Why is gun control an issue for socially liberal people ?

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Let's see if we can find some common ground between the pro-gun and anti-gun crowd: (as a disclaimer, I am unashamedly anti-gun)

1. The principle conflict here is between the individual right to own gun, and the individual right to not get shot by guns. This conflict is not exclusive to guns; for example, you could say the same about the right to own a car vs. the right to not get run over by a car. The difference here is that there seems to be wide agreement that the right to own and drive cars is more important than the rights of the people who are killed by them.

2. As long as guns are available to civilians, they will be widely available to criminals as well. This point applies to the United States than other countries which may lack the law enforcement resources that we have.

I think the first contention is almost tautological, but still significant. The second point I'm less sure of, I'm making the suggestion because criminals in this country don't seem to have access to weapons that are completely banned (rocket launchers, grenades etc.). Are there any developed countries that allow their citizens to own guns, but have been successful at keeping them out of the hands of criminals? Any developed countries that ban guns but have not been able to keep them out of the hands of criminals?

One issue: putting aside the practical poliical issue of getting a national handgun ban passed, and putting aside the receng Supreme Court decision by the radical five that prohibits such a ban, the pro gun side would, IMO, raise the issue of the practicality of any gun ban in making guns hard to get now since there are already hundreds of millions in circulation. That sort of reduces the issue to theoretical, doesn't it, leaving only more modest measures for consideration?

I don't think the practical challenge of banning guns is formidable at all; it is simply a function of public opinion. If a large enough majority of the population wanted to ban guns, they would elect politicians that would enact laws or appoint judges to ban guns.

As for the guns in circulation, I would think that the vast majority of registered guns would be removed from the public quickly. The rest of the guns would take longer, for sure, but I'm not sure they would be a significant problem. Guns wear out, require maintenance, and require ammunition.

These are just my guesses. Is there a model of a country that permitted guns for a substantial length of time, and then banned them?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Rather than a lengthy disagreement, I'll summarily deny the position in my opinion, and say I think that my usage of word ideological id distinct from the rational approach.

I agree, I actually had this thought as I read your first sentence in this post. You're using "ideological" as synonymous with "emotional", whereas I'm using it in a more clinical sense. We've been talking at cross purposes.

Originally posted by: Craig234
I don't think you were neutral, as much as you might think so.

To describe it in general terms:

You took two sides of an issue where the public is heavily weighted towards one side, and you then linked to the two sides of the issue under discussion to that other issue, saying one side of the current issue is like the very popular side of the analogous issue, and that the other side of the current issue is like the very unpopular side of the analogous issue.

The implied argument there is that the first side of the current issue is right the same way as the popular side of the analgous issue is right, and vice versa.

Popularity is irrelevant in a strictly rational view of the subject. From a purely rational standpoint, the analogy stands. The argument in favor of gun control is the argument that it's better to prevent crime than to avoid infringing on lawful use. The argument against is that it's better to avoid infringing on lawful use than it is to prevent crime.

The view that "It's better for guilty men to go free than for innocent men to be punished" contains within it the assumption that those guilty men going free will continue to cause problems for society. Logically, that cannot be avoided. In terms of what is better, net, for society as a whole is arguably for innocent men to go to prison in order to ensure that more guilty men go to prison as well.

Originally posted by: Craig234
This created a heavy burden on you to defend the analogy is fair and accurate - a burden I don't think you met; instead you seem to be calling the assigning of one side of the current issue to the very unpoopular side of the analogous issue "neutral". And I think the analogy can be challenged quite clearly on the accuracy, which I laid out in some detail previously and deleted from this post.

Again, popularity is irrelevant. It's not a logical consideration. If you want to pin everything on rationality, you lose the ability to argue based on popularity. As I said, rationally, the analogy stands. The question is whether it's more important to prevent unlawful use than to protect lawful use, or if the inverse is true.

Originally posted by: Craig234
You argue here about the 'absolute numbers of people affected', but someone 'affected' by not getting to have a handgun might not be equal to someone 'affected' by getting shot.

(Although some pro gun people seem to view not getting a handgun as not much better than getting shot.)

To weigh them more clearly, you go back to what I said about estimating the net effects of a gun ban on violence.

This is a digression, but I cannot resist it. Stats are from the Kleck study and from the CDC.

Of the over 2,000,000 instances where a gun is used to prevent crime over 190,000 are cases of women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

Total homicides by firearm run at approximately 12,000 per year, excluding suicides. Statistically, the availability of firearms has no net effect on the total number of suicides. Of the homicides by firearm, the vast majority occur during the commission of a crime (i.e. one criminal shoots another criminal), and that number also includes criminals killed in self-defense as well as criminals shot by police. Overall, fewer than 4,000 non-criminals are involuntarily killed by firearms each year.

