Originally posted by: Moonbeam
My theory...
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
However, I firmly believe that if every citizen was allowed to carry a pistol for personal protection, crime in this country would basically halt after 5 years.
I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied.
The end of slavery in 1865 did not eliminate the problems of racist gun control laws; the various Black Codes adopted after the Civil War required blacks to obtain a license before carrying or possessing firearms or Bowie knives; these are sufficiently well-known that any reasonably complete history of the Reconstruction period mentions them. These restrictive gun laws played a part in the efforts of the Republicans to get the Fourteenth Amendment ratified, because it was difficult for night riders to generate the correct level of terror in a victim who was returning fire. [28] It does appear, however, that the requirement to treat blacks and whites equally before the law led to the adoption of restrictive firearms laws in the South that were equal in the letter of the law, but unequally enforced. It is clear that the vagrancy statutes adopted at roughly the same time, in 1866, were intended to be used against blacks, even though the language was race-neutral. [29]
Klan violence worked to suppress black voting. As examples, over 2,000 persons were killed, wounded and otherwise injured in Louisiana within a few weeks prior to the Presidential election of November 1868. Although St. Landry Parish had a registered Republican majority of 1,071, after the murders, no Republicans voted in the fall elections. White Democrats cast the full vote of the parish for Grant?s opponent. The KKK killed and wounded more than 200 black Republicans, hunting and chasing them through the woods. Thirteen captives were taken from jail and shot; a half-buried pile of 25 bodies was found in the woods. The KKK made people vote Democratic and gave them certificates of the fact.
Black leaders such as W.E.B. DuBois, editor of the NAACP magazine Crisis, insisted that black stop behaving like helpless victims. He wrote with disgust about black people in Gainesville, Florida, who had acted ?like a set of cowardly sheep?: Without resistance they let a white mob whom they outnumbered two to one, torture, harry and murder their women [and] shoot down innocent men? No people can behave with the absolute cowardice shown by these colored people can hope to have the sympathy or help of civilized folk? In the last analysis lynching of Negroes is going to stop in the South when the cowardly mob is faced by effective guns in the hands of people determined to sell their souls dearly. A. Philip Randolph, editor of the socialist black magazine Messenger, agreed: ?Always regard your own life as more important than the life of the person about to take yours, and if a choice has to be made...choose to preserve your own and destroy that of the lynching mob.? At a protest meeting held at Carnegie Hall after the New York City riot, one of the speakers, ?Miss M.R. Lyons of Brooklyn,? told the audience: Let every negro get a permit to carry a revolver. You are not supposed to be a walking arsenal, but don't you get caught again. Have your houses made ready to afford protection from the fury of the mob, and remembering that your home is your castle and that no police officer has a right to enter it, unless he complies with the usage of the law; see that he does not. Sometimes, as in Memphis, the mere presence of armed blacks constrained white police or mob behavior. In other cases, armed blacks were partially successful; during the 1906 Atlanta riots, according to historian John Dittmer?s Black Georgia in the Progressive Era, although blacks ?were unable to offer effective resistance when trapped downtown or caught in white sections of the city, they did fight back successfully when the mobs invaded their neighborhoods.? Other times, resistance produced heavy bloodshed on both sides. In July 1919, a black who had floated into ?white? water near a Lake Michigan beach in Chicago was killed. Whites rioted, blacks fought back with rifles, and the police stood aside. Twenty-three blacks and 15 whites were killed in a week of rioting.
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
However, I firmly believe that if every citizen was allowed to carry a pistol for personal protection, crime in this country would basically halt after 5 years.
The way crime has halted in all states where cc is permitted? The way there was no crime in the old west where everyone did carry, and openly? And what about white collar crime? Or perhaps you only meant violent crime. But if you knew everyone was carrying and you still wanted to mug someone because you were either poor, hungry or just a criminal douchebag, maybe you'd just shoot them from behind instead of first telling them to "stick em up"?
No, you're probably right. All crime would halt.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Liberals tend to be interested in people doing well, and they look at the harm caused by tens of thousands of gun killings annually, the tragedy, and are concerned about it.
They recognize that there are dangerous people who will kill if guns are easily available, and they recognize that handguns are especially dangerous for crime.
They recognize that having an ocean of guns means they'll be all too available, including through burglaries.
Right-wingers tend more to identify guns as empowering them. They imagine themselves using the gun to defend against a criminal - some in some vague sense of defending against government tyranny, at least the sense than an armed populace is a deterrent to a tyrant.
Their gun tends to make them feel more powerful and they want to keep that.
