# Fukkin Facist Florida Firearm Fanatics **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 7, 2011, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066 "2011-05-07T14:37:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 36
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2014, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/701 "2014-08-03T16:08:43Z")
Well, thank you for sharing! ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2014, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/702 "2014-08-03T16:09:38Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m not sure really. I don’t think gun control is the most important issue the country faces. I think gun control and advocacy is strongest when their supporters act together and I do my part. I am trying to think of an issue that would have a stronger direct impact. I can always pay more - I can’t possess firearms when they are made illegal at any price. I hope I don’t come across in this exchange as condescending, that’s certainly not intended… BUT, it seems to me that even if we assume your basic premise is correct, there are still going to be SOME elections where the level of pro-gun-ness of a particular candidate is far less likely to actually end up having a real world impact than others. If you’re voting for mayor of your town, and one guy says he wants to ban all guns, and that’s a power that the mayor has (at least until a lengthy series of court battles are resolved), then hey, by all means, be a single issue voter for that election. But that’s very different from electing one member of a state or federal legislature, etc. As for whether guns are the most important issue facing our country, here are a few ideas I’ll toss out of things that have the potential to hurt our country’s future FAR more than at least some levels of national gun control laws: -increased income inequality, more difficult for poor kids to achieve the American dream -increasing influence of corporations in politics, Citizens United, superPACs -global warming -dependence on foreign oil keeping us entangled the clusterfuck that is the Middle East -declining quality of public education -increasing trade imbalance with China (and others), decline of US manufacturing Those are the types of issues that I think REALLY threaten the future of the USA. A thousand years from now when historians try to pinpoint the exact moment that the USA failed as a nation, it’s going to involve some large and systemic issue like the above, not “well, congress passed a poorly worded assault weapons ban, and it was a direct line from that to the entire once-great nation dissolving”… at least, that’s how I see it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2014, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/703 "2014-08-03T19:16:26Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Those are the types of issues that I think REALLY threaten the future of the USA. A thousand years from now when historians try to pinpoint the exact moment that the USA failed as a nation, it’s going to involve some large and systemic issue like the above, not “well, congress passed a poorly worded assault weapons ban, and it was a direct line from that to the entire once-great nation dissolving”… at least, that’s how I see it. Those issues are mostly important. (I do not see the criticality of “income inequality,” myself, and do not regard the “increasing influence” of corporations as an issue, because corporations like the New York Times and NBC Universal already hold so much sway that I suspect the concern is actually _dilution_ of their influence by other corporations that do not hold appropriately leftist views). But it’s not true that any candidate has emerged as a shining answer is resolving our dependence on foreign oil or a realistic way for one country to make effective strides in reducing global warming. **Bone** has the right of it: I’m actually kind of amazed that I’m seeing this return to a refrain of, “It’s a fantasy that anyone wants to make sweeping gun control laws – why are you voting as though this is a danger?” After Sandy Hook, the reality was laid bare: there were plenty of people in power who were waiting and alert for a chance to do just that. Let’s take a trip back through time and see the mood: > [@Feinstein Proposing Specifics: New Gun Control Bill](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feinstein-proposing-specifics-new-gun-control-bill/645298/13): > > Yes, this sounds like a warmed over version of the AWB, which - thanks to reasonable pro-gun folks like **XT** and **Zeriel** - I came to understand was a waste of time. > > However, unless you have a better idea, I don’t think you can complain much if it gets passed. The national mood is clearly Something Must Be Done, and if you don’t do it then somebody like Pelosi will. > [@Feinstein Proposing Specifics: New Gun Control Bill](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feinstein-proposing-specifics-new-gun-control-bill/645298/44): > > Using the word “criminalizes” over and over doesn’t impress me. It’s not “criminalization,” it’s a requirement to register. Is there a reason you prefer the scarier-sounding wording? > > And you’re not being asked to make changes to your guns to make them compliant with this bill, nor is the ownership of any existing guns being banned. But the idea of requiring registration of new guns and not old ones is pointless. > [@Feinstein Proposing Specifics: New Gun Control Bill](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feinstein-proposing-specifics-new-gun-control-bill/645298/58): > > Well, would it be more palatable to the pro-gun folks to make it a six round limit? I mean if 10 won’t really solve the problem, why not cut it down