I'd venture to guess that those 190,000+ women who are able to keep themselves from being raped are pretty damn "affected". A person is also 4 times more likely to be injured by a criminal by not resisting at all than if he or she resists with a gun.

In terms of injuries from firearms, they don't even make the top 10. Firearm injuries each year are fewer than 55,000.

For every firearm homicide, 16 women fend off a rapist with a firearm. For every innocent killed with a firearm, 38 women fend off a rapist.

For every firearm homicide, 167 people prevent a crime by using a firearm. For every innocent killed with a firearms, 400 people prevent a crime using a firearm.

That's all the "net effect" I need to know.

Originally posted by: Craig234
And I largely agree with your point. Your prefatory comments suggested you might launch into the 'freedom radical' position, but instead you said what I agree with on choices.

Most gun discussion is two sides yelling past one another on different parts of the issue, each looking for that catchy slogan to really slam the other guys.

"You are a gun nut who blindly advocates thousands of innocents being shot!"

"You are a gun pansy who would trash our freedoms because you are paranoid and underweigh the uses of guns for defense!"

Well, that's sure productive.

So, I'm discussing how to get the two sides discussing apples and apples for there to be some progress...

And I think getting past the polarized assumptins that a gun ban would either be very helpful or very harmful, to some reasonably accurate estimates of the effect, is important.

I completely agree that the debate too often becomes an emotional one, and that refers to people on both sides.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Is there a model of a country that permitted guns for a substantial length of time, and then banned them?

Australia and England.

In both cases, firearm homicides (and overall violent crime rates) have increased since the bans were enacted, as well as an accompanying rise in violent crime using knives and bludgeoning.

In fact, in England, firearm use in crimes has doubled since they were banned (Source: ?Weapons sell for just £50 as suspects and victims grow ever younger?, The Times, August 24, 2007).

Also in England, overall violent crime has increased by 25% since the ban on firearms (Source: "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 2000", British Home Office).

Further in England, street robberies are up 28%, murders are up 4%, and rapes are up 14% (Source: British Home Office, reported by BBC news, July 12, 2002).

In Australia, since the firearms ban has passed gun murders are up 19%, armed robbery is up 69%, and home invasions are up 21% (Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, ?Report #46: Homicide in Australia, 2001-2002", April 2003).

ZV

 

[kage69]

This. I would purchase one I think, but the wife won't have it. Until then I can't use my "Secular Humanist and Armed" bumper sticker.

Dude. :Q *extends open hand*

 

[StarvinMarvin22]

"Weapons are the tools of power, in the hands of the state, they can be the tools of decency or the tools of oppression, depending on the righteousness that state. In the hands of criminals, they are the tools of evil. In the hands of the free and decent citizen, they should be the tools of liberty. Weapons compound man's power to achieve whatever purpose he may have. They amplify the capabilities of both the good man and the bad, and to exactly the same degree, having no will of their own. Thus, we must regard them as servants, not masters--and good servants of good men. Without them, man is diminished, and his opportunities to fulfill his destiny are lessened. An unarmed man can only free from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." ~ Col. Jeff Cooper

This sums up my belief on arms as well as anything.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Because they believe that stricter gun laws have a significant effect on violent crimes. Unfortunately, all stricter gun laws do is make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms -- criminals have no problem obtaining them illegally. The only thing that would stop criminals from getting guns is a total ban on guns, i.e. the further sale of all firearms to all civilians being stopped, and all current firearms confiscated, but this won't (and shouldn't, IMO) happen. And even then, it'd probably just be like over in the UK, people would stab each other instead of shooting.

We need to go after the root cause of the problem instead of banning the tools. Reduce poverty and increase affluence in poor neighborhoods and gang-related violence would drop.

again, the difference with people stabbing each other instead of shooting each other, is that little 8 year-old Polly across the street, playing in her 2nd-story bedroom, doesn't catch an ancillary knife wound as sometimes happens when a gun is involved.

doesn't mean I'm anti-gun, but there is more logic involved in this argument than is involved in the "if we ban guns, then only the criminals will have guns!" argument. both are logical, but there is, indeed, a significant reduction in needless fatalities when it comes to crimes committed with knives, as opposed to crimes committed with guns.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Let's see if we can find some common ground between the pro-gun and anti-gun crowd: (as a disclaimer, I am unashamedly anti-gun)

1. The principle conflict here is between the individual right to own gun, and the individual right to not get shot by guns. This conflict is not exclusive to guns; for example, you could say the same about the right to own a car vs. the right to not get run over by a car. The difference here is that there seems to be wide agreement that the right to own and drive cars is more important than the rights of the people who are killed by them.