As often in politics it has a lot to do with who you pay attention to. Do you look at the mother who lost her child to a 15 year old gang banger shooting him or her with a stolen handgun, or do you look at the man who shoots a home invader? Both are 'real' situations, and each side has their arguments why the other side's policies would cause big problems.
Most liberals support long-barrel guns for home defense and many see handguns as only having attributes that make them more suitable for crime. Right-wingers tend more to reject any control wholesale, encouraged by the NRA, often citing the slippery slope comment that handguns are only the first step, and if you give them an inch they'll take a mile.
So that's the basic difference - liberals viewing handguns as a danger and right-wingers viewing guns as empowering.
Edit: Loki made a point I forgot to include, that politically cities tend liberal and rural tends right-wing; this makes liberals' experience more with guns in crimes, and right-wingers more used to guns for hunting and recreational use, so each group's experience with guns is very different.
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
When I see posts like the one by Craig234, I'm reminded of why there is such a huge political divide in this country. It makes me embarrassed to be a liberal. Also, I think I'm more of a moderate, center-left kind of guy. I'm definitely less liberal than my parents and even they are less liberal than a lot of these crazy left-wingers.
Anyway, it's just a good reminder that people on the left can be just as wacko as people on the right. I might agree with them more but that doesn't make me want to associate with them.
Originally posted by: inspire
Originally posted by: Craig234
Liberals tend to be interested in people doing well, and they look at the harm caused by tens of thousands of gun killings annually, the tragedy, and are concerned about it.
They recognize that there are dangerous people who will kill if guns are easily available, and they recognize that handguns are especially dangerous for crime.
They recognize that having an ocean of guns means they'll be all too available, including through burglaries.
Hi Craig - I thought I'd offer my differing viewpoint. These bolded parts seem loaded to me. Claiming that liberals recognize, while right-wingers 'feel' or 'imagine' sets a divisive tone to my ear.
Right-wingers tend more to identify guns as empowering them. They imagine themselves using the gun to defend against a criminal - some in some vague sense of defending against government tyranny, at least the sense than an armed populace is a deterrent to a tyrant.
You neglected to mention that right-wingers also view guns as a deterrent to crime - not just some paranoid hypothetically tyranny. This is an established concept - mutually assured destruction. Criminals want to not get shot just as much as law-abiding citizens. They will frequently avoid those law-abiding citizens who are armed or potentially more often than not. Indeed this principle prevailed through the Cold War, and proved useful. It's interesting that you didn't mention this, because I feel gun-owners and rights advocates identify more with this than they do with deterring tyrants or using guns to actively defend themselves.
Their gun tends to make them feel more powerful and they want to keep that.
I find that's an oversimplification. That would be like me saying that their parade in San Francisco tends to make Gays feel more powerful and they want to keep that. It's not about power - it's about keeping and protecting their rights.
As often in politics it has a lot to do with who you pay attention to. Do you look at the mother who lost her child to a 15 year old gang banger shooting him or her with a stolen handgun, or do you look at the man who shoots a home invader? Both are 'real' situations, and each side has their arguments why the other side's policies would cause big problems.
I personally look at both, and I say to myself, 'Maybe if that gangbanger was faced with the prospect of a few law-abiding and proficient citizens with .40 caliber semi-autos with tactical length barrels in the immediate vicinity when he drew his illegal firearm to shoot that poor child, he would have thought twice.' People tend to do less stupid things when their own ass is on the line.
Most liberals support long-barrel guns for home defense and many see handguns as only having attributes that make them more suitable for crime. Right-wingers tend more to reject any control wholesale, encouraged by the NRA, often citing the slippery slope comment that handguns are only the first step, and if you give them an inch they'll take a mile.
Handguns are easier to conceal - I'll give you that. And they are more likely to be used for crime. I think both sides can agree on that. One point to clarify though - the NRA is right-wingers.
So that's the basic difference - liberals viewing handguns as a danger and right-wingers viewing guns as empowering.
Inetersting viewpoint, Craig, and I'm glad you offered it.
Edit: Loki made a point I forgot to include, that politically cities tend liberal and rural tends right-wing; this makes liberals' experience more with guns in crimes, and right-wingers more used to guns for hunting and recreational use, so each group's experience with guns is very different.
That's a pretty good point. I would offer that it's somewhat ironic that liberals, who strive to empower all people, are anti-gun. Guns are a great equalizer. But, I think this point you ihghlighted above really strikes at the heart of the issue.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Did I mention yet that my post was answering the OP on why the left and right reached opinions, not debating the gun control topic right and wrong? Do you sense my frustration?