to 6? Would that help? > > I really don’t understand where guns need to be one of the \*potentially \* most harmful yet least regulated things around. I just re-read the second amendment and I while I caught the part about a “well regulated militia” but missed the section where it spells out in black and white that the government can never ever even think about registration for legitimate gun owners. Help me out here. And of course actual legislative [proposals.](http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons) And from the [horse’s mouth:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dianne_Feinstein) > [@](#): > > If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here. Why weren’t the votes there? Because of an attention to voting for pro-gun rights politicians. I honestly feel like you’re simply reviving the tactic of claiming the worry is a silly one until such time as another attempt might succeed, and then you’ll shrug and echo **RNATB** : hey, the will of the country is there, what can you do? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/704 "2014-08-04T03:54:07Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Nope, abandoned by wolves, raised by Texans. I’m sorry for your loss. I’ve known enough Texans in my life to know that wit is not really the dominant trait there. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/705 "2014-08-04T03:57:11Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > If you want to say that one predictor is stronger than another in a multivariate model, you have to directly compare them. You have not provided the statistical test of the comparison that I asked for. > > Otherwise you can say that both living alone and having a gun in the home are associated with a higher likelihood of death. Ask Kellerman. He’s the one that wrote the paper. And if you can use a study that says that a person who lives alone or a person who rents their home is more likely to be murdered than someone who has a gun in the home, then doesn’t that tell you that the cause effect relationship for at least some (if not a lot )of that increase might be going the other way? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/706 "2014-08-04T04:00:47Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > The number of times that kids go swimming is far far greater than the number of times kids go shooting. > > Kids between 1 and 4 going swimming is typical. > Kids between 1 and 4 going shooting is a sign of stupidity. > > Swimming is not more dangerous than guns, you disingenuous, stupid fuck. Maybe you haven’t been paying attention but we were talking about the risk of owning a gun versus the risk of owning a pool. Pools are more dangerous than guns and if you didn’t have to rely on lies, insults and logical fallacy, you’d be over at great debates trying to defend your silly anti-gun position within the constraints of actual debate instead of name-calling. Instead you sit in the pit displaying your irrational fear of guns for all to see. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/707 "2014-08-04T04:11:07Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > (a) as others have pointed out “get rid of your guns” and “get rid of your pool” are not equivalent actions people can take > (b) suppose you’re right, and they are motivated by something other than clinical criteria. Well, so what? Should they not be allowed to be? As a professional medical organization? I don’t think they should be doing it. I don’t know if they shouldn’t be allowed to do it but it undermines their credibility in other areas. It might lend credence to anti-vaccers who think that pediatricians are driven by an agenda. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/708 "2014-08-04T04:12:49Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > An action that was pretty clearly ILLEGAL, and thus basically irrelevant to a discussion of what the LAW should be. Who went to jail for that again? And while not federal (after all the law under discussion is not federal), there are several cases of confiscation at the state level. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/709 "2014-08-04T04:15:39Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I guess my point is this: > > Suppose you’re voting in your primary congressional election. One candidate is someone who you agree with about taxes and schools and gay marriage and, I dunno, corn subsidies. But you disagree with him about guns. The other candidate you disagree with about most things, but you agree with about guns. > > If you believe the NRA hype that we are CONSTANTLY on the VERY EDGE of TYRANNY blah blah blah, you might be tempted to vote for the second guy, because at any moment his vote might be the deciding one to stop the sweeping confiscatory gun control legislation that is SO CLOSE blah blah blah. Which would actually be against your own best interest, because the odds of such legislation being proposed and then passing and then being upheld by the supreme court (and being passed by exactly one vote) is insanely tiny, whereas the first candidate might actually be able to do a lot of good supporting positions you care about on other issues. > Clearly the constant-paranoia approach is effective, but it’s also fundamentally dishonest… particular with respect to the lesson of events like Newtown. I voted for Obama any time I saw his name on a ballot despite knowing his position on guns. I would say that the vast majority of the people I vote for are anti-gun but I vote for them anyway because I don’t think guns are the ONLY issue. But I recognize a lot of people do and the Democrats need to get around to realizing that or they are going to lose swing states like Virginia and even Pennsylvania. And the paranoia surrounding newtown was not entirely unwarranted. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/710 "2014-08-04T04:22:57Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > FWIW, speaking as the pediatrician in this thread, I find that expressed as a national average the risk to kids from accidental gun death is low enough to not be a major issue for preventive care. And the potential risk reduction gained by defensive gun use is also low, likely even lower. I can’t get excited about either as a standard item for discussion in well care visit across all practices. Anecdotes regarding each make for dramatic stories but neither really is of any major risk or benefit across the scale of this country. > > Of course discussing pool safety in Alaska makes little sense but makes more sense in Florida. None of us have average practices any more than we have average households with 2.54 individuals. Each practice takes care of populations who are a different sets of risks. > > Rural America in particular has a high rate of teen suicide and suicide attempt by firearm is much likely than other methods to result in death. In truth the largest number of child deaths associated with firearms are suicides. Accidents, mostly MVAs, are the number one of cause of death in teens, of course, but suicide is number two. [In rural areas](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130724-surprising-facts-cities-safer-rural-areas-injury-deaths/) firearm associated deaths are up at 10.4/100k, not far behind the deaths by MVA rate of 14.9. > > For those who think that a suicidal teen will kill themselves just as well with a razor or in the garage with the car running than with a gun … you are wrong. It is well established by now that [reducing access](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3290984/) to the method that first comes to mind, that making a suicide attempt require more effort, reduces the numbers of attempts and the number of successful attempts. > > Simple reality here folks - dramatic anecdotes from all sides be as they may, the odds that your family will be protected from harm by a gun at easy access is infintessimal compared to the risk that a teen will be seriously depressed without your being all that aware of it and die of a suicide attempt that would less likely have resulted in death, or possibly even have happened, if it was not for that easy firearm availability. > > What each of you as possible gun owning parents do with that information is up to each of you. But dang, if I was practicing in a rural county with both higher than typical teen suicide and gun ownership rates, I’d think that making sure gun owning parents knew those facts was something I should do. > > Of course better access to quality mental health services would be nice too … That sounds mostly right. What do you make of the fact that our suicide rate is dead fucking average compared with the rest of the wealthy industrialized world despite the fact that we are awash in guns and these other countries tend to have almost no guns at all. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/711 "2014-08-04T04:59:57Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > I as a person whose life is at risk can cut my partner lose in defense of my life, I may still be convicted of murder by doing so depending on how a jury interprets the facts. A third party, even if they are a mountaineering expert who understands the consequences of not cutting the rope would certainly be putting their life in legal jeopardy by cutting the rope on my behalf. So how the fuck do we handle laws today that make abortions illegal except where the life or health of the mother are at risk? You do realize taht tehre are laws like that on the books, right? And you do realize that we perform those abortions on a daily basis, right? So why aren’t these guys being tried for breaking the law in what are generally pretty anti-abortion states? Or is it possible that doctors have a pretty good idea when the life and health of the mother are at stake? > [@](#): > > Doctors in the course of their work can not choose to kill someone. Fetal person hood puts doctors in a poor legal position. Fetal person hood laws conflict with Roe v Wade. If that conflict rises to the supreme court nothing stops the court from striking the older precident. Same can be said of any law ever but we deal with laws in the current context and the law you are talking about does not say what you think it said. You are taking the law a few steps down the interpretive road to get to your conclusion. You’re pointing to a slippery slope or something like and I don’t think you would read a law that MIGHT one day lead to an inerpretation that might emperil gun rights the same way. YOu’d probably say the gun rights folks were being paranoid. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/712 "2014-08-04T06:10:50Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > That sounds mostly right. > > What do you make of the fact that our suicide rate is dead fucking average compared with the rest of the wealthy industrialized world despite the fact that we are awash in guns and these other countries tend to have almost no guns at all. While the number of guns in the US is high and increasing, the number of households with firearms is in the decline. What share of households have gun enthusiasts as opposed to a gun somewhere that they’ve forgotten about? More deeply suicide, like homicide, has a large number of cofactors. Empirical research is necessary to tease them out and measure them across countries. Your question does little to shed light on the role of gun culture on self inflicted injury as well as potential mitigating factors: only research can do that. ---
