Why is gun control an issue for socially liberal people ?

[Muse]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
Personally I think it's too late to change the gun laws in the states. There are just too many guns out there, so if make them illegal the only people who will have guns are the criminals.

But this isn't true everywhere.

In Australia guns are pretty much illegal, but the criminals don't have guns.

Sure, there area few crims with guns, but gun crimes are extreemly rare.

Gun ownership was never big here, except on farms, so there were never many handguns. So now that they are illegal it's very hard to get hold of a handgun.

It's too hard to smuggle them into the country. (Surrounded by water. yay)

Plus, if you're going to bother smuggling shit you're better of bringing in drugs. Less risk and bigger profit.

Just a thinking point for all you "If you outlaw them only the criminals would have them" people.

EDIT - I've never seen a real gun, except attached to a cop, let aloan held one. Probably seems strange to yanks.

Good post.

The problem with gun ownership is that irresponsible gun owners are not held accountable if they let their guns get stolen and used by someone else in a crime. Everyone who owns a gun contributes to the availability of guns for use in crime and therefore they should at least be required to buy liability insurance for all their guns. They are infringing on everybody else's right to not get shot. Gun owners are extremely hypocritical about not admitting that they are part of the problem.

That said, gun control hasn't been an issue since 1994. The election results showed that the U.S. is a nation of violence and gun nuts and always will be. Nobody is ever going to try to pass gun control legislation again, there are far more important issues in the economy. Gun control is no longer part of the agenda for democrats because even though guns cause problems, the country has much bigger problems that need to be dealt with.

You were doing OK until the second, bolded paragraph. Gun control continues to be an important issue in the USA. Obama at least mentioned it in his address at the DNC, saying that guns in the hands of hunters is one thing but AK47's in the hands of criminals in the streets is another and shouldn't be tolerated.

"Always will be...?" Nonesense. "There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to consider what's happening." - The Medium is the Message, Marshall McCluhan

Oh really? That's an issue is it? Could you please tell me then, out of the millions of crimes in America every year, how many are committed with an AK47...or in fact any true 'assault rifle'?

I can't tell you that but my paraphrasing of Obama's statement is reasonably accurate, I just spoke the truth. Frankly, I don't care what the proportion is. I'm for getting all these guns out of the hands of the citizenry, the lawful the lawless, everybody. I'm talking about assault rifles, Saturday Night Specials, Glocks, 22's, all of them. Hunting might be OK, but tightly controlled and monitored. Squawk and protest all you want, that's what I favor. It would take a while, maybe a generation, but after a while gun violence would be extremely diminished in the USA.

Well then pony up and come try to take mine, find out what awaits for anyone (government included) that tries to actually remove all firearms. You want something that bad you'd better be willing to kill or die over it, because we are. Come try it, I dare you.

All credible research shows there's no support for your position. All credible research. You, and everyone like you, is unable to make any kind of supported argument. You cover your ears, and close your eyes, and stomp you little ignorant feet and cry out "I want what I want"...well bully for you, it's good to want things. Now go play while big people run the country correctly.

You are proof in the pudding that you "can't argue with a sick mind."

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Craig234
What we have are liberals who like gun control for the same reason they like seat belts and drunk driving laws, because they are opposed to tragedies.

Why not ban junk food then? Obesity kills more people than guns do. Affects on others? Og hell yeah. Kids lose parents, and SOMEONE has to pay the bills. Why not go after the big stuff?

That's where the balance between preventing tragedy and protecting liberty comes in.

There's not much case for not wearing a seat belt or driving drunk, but people enjoy snacks, and snacks can be used in moderation - that would be lost.

Times may change and we may see liberals come up with some measures against obesity.

For now, the see saw tips to 'freedom'.

Originally posted by: Craig234
They see the easy availability of guns make it easy for criminals, drug addicts who need to rob for fix money, gang bangers, young people, to get handguns - and use them.

I would be willing to bet most crimes commited for drugs do not involve guns.

That one doesn't make much sense to me; handguns enable the criminals to commit more and worse crimes. It's not an issue whether there are gunless burglaries, too.

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's perfectly consistent with their ideology; the 'fringe' who argue the 'freedom' angle for not wearing seat belts is right-wing, not left-wing.

Why is that when liberals are a lot about personal freedom? Because there's a rational view that weighs the pros and cons and say some 'freedoms' are more harm than good.

I would agree with that.

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think part of the issue is the huge difference between the environments of typical liberals - big cities - and the environment of a lot of Republicans - small towns and rural.

Guns mean very different things between the two, and many people in one environment have little concern about the other.

Agree for the most part also.

Originally posted by: Craig234
This is not addressing the gun supporters' argument about how everyone carrying a gun makes things safer, that's a separate topic.

You end up with a rural citizen who is deep in safe gun culture boggling at gun control, while the city dweller sees another drive-by kill people for no good reason.

OK.

Well agreement is nice.

The fact is, more people who live unhealthy lifestyles cause harm not only to themselves, but those around them in one way or another, not to mention the strain on our already stressed medical and insurance world. MOST gun owners do NOT shoot people.

It's how you set up the equation, isn't it.

If you just look at the harm, for the sake of argument, let's say you are right.

If you look at the proportion of misuse, you're right too, most gun owners don't commit crimes.

But when you weigh in more factors - everything from the benefit people get from eating, to the underlying issue of which freedoms are more 'valuable' like choosing your diet than others, what the loss is if the freeom is lost, the practicality of a ban, etc., the picture can change pretty quickly.