Now having said that, since you bring up a point debatig the correctness of the views, I'd say that there are two sides you can look at which were well described in my post previously; liberals seeing the terror of urban gun use which is mainly about innocents getting shot in senseless gun violence is not too empowering. They tend to look more at the idea that a gun is more danger than protection, that the criminal is going to usually have the element of surprise, that it's far better to get rid of the guns than to have a less than 50% chance in a shootout, when you take into account the element of rusprise, and they tend to conclude that an 'armed society' would lead to a lot more passion shootings even while it would sometimes provide deterrane or fast shotdown of a crime.
As I wrote before, it's what people look at.
The right-winger might look at a mass shooting and say how if everyone had guns the guy would have been stopped quickly saving lives, while the liberal would more likely look at how everyone having a gun increased road rage killings compared to if the incident just had middle fingers used.
I'm discussing the views, not their accuracy - I'm not saying 'who is right' here. Frankly, I don't know many people on either side who make a big effort to get 'accurate numbers'.
When I have discussed the gun control issue more, not the history of opinion as this thread, one idea I've raised for discussion is having different laws for urban and rural.
The biggest obstacle to that seems to be the gun supporters who are used to just opposing any gun control and worry that urbn gun laws pose a threat down the road to them.
I could discuss the gun control issue - and answer some of your points above - but I'm a bit tired of the issue, and bit worn out by the responses not being about *opinion*.
I will offer you one point I see the right err on IMO: the 'bottomless pit of gun' fallacy.
Their 'when guns are outlawed criminls will have an unlimited cheap supply' is wrong IMO.
They're not totally wrong. But what they fail to account for is that guns don't grow on trees, and as nearly impossible as it would to make a dent in handgun supply with how many there are, over decades the supply could be greatly reduced, and since the criminal supply comes from the legal supply, reducing the legal pool would *reduce* the criminal pool.
Home burglaries, for example, would less often find guns. Supply and demand - as the supply descreased the price would increased, and as that happened, it would start to decrease the number of criminal guns. And if there was a 1%, a 5%, a 0% decrease in the criminal guns and criminal gun use, liberals might be happy about that as improvement.
The two sides aren't going to agree any time soon, but for now, the gun supporters are stronger politically, with the Democrats dropping much gun control effort.
Originally posted by: inspire
Hi Craig - I see your frustrations, and I understand them. I hope you can understand mine, as well. I'd say you take a somewhat liberal stance on gun control and that it influences your views and understanding of the topic. Likewise, I take the complementary stance, and it influences my views and understanding. I wasn't trying to poke holes in your points, but rather, fill in the gaps that I noticed in your understanding of the right-wing views on guns - which, on the whole, tend to be a bit different from the passions that are often seen. As with most hot-button issues, those on one extreme tend to drown out the more moderate folks.
I think that between our our respective posts, one could gain a fairly well-rounded insight into how people of different polictical persuations view the matter. I appreciate both the points you and I agree on as well as those we don't. I understand it's probably a task in itself to field all the replies on such a 'hot-button' issue here in P&N, so I appreciate your taking the time to consider my post.
I think we both see things in a similar fashion, merely from different angles.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: inspire
Hi Craig - I see your frustrations, and I understand them. I hope you can understand mine, as well. I'd say you take a somewhat liberal stance on gun control and that it influences your views and understanding of the topic. Likewise, I take the complementary stance, and it influences my views and understanding. I wasn't trying to poke holes in your points, but rather, fill in the gaps that I noticed in your understanding of the right-wing views on guns - which, on the whole, tend to be a bit different from the passions that are often seen. As with most hot-button issues, those on one extreme tend to drown out the more moderate folks.
I think that between our our respective posts, one could gain a fairly well-rounded insight into how people of different polictical persuations view the matter. I appreciate both the points you and I agree on as well as those we don't. I understand it's probably a task in itself to field all the replies on such a 'hot-button' issue here in P&N, so I appreciate your taking the time to consider my post.
I think we both see things in a similar fashion, merely from different angles.
Hi Inspire, fair enough. I don't agree that my post was a 'liberal' one - most of my posts are - but I acknowledge that I weighted two right-wing motivations as the top ones, the ones about guns making them 'feel empowered' both for defense from criminals and in some broad sense from tyranny, and I did not include explicitly the deterrent issue you mentioned, which I agree most gun supporters do care about as well, I just weight it less.
I appreciate your other comments.
What do you think of the idea of having different laws for the urban liberals and for the rural gun supporters, since their politics and situations are not the same?
