it and started thinking: First I thought about Bobbies, is that the right term for English police. They used to be unarmed and I think they carry arms now. That made me think that guns make cultures devolve, or that fear and insecurity drive a desire for greater security. That gave me the thought that America is just a place that because guns have long been everywhere, increasing insecurity here would naturally include them as the first choice ‘go to’ for security. Seems I have read more guns here than people.

What that tells me now is that as above so below, or so the Mystics say: The desire for nations of the world to arm is the sane as for individuals. So naturally, with the ever increasing technical perfection of weapons, the result will be human extinction, or the end of civilization as we know it. The best we seem to be able to do so far is to keep in mind MAD.

And as above so below, when it comes to unilateral disarmament. No country wants to go first.

So for me, at least, having lived a life having guns in the home, but nobody interested in them, and having fired them as a youth with all the excitement such maturity appeared to grant, I find myself upset that times in California have changed at a time when I have been thinking of buying one.
As a child I grew up rather wild. My Grandfathers rifles were in the garage where I could play with them any time and my fathers 38 in the closet I could get down when nobody was looking. For me they are objet d’art with a fantasy of security thrown in.

Still, I have nothing at the ready to defend myself with, and just thinking about changing that, getting something reasonable for defense, I find California has decided I do not have the options people have in other states and the laws themselves are absurd. I can buy a Gen 3 Glock 19 but not an improved, better, no more deadly Gen 5.

I think, and I am aware of this most of the time, is that what triggers me is having my life affected in ways I don’t want by other people’s irrational fears. There is probably little I would love to do more in life, but won’t, and that would be to shoot people who want to take my guns because they are afraid I will shoot them. That is right up there with wanting to shoot, but won’t, conservatives who insist that because I’m a liberal, I want to take their guns. Oh, it’s not that I don’t want to take their guns, I would love to, take them home with me, but theft is for people who hate themselves and justify stealing from somebody who had the ability to earn what they have, because they feel entitled to have things while feeling so fucking worthless they can’t earn anything properly themselves. “I feel like a piece of horse shit, but not so much that I can’t also say to myself I’m entitled to what you have.”