I didn’t respond to this because **thelurkinghorror **addressed it in post #90:
Just to clarify, background checks are not required for PPT in most states, though there are several states that do require them depending on the nature of the transfer, long gun, handgun, interfamilial, etc. **Doors **was correct that all new sales require a background check.
Just because the majority agrees, doesn’t mean there aren’t localities that disagree.
Is there a number of available models of firearms that would cause you to be concerned? Because since the microstamping requirement became effective there have been ZERO new semi-auto firearms added to the roster. It is a total ban on any new model semi-auto handgun in CA. If a person said that they support free speech, but only if that speech is expressed in certain limited ways, in limited places, and on limited topics, how many limits would have to be enacted before you thought their support wasn’t very valuable?
If someone believes that it’s okay to ban 100% of new model semi-auto handguns, they will never agree. The best tactic is to expose the reality of the ban and with the facts on the table, most people would oppose it. If after the facts of the ban are clear people think it’s a good idea, they will likely never be political allies. This thread was an inquiry why folks oppose gun control - exposing how gun control works in practice is a way to demonstrate the basis for the opposition.
I can’t in CA so it’s not true for me or the 38M other CA residents. It’s also not true for the residents of Hawaii, Rhode Island, Illinois, or DC.
If the number of available models dropped to zero, then yes I would be concerned. If there were eleventy bazillion models for sale, but only 1 store was allowed to sell them and it was at the top of a high mountain with no roads available, then I would be concerned. 320 models available for sale at numerous stores around that anyone can get to? Nah, I’m not too concerned about it.
For your free speech analogy, if there were only 1 model of megaphone available to yell crap down at the National Mall, then no, I wouldn’t be concerned about that either.
Well, they should sue and let the SCOTUS decide. And then abide by the rulings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
Similarly, when gun control groups advocate for a relatively small restriction that, on its own, might make a lot of sense to many people, it’s not evaluated on its own. It’s just the first brick in the wall of complete and total abolition of private gun ownership.
I* am not sure that’s as applicable to one issue as the other. IOW mainly I’d say iamthewalrus made a bad analogy.
It’s much harder to think of a truly sensible middle ground on abortion than guns. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to be deeply morally opposed to abortion but only in certain very limited circumstances. And the opposition is mainly genuinely morally driven IMO.
Some anti-gun people might be categorically morally opposed to guns but that’s not generally true. It’s generally inherently an argument about what’s practical rather than what’s moral.
*often called a gun grabber by internet gun nuts and a gun nut by internet gun grabbers.
You can keep repeating there’s no difference between advertising a particular brand and ‘advertising’ political positions that a product should be legal at all. Still a poorly reasoned comparison.
Likewise you didn’t answer the point about why we should worry about other people being duped by political advertising but not you. Are you duped by political ads, yes or no?
Plus didn’t touch the point about spending on ads for popular products dwarfing ads for politics, within which ads for political positions (not candidates) are a small %. Ads for guns are also a minuscule part of the ad world overall, just like gun making is a minuscule part of the economy overall.
Simply put, your idea that opposition to gun control is based on ‘advertising’ is groundless. It’s based on people who have their own good reasons (maybe not good to you, but that’s politics) to not want their access restricted or denied.
I’m not a conservative, I’m liberal. but i’ve wondered about this issue too. This is the best explanation I can come up with.
Conservatives see threats more strongly than liberals do. That isn’t a value judgement, it is just the way we are wired differently.
I think conservatives notice and respond to threats more strongly. Threats can be street criminals, street gangs, terrorists, an authoritarian government, etc. Guns are the great equalizer that allow people who feel threatened to feel like they can fight back and defend themselves. Liberals, because we do not see these threats as strongly do not respond the same way. This is possibly also why conservatives have more positive opinion on the military and police than liberals do, since those groups are designed to protect society from threats.
Any attempt at gun control is seen as a slippery slope that will result in many conservatives who feel naked and defenseless in a hostile world.
Having said that, even a majority of republicans support common sense gun control.
Are you sure it isn’t in part because conservatives tend to live in places where the threats are actually different? In a city the cops are minutes away; in the country they may be half an hour or more away.