Originally posted by: inspire
Originally posted by: Craig234
What do you think of the idea of having different laws for the urban liberals and for the rural gun supporters, since their politics and situations are not the same?
I'm not opposed to it, althought I think there would have to be compromises made on both sides. For example maybe, ban handguns, but allow open-carry of rifles.
The NRA is not the historical supporter of the Republican party, they became the National Republican Association (joke) when the Democrats began passing serious gun control laws that they had made part of their platform in the late 1960's. You seem to be confusing cause and effect here, the NRA supports the R side because the D side decided to enshrine gun control as part of their platform. Prior to that they were on both sides, and in fact were on both sides until the gun control act of 1968. The NRA is not a historical cause of republican vs democrat, they choose a side after the lines were drawn, they are an effect. The NRA became a political supporter because of the Democratic stance on gun control, they are not a cause of the republican stance on gun control. Read my whole post and I will give examples of the Republicans opposing gun control well before the NRA became a political entity.Originally posted by: Craig234
Remember we're discussing the history of opinion not debating gun control. I agree, the NRA is a right-wing group predominantly (while many Democrats are gun supporters too).
Right-wingers tend more to reject any control wholesale, encouraged by the NRA, often citing the slippery slope comment that handguns are only the first step, and if you give them an inch they'll take a mile.
The simmering dispute surfaced at the NRA?s 1977 national convention in Cincinnati. Rallying a faction called the Federation for NRA, Carter won organizational changes giving the convention members greater control over decision making. He and his allies then used those rules to depose the old guard at the convention in what was dubbed the Revolt at Cincinnati. From this point forward, the ILA became the primary power center of the NRA and politics became the NRA?s primary focus.
Source: Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture and the Law
During the Reconstruction Era, African Americans had a difficult time obtaining weapons because of local and state ordinances. These laws were part of the ?black codes? that endeavored to overturn the newly won political freedoms of African Americans. This gave the Klan a virtual monopoly on firearms
While some were willing to condemn such discriminatory motivations, others endorsed them, with U.S. Sen. John K. Shields (D-TN) serving as an apt illustration. Shields sought to prevent the shipment of guns through interstate commerce in 1924 and in an effort to drum up support for his proposed bill, he stated in the Congressional Record: ?Can not we, the dominant race, upon whom depends the enforcement of the law, so enforce the law that we will prevent the colored people from preying upon each other??
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 specifically forbade state laws that prohibited African Americans from possessing firearms.
Source: Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture and the Law
The Republican-dominated United States Congress passed the act in March 1866
The Republicans in congress overrode the presidential veto on April 9, 1866.
Source: wikipedia (forgive me, but im getting lazy as I finish this.
The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963, and referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Conservative Democrat and avid segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely.
The Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 is the foundation for federal gun control laws. Enacted in response to the racial and other unrest of the 1960s, the GCA was the first comprehensive federal gun law.
...
?Black power? leaders such as Stokely Carmichael and members of the Black Panthers terrified mainstream America with high-powered rhetoric about violent revolution, as they encouraged blacks to arm themselves against ?whitey.?
...
Then, on August 1, 1966, an ex-marine named Charles Whitman who was then an agricultural student climbed to the top of a tower at the University of Texas in Austin. Using a high-powered hunting rifle, he murdered fifteen people and wounded thirty-one before being killed by the police.
...
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), serving his first term, called for a ban on mail-order sales of rifles made to military specifications. Gun control advocates were particularly disturbed by the sale of low-priced foreign rifles; as European governments had been replacing their World War II battle rifles, these outdated rifles were being shipped to the thriving U.S. firearms market. The rifles, mostly bolt actions, were available at low prices and were said to be the weapon of choice for urban rioters. (Note from Daishi5:strange, the democrats blamed bolt action rifles as the gun of choice of rioters and not pistols, hmm it sounds like they choose the gun used in the last big crime spree and claim it is the "gun of choice" as a standard tactic.)
...
While Senator Kennedy called for giving the secretary of the treasury the discretion to ban the import of firearms not ?recognized as particularly suitable? for sporting purposes, Sen. Roman Hruska (R-NE) rejected the idea of giving the secretary of the treasury the power to ban guns. (republicans again defend guns, democrats take them away.)
Originally posted by: ebaycj
Originally posted by: loki8481
I think it boils down to the urban v rural divide.
This. Definitely this.
Rural folks also view Government as "big city slickers" (read: different than what they're used to), and therefore are naturally distrustful of it.