Once upon a time, people made a case that alchohol was pretty harmful - even before there was much drunk driving. We tried banning it, didn't go too well.

Today, we accept a balance, on a spectrum from the one ounce a day healthy drink, to the pleasurable and harmless lighe social drinking, to the small to large problem drinking, and then on to drunk driving and alchoholic drinking where lives are lost - with the bad side accepted despite its cost.

It's not all quantiative, it's qualitaive too; if I invented a device with zero redeeming use but which would only kill a child, then having five sold in society is five too many, even through it's far less in numbers than other dangers. We need to avoid just using one narrow measure like 'total damage to society' - although that's a great place to start for looking for places to improve.

In short i think the obesity issue is its own issue that does not change the right policy on guns. I'm not sure we're very far on obesity - just as it took decades to invent seat belts.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Craig234
What we have is a somewhat amorphous situation where there is some 'right' to some weapons, and some right of the government to regulate, based on a vague amendment.

And that rests solidly on a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that vaguely says the government has some right, but not excessive right, to regulate the access to weapons.

I agree with the summary of where we are. Where we want to go, however, is where I believe our paths diverge.

ZV

I'm not entirely clear where I want to go on this, so that's hard to say.

In a perfect world, I would look at the dangers of handguns, their uniquely criminally useful properties (cheap and concealable), and the plethora of good alternatives for their legitimate use, and I'd lean towards saying they'd be better off banned, and recognize that rural people are paying an unfair price because if they didn't, the ban would be easily undermined, but that the benefit to the cities was larger than the harm to rural people.

Having said that, I can understand the pro-gaun view that guns being widely carried by citizens has benefits, too, and could serve to deter crimes and minimize the harm of the mass shooters (the guy who shoots his wife is still going to do so, the criminal's element of surprise is a big part of the picture.)

But a ban has huge issues with practicality, and we now do have that Supreme Court ruling as yet an additional barrier.

'Lightweight bans' - whatever small jurisdictions like cities can do within the new guidelines - may well be ineffective if not more harm than good. We need the facts.

Sometimes people can have the right position for the wrong reasons. We need to remember that we can still think the stereotypical gun nut who understands and cares not at all about the real issues but wants his gun rights for bad reasons, has bad reasons; it does not mean that the position he holds is wrong.

I'd summarize my current ill-defined position this way:

I weigh the taking of innocent life - or any life, really - as weighed more than the recreational use of handguns. I'm not convinced of the 'pro' side of handguns in comparison to the violence (but I'm open to the facts saying otherwise) if they do). That changes for long guns.

So I'm for what results in the fewest innocent lives taken. If that means a big ban, fine, if it means great increasing how many people have handguns fine, and if it means our current mix of cities trying more restrictive laws, fine. Whatever works best in the long term to reduce violence (and I acknowledge the need to include other weapons replacing handguns).

But finally given the Supreme Court ruling, I'm also inclined not to waste a lot of political energy on something that won't change - I think we have bigger problems.

So perhaps the best thing for the democratic party to do, in their noble battle for the public interest against the corrupt concentrated wealth, is to take away one of their wedge issues.

Let the many gun-loving Americans who have all kinds of interests that better fit the Democraitic party, stop having guns as a reason not to vote Democratic.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Well, at the time, you know when the constitution was written, handguns was state of the art weapons...

If their intent were to be carried out, fighter jets with full missile equipment would not be a problem for any one citizen to own, nor would tanks and ammo for them, in reality, that is what it would take, "a well armed militia" of today would need a helluvalot more than some wimpy M16's even if they WERE fully automatic.

Since i've had this argument before and i know how it goes i'll speed it along a tad "but the military would side with the people" - great, then why would you need guns in the first place "that is just stupid" why is that stupid "it just is" but can't you explain what is stupid about it - if the people need guns to protect their freedom while the military could beat them into submission in half an hour because they don't have the weapons needed to challenge them OR the military would side with them and then they wouldn't even need a gun against the government... "that is just stupid".

In reality, the fourth amendment is of little value in todays world and mostly used by people who cling to their guns that they use as a hobby and to fire while pretending they are someone that they'll never be.

Personally, i would be glad if i didn't have to fire my gun again.

Understandable that you would not wish to have to fire your gun again. However, those of us who are not active military may, perhaps, enjoy target shooting at the range and hunting. Both are legitimate uses that cause no harm to other people.

To use another strongly analogous situation, think about the "Betamax Case". The core ruling in the case was that, so long as the devices (in this case video tape recorders) had legitimate, legal uses, there was no basis for restricting the sale and availability of those devices.

Why should I desire to live in a society that treats me as though I am an idiot child by denying me the ability to own firearms? Why must millions upon millions of responsible people be punished because a few thousand people are irresponsible?

It's not about the guns themselves, and it's not about how I might use them. It is true that I think my own safety is increased by having a firearm, but that's an ancillary issue at most. What it comes down to in the end is that I would prefer to have freedom than safety, and I will push towards that end.

ZV

I can understand that you want them for hunting, i'm even own grounds on which i hunt on, i can understand that you like the sport of targets, but to believe you need them for your own protection? What kind of hell hole do you live in where you'd need that?

I'll walk through Brixton unarmed without fear and that is the WORST place you can ever visit in Britain.

Unlawful weapons are usually just weapons with the serial number filed off, if they were bought legally, stolen from someone who bought them legally or actually bought from an illegal source that got them through without anyone anywhere in the system acknowledging their existance is up for debate, i'd say around 98% or all "illegal" guns were legal guns when they were bought.

To compare it to video recorders... surely you must be taking the piss?