2. As long as guns are available to civilians, they will be widely available to criminals as well. This point applies to the United States than other countries which may lack the law enforcement resources that we have.

I think the first contention is almost tautological, but still significant. The second point I'm less sure of, I'm making the suggestion because criminals in this country don't seem to have access to weapons that are completely banned (rocket launchers, grenades etc.). Are there any developed countries that allow their citizens to own guns, but have been successful at keeping them out of the hands of criminals? Any developed countries that ban guns but have not been able to keep them out of the hands of criminals?

One issue: putting aside the practical poliical issue of getting a national handgun ban passed, and putting aside the receng Supreme Court decision by the radical five that prohibits such a ban, the pro gun side would, IMO, raise the issue of the practicality of any gun ban in making guns hard to get now since there are already hundreds of millions in circulation. That sort of reduces the issue to theoretical, doesn't it, leaving only more modest measures for consideration?

I don't think the practical challenge of banning guns is formidable at all; it is simply a function of public opinion. If a large enough majority of the population wanted to ban guns, they would elect politicians that would enact laws or appoint judges to ban guns.

As for the guns in circulation, I would think that the vast majority of registered guns would be removed from the public quickly. The rest of the guns would take longer, for sure, but I'm not sure they would be a significant problem. Guns wear out, require maintenance, and require ammunition.

These are just my guesses. Is there a model of a country that permitted guns for a substantial length of time, and then banned them?

The practical is extremely formidable since most Americans don't, in fact, want guns banned at all. Then there's constitutional issues (at state and federal levels), which are VERY hard to change even with strong public support.

This is naive to the EXTREME. Drugs are banned, but how many drugs exist right now in America? How long has the government been trying to remove them, and how much have they spent on it? Now, remember that a LARGE percentage of gun owners will meet those coming for their weapons with a firefight. The death toll would be incredible. Without question it would destabilize the entire nation as a huge percentage of law enforcement was killed or wounded, leaving no one to actually fill that roll in society. Crime would explode, and nothing could stop it. The number of deaths and injuries would destroy insurance, healthcare, destabilize other industries losing workers, etc. Now count in the innocents caught in the crossfire, who would want to sue everyone involved, and you'll find the total collapse of our court system.

Guns don't wear out quickly, and most people have enough parts and ammunition in the house to last a good long while.

Only during extreme circumstances. Germany disarming the Jews, maybe a few others. In most cases guns were either not a big part of the country, or they weren't totally banned.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I just wanted to add that things are changing with regards to the 'liberal platform against guns'. A large number of rational gun rights politicians are now democrats. A good number of gun rights groups are made up by a fair number of liberals. Many of the newer groups (like Students for Concealed Carry on Campus) fully embrace liberals because we know that pandering to those already on our side won't accomplish anything, so we instead spend our time trying to educate libs/dems. With just a few enlightened we suddenly find ourselves with an easy majority.

Like all policies of utter ignorance it's mostly about time. As more facts come out on our side, and as we get those facts into the hearts and minds of the uninformed, change happens. We've made incredible strides in the last forty years, and the next few decades are looking even better.

 

[Mani]

Not sure if you've noticed but the democratic party and libs in general have gradually become less opposed to guns over the years. Obama has a pretty (non-politically) liberal stance on gun control for example.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Mani
Obama has a pretty (non-politically) liberal stance on gun control for example.

Supporting a full ban on all handguns is liberal?

When Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate, a Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, passed around a questionnaire, which Obama answered thusly :

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

ZV

 

[mooseracing]

Background checks are worthless though. Not to mention you should not have to request anything of the government to exercise your rights, let alone permission.

I don't encourage physchos and multiple murder convictions should have a gun, but we allow them to vote, we allow them have free speech......and there is nothing in the 2nd ammendment that our forefathers wrote for convicts and others. They wrote everyone has the right to bear arms.

 

[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.

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord
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.

I wish that was the case. Why do so many states/cities/DC try to go around the 2nd ammendment and ban handguns if they aren't trying to control guns? Why was the Heller case so important?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I want to be able to own a gun to protect myself from all the morons owning guns.

So you admit that you want to be a moron. It all makes sense now.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt


So, the gun causes people to commit drive-bys, but only if those people are in the city?

ZV

I know you're not anti but i'll address this statement so others may understand.
It's not the gun that causes anything, it is the brain of the person holding the gun. A gun will not discharge unless someone pulls the trigger.
It's amazing that a cartoon of all things can explain it so simply.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I would consider myself socially liberal.