I’m not inclined to get involved in yet another gun debate, but that kind of observation just begs for the following question, which is all I’m going to say on the subject: So how come gun control laws work in other countries? How come the US has by far the most lax gun laws of any industrialized country on earth and also has the highest rates of gun deaths, injuries, gun accidents, gun homicides and suicides, gun deaths of children, mass shootings, and just about any other lethal gun-related metric that is measurable, of any civilized country on earth, and higher by very large margins? How come the US, with its almost unbelievably lax gun laws by international standards, has a rate of gun deaths that epidemiologic studies of gun violence have referred to as “a national epidemic”?
I think an honest examination of those questions leads to some clear and obvious conclusions that gun advocates don’t want to hear about and don’t want to know about. And when you start with the premise that background checks and gun licensing has to be quick-n-easy as a first priority, then you’ve already lost the challenge of containing gun violence. The first priority is that it has to be effective. It may surprise many Americans that most guns they’re familiar with are in fact available in many other countries, but the vetting process is thorough and some guns are restricted and require a demonstrated need, so the average person doesn’t bother. There are therefore fewer guns around to abuse in the heat of emotion, to get stolen, or to fall into the hands of children, and they don’t become cultural icons. They’re just tools mostly in the possession of responsible people who need them. Like it or not, that’s how it works. Not the quick-n-easy method.
“Common-sense” gun control. I absolutely love the implication of that particular term of art.
What, pray tell, leads you to believe that I, in spite of, or even perhaps because of, my opposition to certain gun control measures, have any lack of common sense? I mean, the answer is right there, why don’t I embrace it to my bosom and hold it tightly, right?
Probably because the causality is not what you assume it is. Fairly strict gun laws also work in parts of the US, not in others. There’s a distinct lack of even correlation between gun laws and crime in the US, let alone proving one causes the other.
I think the reluctance to face that reality is actually on the anti-gun side. The usual answer is that non federal strict gun laws can’t do much because somebody gets a gun in another state or locale etc. But I think there should be some more visible relationship than there is if there’s really a causal link between the state of society and gun laws in the direction that gun laws can stage the state of society.
Again as somebody called gun grabber by gun nuts and gun nut by gun grabbers your argument is what strikes me as among the most unrealistic the gun control people have. ‘Why can’t we be like societies we’re a lot different than overall?’ is what it basically amounts to. Or to look at societies we’re not so different than, our murder rate in the US in places demographically like say Canada isn’t that much higher than Canada’s, still higher, but not way higher. The occurrence of even ‘normal’ gun crime is quite skewed. Then when you get to rare and shocking incidents, some of them are very rare in terms of likelihood to a given individual. Does it mean we shouldn’t worry about them, no. But it does mean again that people have very real reasons to want the freedom to have guns to defend themselves in a gun filled society, guns which on the whole are not going anywhere within any of our lifetimes (barring science coming up with immortality soon).
In fact the whole idea that national statistics would govern one’s own attitude about one’s own need for self and family’s safety is not all that rational IMO. More prosaically, I don’t get up every workday to raise the median US GDP per capita, do you?
So the counter ‘question’ there is what gun control people really expect to accomplish in terms of violence stats. The realistic ones admit, little, but we have to do something. Which is not to be dismissed IMO, but not really a killer argument either.
This is wrt to violence against others. I have very anti-suicide views, perhaps outdated to some people, but naturally people view their prospective commission of a voluntary act against themselves differently than a threat from others. That’s really apples and oranges, besides which it’s much more widely accepted that suicide methods change with the available means. The overall US suicide rate isn’t nearly as much higher internationally as gun suicide rate.
The good news: but many with strict laws have higher rates. Russia is 2.3x higher. Venezuela is 11.7x higher. The US is slightly above Ukraine (figures in 2010, before the war), Latvia, below Lithuania. You might recognize these as “Eastern” European countries, but they are hardly hellholes, but urbane, modern countries. Meanwhile Switzerland and Czech Republic are among the most gun-toting European countries and also among the safest. The left-wing Czech government wants to increase concealed carry.
Because the murders by any means are higher. People would kill each other in high crime areas with knives if they had to. Remove St. Louis, New Orleans, Detroit, Chicago from the mix and your numbers go down.
Not a direct reply to you, but I note that after a crazy person shot at congressmen using legally obtained firearms, the news stories said that this made it clear that we should strengthen background checks :dubious:
Also 3 spaces after every period? That’s a new one.
