Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
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.
Like the tragedy of people being personally responsible and not being utterly dependent on the government to supply every need.
You offer the policy of the ideology of 'personal responsibility' and several thousand more dead Americans every year. Democrats offer a trivial requirement and many people saved.
Many right-wingers are blind ideologues, who can't put the reality of the human condition and effects of their policies ahead of even trivial deviations from 'the ideology'.
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.
Yup, it's so easy for criminals to just walk into stores and get guns that 93% of criminals obtain their guns illegally rather than "easily" walking into a store and buying them.
The phrase 'easy availability' includes 'easy through burglary because so many homes have them easy to steal'. Of course criminals prefer stolen, untracable guns, not bought.
'Easy availability' also can include the ease of having non-criminal associates buy guns and give them to criminals.
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.
Yup, perfectly consistent with the ideology that prefers to restrict the rights of non-criminals while doing absolutely nothing to address the core issue.
Of course you put it that way, just as those who wanted to deny blacks entry into colleges weren't anti-black, just pro-states rights.
The debate about the effectiveness of gun laws is another issue; the question here was why liberals like gun laws, and the point preceding was where the 'extremist freedom fring' lies between left-wing and right-wing. You did not dispute it lies on the right, which was th eonly point. You can argue that gun laws are ineffective; it's not the topic here.
Originally posted by: Craig234
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.
Translation: "We know what's best for you, so just shut up and do what Big Brother tells you."
The thoughtless, ideological argument of the extremist freedom fringe, that can be applied to big brothr saying to stop at red lights and stop signs, not to drive 110 MPH drunk on the freeway, to not leave old refrigerators kids can get trapped in out as an attractive nusiance, not to remove smog devices on cars, and countless other rational judgements the rational side makes about when the beneits to restricting a freedom outweight good, while the irrational pick hyperbolic statements like the above to any law they don't like.
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.
Guns are perceived very differently between the two. That may have something to do with the fact that rural folks tend to have actually used firearms and know how to handle them while city folk have not and are therefore irrationally frightened of firearms.
In part that's the case. Another is that street crime and gangs are more a part of city life than of rural life, a point you pointlessly appear to refuse to acknowledge.
That has nothing to do with your trying to discredit the concerns of city peopler who have legitimate concerns.
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.
There's certainly no statistical evidence to claim that it makes things more dangerous, so the point is moot even if one attempts to argue that the drops in crime are coincidental.
And it remains a separate topic for debate. But of course a 'lack of statistical evidence' is not the only factor in policy.
There's a lack of statistical evidence that arming everyone with spitballs won't end crime, but we don't need statistics to reach conclusions.
I'm not saying the same applies to everyone having a gun, I'm just pointing out the limits of your argument as if the lack of statictics proves your side.
Originally posted by: Craig234
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.
So, the gun causes people to commit drive-bys, but only if those people are in the city?
ZV
No, the people who use guns for things like drive bys - the gangs and such - are concentrated in the cities, making a handgun more likely to get used for a drive by there.
You are not too logical in looking only at the gun and not the differences in environments involving the people and criminally-oriented people and organizations.
The fact is, giving out 10000 handguns to random rural citizens and 10000 to random city residents will see those guns used differently.
My post was to help explain why the rural and city views differ, you again pointlessly argue for the sake of arguing and try to deny the obvious facts.
City people tend to give more weight to the concern of other people having guns than rural people do, because they face a greater threat from it than rural people do.
Gun laws to a liberal tend to mean that criminal who would use the gun against someone innocent not having one - however wrong that may be given the practical challenges in reducing guns - while gun laws to a rural person tend to mean *their* not having one for their own enjoyment and defense. Liberals in rural settings often adopt the view of the rural setting, not the fellow liberals in cities, which is why we see 'blue dog democrats' who are pro-gun.
That was the topic, to explain why liberals tend to like fun laws more than right-wingers, not to debate gun laws.
Facebook
Twitter