I actually support the 2nd amendment but I think the main struggle/issue right now with guns is that people like myself would like more thorough background checks on law abiding citizens to make sure they are mentally stable before giving them the right to own a gun.

I think the far right sees any step toward eliminating loonies from getting guns as a step toward total confiscation, which I am totally against. People should be able to own guns, but the key word here is people, not loonies. I think the laws in that regard are too lax / non-existent.

"Shall not be infringed"
Ring a bell?
While I don't think criminals and people that would do harm should have guns either, I understand that regulating and "infringing" doesn't work. If it did, no one would be killed by guns.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: lupi
There a faction of the leftist loons that want to dramatically change what america is; individual gun ownership is a very defining a unique part of americana. If they can get that changed, what else could possibly get in there way.

Pretty much, Gun Control is People Control.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and that's the problem. stupid people.

Then let's let people have tanks, and when some use them to go on the freeway and drive over 100 cars, say 'tanks don't kill people, people kill people, the law is just fine'.

People can buy old tanks, the canon is usually inoperative. The limitation is cost. If it's just about running cars over, you can do that with regular construction equipment. Once again you fail to see the root cause. PEOPLE!!!

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Juddog
I hate that liberals are all lumped into anti-gun. I know plenty of liberals that own guns, in one case a guy I know owns 6 different guns and goes to the shooting range twice a month.

Then the Democrats shouldn't put that on their party platform.


We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements ? like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

So? That's not what I consider to be an 'Anti-Gun' statement.

FWIW, I'm considered a 'liberal' and I own 2 guns.

As a gun owner, do you think that limiting the # of rounds in a magazine or limiting scary looking guns will lessen gun crime?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: NeoV
(for the record, I'm not for a gun ban in the US)



Show me more than 1 senator/congressman/woman in office today whose stance is that the United States should completely ban guns.

Obama was very anti gun until the Heller decision came out. Joe Biden is very anti-gun. Hell he wrote the 1st "assault weapons ban" and wants another one.
Ted Kennedy is another Anti-Gun person, he prefers to kill people with his car though.

There's 3 i can think of right off the top of my head.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: lupi
There a faction of the leftist loons that want to dramatically change what america is; individual gun ownership is a very defining a unique part of americana. If they can get that changed, what else could possibly get in there way.

Pretty much, Gun Control is People Control.

Exactly. Just like moral control, religious control, 'law and order' control, economic control etc. etc. are all forms of people control.

It is hypocritical IMO to single out only one form of authoritarian control as being evil when they all are. Freedoms are universal.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and that's the problem. stupid people.

Then let's let people have tanks, and when some use them to go on the freeway and drive over 100 cars, say 'tanks don't kill people, people kill people, the law is just fine'.

People can buy old tanks, the canon is usually inoperative. The limitation is cost. If it's just about running cars over, you can do that with regular construction equipment. Once again you fail to see the root cause. PEOPLE!!!

What did I miss? I said, 'tanks don't kill people, people kill people'. That's just what you said.

So, you are fine with people owning tanks. I only referenced using them to drive over 100 cars on the freeway, but now that you mention it, why disable the tank cannon?

The tank cannon doesn't kill anyone, it's the person. When someone uses their tank to blast city hall, you can say, 'tanks don't blow up city hall, people blow up city hall'.

The law letting people have tanks to do those things - those who can afford the tanks, or to rent them - is fine. Right?

And land mines. People should be able to buy land mines, right? If they plant them around the city, well, the mines didn't kill people, the people who planted them did.

 

[NeoV]

ZV - good reply to my initial post - I was referring to the general atmosphere at gun shows - my point about gun stores wasn't that the checks aren't working, but that people without criminal backgrounds can buy large quantities of guns and re-sell them - I'm not saying criminals are buying guns at gun stores.

I do have to take issue with quoting numbers from the Kleck study - it's one of the biggest lies perpetrated in the pro-gun discussion, it's so flawed and inaccurate I can't even stand the mention of the name. I practically wrote a book about this study on these forums not that long ago, I'll see if I can find that post to save myself some typing.

 

[KIRBYEE]

.

 

[PrinceofWands]

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.

Nor should they be, ever. It's 100% the fault of the person committing the crime, not the victim.

If someone steals your car, and runs someone over, are you liable? If someone rapes a woman, should the rapist (or people he rapes after) be able to sue the initial rape victim for passing on an STD? It's ridiculous. But somehow it's magically ok when it's a gun? Pull your damn head out.

You're ignorant as all hell. Gun owners aren't infringing on anything, and guns have never been a problem as proven through numerous studies.