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/713 "2014-08-04T07:20:27Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Guns are not now, never have been, and never will be a medical issue. The presence of a gun in a home does not make it more or less likely that someone will catch some illness or disease. Guns do not become a matter of “preventive care” whenever you get a bug up your butt about them. Your First Amendment rights are not being violated. You can still speak against guns, march, protest, publish, support political candidates, etc. What you can’t do is take advantage of your perceived authority to preach your political agenda to a captive audience. > > I’m pleased with the recent decision, and hope it stands on appeal. Most physicians would disagree. As a physician, I disagree. Regardless of politics, guns are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, particularly in the US, and not just for pediatric patients. Gun deaths -all comers - are about 10.2 per 100,000. Gun homicide is 3.5 per 100,000. (1) Accidents are the 5th leading cause of death in the US, suicide is 10th. (1). Firearms contribute to both. About half of American suicides are with guns, 6.3 out of 12.3 per 100,000. In fact, having a gun in the house makes dying by homicide and (if male) suicide more likely (2). Gun suicides as a separate category would rank at #15th most common causes of death, just below Parkinson’s disease (7.4 per 100,00) and edging out aspiration (5.8 per 100,000). (1) Gun deaths are set to exceed traffic fatalities for the first time next year (3) so if a physician can reasonably ask about seat belts and car seats, then it would seem guns safety would be an equally legitimate concern. Getting back to pediatrics, gun accidental deaths run at 1.82 per 100,000 teenagers (15-19) (4), while homicide is the second leading cause of death among teens (10.4 per 100,000, ages 12-19), and 82% involve firearms. (5) By contrast, the death rate of pediatric cancer is 2.3 per 100,000 pediatric patients (6). If cancer is a reasonable concern for physicians, then firearms certainly are, leaving aside political agendas and just going by the numbers, especially since firearm deaths are very preventable, which is the name of the game in medicine. 1 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61\_06.pdf](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf) 2 [http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full](http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full) 3 [American Gun Deaths to Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 2015 - Bloomberg](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html) - sorry, didn’t track down the primary source yet. 4 [http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/10/15/peds.2012-2481.full.pdf](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/10/15/peds.2012-2481.full.pdf) 5 [Johns Hopkins Center for Adolescent Health | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health](http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/center-for-adolescent-health/az/_images/US%20Fact%20Sheet_FINAL.pdf) 6 [Cancer in Children and Adolescents - NCI](http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Sites-Types/childhood) ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/714 "2014-08-04T11:37:48Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > That sounds mostly right. > > What do you make of the fact that our suicide rate is dead fucking average compared with the rest of the wealthy industrialized world despite the fact that we are awash in guns and these other countries tend to have almost no guns at all. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > … suicide, like homicide, has a large number of cofactors. Empirical research is necessary to tease them out and measure them across countries. … Yup. Even comparisons [within one country](http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/08/22/aje.kwt197.abstract) need to be made with some caution. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/715 "2014-08-04T11:44:12Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Ask Kellerman. He’s the one that wrote the paper. > > And if you can use a study that says that a person who lives alone or a person who rents their home is more likely to be murdered than someone who has a gun in the home, then doesn’t that tell you that the cause effect relationship for at least some (if not a lot )of that increase might be going the other way? Wait, what? You’re saying that because living alone and having a gun in the house are both significant predictors in a multivariate regression model, that living alone could explain why having a gun in the house is significantly predictive of death by homicide? Bwahaha! You absolute moron! Jesus Christ are you a dummy. If two variables are significantly predictive in a regression model, it means that they cannot fully account for one another. What did you think that smart people meant when they would say such and such is still significantly predictive of so and so after “controlling for” some other factor? It expressly means that even after accounting for the significant effect of living alone, guns still raise the risk of death by homicide by a factor of 2.7. See, this is a perfect example of the echo chamber of gun nuts. Our moron, **Damuri Ajashi** tells us that he cannot access the Kellermann article, but he also asserts that the Kellermann article says x and y about gun deaths. That means that some other moron told our moron something completely wrong and fundamentally stupid, and our moron came here to share that stupidity with us. Thanks so much, other unknown gun nut moron! And, our moron still doesn’t understand what I’ve been trying to explain about comparisons between two predictors in a regression model, but now I understand that that concept is so far above his level of comprehension, I needn’t bother. (Also, note that all one needs to do to read the Kellermann article is google Kellermann 1993. The article is freely available. **Damuri Ajashi** is lying when he says that he cannot access it. He probably just means that he cannot understand it, which is why he parrots what other morons are telling him. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/716 "2014-08-04T12:38:25Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Thing is, **Bricker** , you go the dance contest and nail one of your shoes to the floor. You have exposure to liberals frequently, and utterly misunderstand their nature. > > They _want_ to agree with you, they _ache_ to see your side of things and nod their heads. If they don’t, that means they _aren’t_ open-minded, that means they are partisan and opinionated, Lehrer forbid! > > But you make it impossible, you could have the applause and approval you crave so desperately if you’d stop playing shifty and insulting their intelligence. That they will not stand for, their open-mindedness is _proof_ of their intelligence, and you refuse them the opportunity to preen it and show it off! > > Radicals blaze the trail and clear the site, progressives build the cabins and start the campfire, the liberals show up once the hot showers are installed and there’s a secure place to park the mini-van. Oh, this is such bullshit. The opposite is true, of course. Liberals are the thought police. Not agreeing with them is something that not only can they for the most part not comprehend, but is something that they make every effort to not allow. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/717 "2014-08-04T14:43:31Z")
Does that mean you think you have a reasoned, fact-based argument to present? It would be high time. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/718 "2014-08-04T14:50:42Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I hope I don’t come across in this exchange as condescending, that’s certainly not intended… BUT, it seems to me that even if we assume your basic premise is correct, there are still going to be SOME elections where the level of pro-gun-ness of a particular candidate is far less likely to actually end up having a real world impact than others. Not condescending at all. I agree that there are some more important elections than others - that’s hardly controversial. > [@](#): > > If you’re voting for mayor of your town, and one guy says he wants to ban all guns, and that’s a power that the mayor has (at least until a lengthy series of court battles are resolved), then hey, by all means, be a single issue voter for that election. But that’s very different from electing one member of a state or federal legislature, etc. The principal is the same. What if Olympia Snow was your rep (senator)? Wasn’t she the swing vote in few large pieces of legislation? The thing is - sometimes you don’t know when the votes will really matter and when they won’t. One member of the legislature can’t really pass new legislation on their own, but sometimes they can derail bad ones. > [@](#): > > As for whether guns are the most important issue facing our country, here are a few ideas I’ll toss out of things that have the potential to hurt our country’s future FAR more than at least some levels of national gun control laws: > -increased income inequality, more difficult for poor kids to achieve the American dream > -increasing influence of corporations in politics, Citizens United, superPACs > -global warming > -dependence on foreign oil keeping us entangled the clusterfuck that is the Middle East > -declining quality of public education > -increasing trade imbalance with China (and others), decline of US manufacturing > > Those are the types of issues that I think REALLY threaten the future of the USA. A lot of these would be topics for threads unto themselves, but since you raised some potential issues I’ll comment briefly: [ul] [li]I actually don’t care a single bit about income inequality. Not one bit.[/li][li]I accept corporate influence in politics. It’s part of the deal living in a free(ish) society. Money is speech. Corporations are gatherings of people together to execute a common interest.[/li][li]I’d prefer energy independence, but nukes seem like a non-starter and nothing right now is currently viable. I do support renewable sources and have paid a premium to utilize them for a cause I believe in, even though it’s not cost effective. Unfortunately the intersection of environmentalists and gun rights advocates doesn’t seem to be large. One has a more immediate impact than the other.[/li][li]I’m not in favor of federally funded education at all. A well educated population is a critical component of a successful society - our current scheme of attempting to achieve it is failing.[/li][li]I don’t really care about trade imbalance. Freer markets combined with each country taking advantage of their comparative advantages is better overall.[/li][/ul] But if you think about this another way - you see many issues as more important than gun rights. Then why push gun control? If you really believe those other things are more important, then if you give in on guns, people like me would be free to support and advocate for other issues. If I believed Hillary Clinton was a gun rights advocate - I’d vote for her in a heartbeat. I almost voted for Obama in 2008 actually simply because I thought the Republican party could not be rewarded for condoning torture (just couldn’t do it - went third party). But until the time where the issue of gun rights are settled, I’ll vote single issue. It’s the most effective way to achieve the goal. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/719 "2014-08-04T17:30:55Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The principal is the same. What if Olympia Snow was your rep (senator)? Wasn’t she the swing vote in few large pieces of legislation? The thing is - sometimes you don’t know when the votes will really matter and when they won’t. One member of the legislature can’t really pass new legislation on their own, but sometimes they can derail bad ones. I think it’s a question of risk analysis… the negative weight you should assign to voting for a less-pro-gun candidate isn’t the worst case that could happen, it’s the worst case that could happen multiplied by the likelihood of that worst case. So to be a rational single-issue voter, you have to not only think that gun control is more important than any other issue (and in fact, arguably more important than all other issues put together), you also have to think that it’s constantly hanging in the balance. > [@](#): > > [li]I actually don’t care a single bit about income inequality. Not one bit.[/li] (Also directing this response at **Bricker** , who expressed a similar sentiment.) This is obviously a tangent, but… let me rephrase that slightly. Income inequality in and of itself is not a particularly important issue to me. What is an important issue, and probably one of the top 2 or 3 issues facing the USA right now imho, is inequality of opportunity. You have Bill Gates and you have the guy who cleans Bill Gates’s toilets. Both of them have kids who are the same age. The American Dream, to me, the thing that has the potential to be the most amazingly wonderfully USA-USA-We’re-Number-1-American-Exceptionalism, is the idea that both of those two kids have a chance to grow up, get a great education, go to college, and go out into the world and be successful and get good jobs and own homes and so forth. Now, obviously, their opportunity has never been remotely EQUAL. But I’ve read studies which indicate that it’s getting LESS equal. It’s getting HARDER for kids who grow up poor to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and work hard and become doctors or lawyer or small business owners or what have you. If I could choose one of two possible futures for the USA in 100 years: (1) Like today, but the trend has reversed itself, and children of janitors are becoming lawyers and doctors at a higher rate than they ever have before. Also, private ownership of guns is WAY more restricted than it is now (2) Guns are super-duper legal and unrestricted, but social mobility is vastly further reduced. Children of the rich almost always end up rich. Children of the poor almost always end up poor. It’s not even close. (1) is so much better it’s not even debatable. And it’s FAR more “American” in all the ways that really matter. > [@](#): > > But if you think about this another way - you see many issues as more important than gun rights. Then why push gun control? Was that addressed to me specifically, or to liberals in general? If it was addressed to me specifically, I am NOT pushing gun control. I respect the constitution, and the constitution says you have the right to own guns, so you have the right to own guns. I’d probably end up somewhere different than you on issues such as registration, background checks, mandatory training and responsibility, etc., but I am NOT trying to take away your guns, or your large magazines, or your “assault rifles”. And as issues goes, it’s just not very important to me. If you’re addressing it to liberals in general, well, I just don’t think it’s very high on most people’s radar. How much of that is “we just don’t care all that much” vs “the problem is so fucked that there’s no point in even trying” vs “going up against the NRA is political suicide” is unclear, but really, on the list of things Obama and the current Democratic congressional leadership have actually put significant time and effort into, gun control is just not very high on the list. Sure there was one flurry of interest, entirely understandably, right after an incident in which a guy with a gun KILLED A BUNCH OF ELEMENTARY STUDENTS, but then it died down again. Like I said, I’m not particularly pro-gun-control, but if I was, I would find the bitterest irony of all the extent to which so many people on the other side were deathly afraid that my side was constantly ABOUT TO WIN, when in fact my side could barely get congress to answer our calls. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/720 "2014-08-04T17:35:13Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > The opposite is true, of course. Liberals are the thought police. Not agreeing with them is something that not only can they for the most part not comprehend, but is something that they make every effort to not allow. That is ridiculous nonsense, unless you are unable to tell the difference between conduct codes on super-liberal college campuses and actual laws proposed by liberal legislators. Here’s a telling fact: there is an organization that is a strong and unrelenting defender of free speech. They have defended free speakers from all sides, including the rights of the KKK to protest in public, and various rights of religious people to show that religion in public schools. That organization is the ACLU. And they are viewed as incredibly liberal. That is not a coincidence. The most prominent national-scale issue that directly involved potentially outlawing speech or expression in the past decade or so is the proposal to outlaw flag-burning. And it’s sure as heck not the liberals who are proposing it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066.md?page=35) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066.md?page=37)