I was just talking to my grandparents (90+ years old, live in farm country but are not farmers), and they related to me how many of their friends who WERE farmers, were always EXTREMELY angry with and distrustful of commodities markets. Illustrative quote: "I grew this corn, why should I let some city slicker in Chicago tell me how much it's worth?"
All this while blissfully ignoring the fact that, assuming a correctly functioning market, they were getting THE BEST price possible for their corn. Not to mention the fact that: they now no longer have to find actual buyers for their grain, nor do they have to deliver it all over the map, nor do they have to do any bargaining/haggling for price, etc., leaving them more time to do ... get this ... ACTUAL FARMING.
Also, I think education (or lack and/or distrust thereof), plays in to this as well.
Originally posted by: daishi5
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
However, I firmly believe that if every citizen was allowed to carry a pistol for personal protection, crime in this country would basically halt after 5 years.
The way crime has halted in all states where cc is permitted? The way there was no crime in the old west where everyone did carry, and openly? And what about white collar crime? Or perhaps you only meant violent crime. But if you knew everyone was carrying and you still wanted to mug someone because you were either poor, hungry or just a criminal douchebag, maybe you'd just shoot them from behind instead of first telling them to "stick em up"?
No, you're probably right. All crime would halt.
Actually, I don't have time to find my sources on this, but as I recall, the old west actually had less crime than we do now. Movies and western shows are bad sources of information, but as I recall the west actually was much more peaceful then. I could be wrong because this is off the top of my head of course.
The experiences of Aurora and Bodie were repeated throughout the West. One study of five major cattle towns with a reputation for violence?Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell?found that all together the towns had less than two criminal homicides per year (Dykstra, 1983).
During the 1870s, Lincoln County, New Mexico, was in a state of anarchy and civil war. The homicide rate was astronomical, but (as in Bodie and Aurora) it was confined almost exclusively to drunken males upholding their ?honor.? Modern big-city crimes such as rape, burglary, and mugging were virtually unknown (Utley, 1990).
A study of the Texas frontier from 1875 to 1890 found that burglaries and robberies (except for bank, train, and stagecoach robberies) were essentially nonexistent. People did not bother with locking doors, and murder was rare, except for young men shooting each other in ?fair fights? they engaged in voluntarily (Holden, 1940).
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
However, I firmly believe that if every citizen was allowed to carry a pistol for personal protection, crime in this country would basically halt after 5 years.
The way crime has halted in all states where cc is permitted? The way there was no crime in the old west where everyone did carry, and openly? And what about white collar crime? Or perhaps you only meant violent crime. But if you knew everyone was carrying and you still wanted to mug someone because you were either poor, hungry or just a criminal douchebag, maybe you'd just shoot them from behind instead of first telling them to "stick em up"?
No, you're probably right. All crime would halt.
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I support the right for folks to own and carry guns. I've not one problem with that. I do have a problem if those guns are not secure from criminals or nutty folks who'd use them in some criminal activity, however!
Originally posted by: daishi5
Well, gun control started as a means to control the black population.
...
At some point the parties switched sides on the racial equality problem, but gun control did not switch with them.
...
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I support the right for folks to own and carry guns. I've not one problem with that. I do have a problem if those guns are not secure from criminals or nutty folks who'd use them in some criminal activity, however!
So how do you propose for a person to carry a gun AND "keep it secure from criminals and nutty folks"? Are you suggesting that a person can carry a gun as long as it is triple padolocked in a stell case?
Same thing applies to having a gun at home, what is your definition of "secure" there?
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I support the right for folks to own and carry guns. I've not one problem with that. I do have a problem if those guns are not secure from criminals or nutty folks who'd use them in some criminal activity, however!
So how do you propose for a person to carry a gun AND "keep it secure from criminals and nutty folks"? Are you suggesting that a person can carry a gun as long as it is triple padolocked in a stell case?
Same thing applies to having a gun at home, what is your definition of "secure" there?
I would go for The Weapon Shops of Isher.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I support the right for folks to own and carry guns. I've not one problem with that. I do have a problem if those guns are not secure from criminals or nutty folks who'd use them in some criminal activity, however!
So how do you propose for a person to carry a gun AND "keep it secure from criminals and nutty folks"? Are you suggesting that a person can carry a gun as long as it is triple padolocked in a stell case?
Same thing applies to having a gun at home, what is your definition of "secure" there?
I would go for The Weapon Shops of Isher.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
PJ: A tip of the hat to Moonbean for an arcane reference that exquisitely addresses both the political and the practical concerns in this debate.
Hehe, I read everything of his I could find.