Interesting: liberal types = Vulcans; conservatives = Klingons
I buy that.
It’s also obvious which group would run the “galaxy” for the betterment of all.
Is is paranoia if bad things really do happen with frequency?
"But here are the numbers: In 2010, there were 403.6 violent crimes per 100,000 persons in the United States. (The good news: This is an overall decrease of 13.4 percent from the level in 2001.) Thus, the average American has a 1 in 250 chance of being robbed, assaulted, raped, or murdered each year. Actually, the chance is probably greater than this, because we know that certain crimes, such as assault and rape, are underreported.
Of course, your risks vary depending on who you are and where you live. In Compton, one of the more dangerous parts of Los Angeles, your chances of experiencing violent crime in 2010 were 1 in 71; if you lived in Beverly Hills they were 1 in 458. Still, even in good neighborhoods, the likelihood of being attacked is hardly remote. In the comparative safety of Beverly Hills, assuming the crime rate stays constant, the probability that you will be robbed, assaulted, raped or murdered at some point over the next 30 years is 1 in 16. (The average risk in the U.S. is 1 in 9; in Compton it’s better than 1 in 3.) Again, these statistics surely paint too rosy a picture, because many crimes go unreported."
Fear of violent crime is not what the OP meant by “RW paranoia” and is certainly not limited to conservatives.
The conservatives also have the Ferengi, and a growing number of Tea Party Pakleds.
“I need to protect myself and my family against violent criminals.”
Was one of the “paranoias” listed in the OP.
And every year there are 350,000 dog attacks serious enough to require emergency room treatment. But if I told someone I needed to carry a firearm because I’m worried about someone’s dog attacking me, people would think I’m paranoid and odd.
Please do. And then I can have him fight your straw man where you think “they” are going to take ALL your weapons away leaving you totally defenseless.
You say “no right is absolute”, but when gun control advocates suggest banning any particular weapon, the Right engages in a screaming pedantic debate over the semantics of “assault weapons”.
Technically, all man-portable weapons are small-arms (I think). That would include Stinger SAMs, RPGs, light mortars, etc. But typically they are comparing them against armored vehicle mounted and crew-served weapons.
I would not.
Because the present constraints upon the right to bear arms (The National Firearms Act, Gun Control Act, Firearm Owners Protection Act, Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act, etc) are sufficient, and an assault weapon ban will not (and did not, when it was previously implemented) provide a public benefit that outweighs its costs.
The notion that any and all constraints upon weapon ownership are unconstitutional is a tiny minority view.
And I appreciate it!
I just find it interesting that people are so worried about crime when they are orders of magnitude more likely to be attacked by a dog!
For the record, I think we do have a problem with gun violence in this country. But considering assault rifles are used in such a small number of crimes, banning them would mostly be useless posturing.
The .40-caliber pistol I carry concealed is equally effective on dogs and humans.
In most cases, the notion that most gun-right advocates oppose any and all regulation of firearms is as much a strawman as the idea that most gun-control advocates seek to eliminate private ownership altogether. Both sides are haunted by a noisy extremist fringe that opponents love to attack as though it were the mainline view, as most causes are.
For my part, I accept as a fact that America will never in your lifetime or mine or our grandchildren’s be a disarmed society to the extent of the UK or Japan. I do not even have any brief for any particular gun-control regime (though I think Canada’s is at least worth studying and learning from, the culture and conditions being so very similar to ours).
No, my position is simply that gun ownership is not a matter that merits constitutional protection. It should not be regarded as a “right” in the sense that free speech is a right. It does not deserve to be set above-and-beyond the reach of the ordinary legislative/political process in that way. Gun control should be merely a political issue, to be threshed out at the polls and in the legislatures, not in the courts – and, of course, American gun owners and gun-rights activists will for generations to come be very strong at the polls and in the legislatures. So what? Legislatures can look at policy studies, evaluate gun-control efforts on their merits and effects, try things and reject what turns out not to work in practice, and be accountable to the voters for the results. That is good enough, it is how reasonable public policy can and is and should be made. But we do not have any good or rational use for the Second Amendment in this day and age.
My position, also, is that gun control in and of itself is not all that important, compared to other issues facing our society, like the distribution of wealth. It’s like gay marriage – I’m all and unreservedly for it, but, if I were a politician, I would not give it a very high priority compared with a lot of other things. The lack of it is no existential threat to our society, no more than the presence of it; and likewise with guns. They kill a lot of people needlessly, but in terms of the general health of American society, guns are like a flu compared to cancer.
Gotta fear those corners.
The essence of this is that the right are intimidated by the information overload confronting them today because its difficult to know where the truth is. So they’ve found it alot easier to surrender their intellects to people they believe are like themselves and thus can be trusted to enlighten them to the world. Favorites are those who make the most entertaining emotional arguments. Once there, facts become very boring, so emotions are appreciated more for keeping them entertained. Somewhere along the line, they become deluded into believing its all true. Foxnews is nurturing this mass, so are careful to present voices who offer as little push back as possible. People that differ from the narrative are marginalized. Viewers learn that differing from the right-logic narrative is akin to being a “vicious attack”, so they dont want to be known as “attacking america”. This is the “team building” exersize most r/w entertainers commit to. They spend the majority of their air time being critical of the people with opposing opinion, while the liberal media avoids doing that for fear of losing ratings. The negativity is so one-way that it influences everything else, until they’re eventually “all-in, intellectually”.
More accuracy in their beliefs may help to show us where it comes from. The following is what i think is behind the beliefs.
“I need to protect myself and my family from some theoretical tyranical government.”
Its not ambiguous to them - the threat is any current democrat president - who automatically becomes by default, “tyrant in chief”.
“I need to protect myself and my family against violent criminals.”
Which can be the feared revenue agents, planning home invasions, or the lazy blacks on welfare. A draconian penal state would be akin to utopia (as long as nobody like themselves was picked on).
“I, as a Christian am persecuted by society (bonus points if you are white and male).”
Ya, but society includes christians of differing sects. Its a more satisfying conclusion to believe they are persecuted by atheists or believers of a competing religion - aka the immoral and infidels (easier to hate them that way). Remember that most religions have their followers believing that a special place in heaven opens up for them if they are prosecuted for their beliefs. Its a powerful incentive to acquire a persecution complex, specially for those who believe they might be beyond their sin quota.
“There are vast numbers of lazy people looking to sponge off of my hard work.”
Specifically, black people. How much do you think they include blacks when referring to “hard working americans”? “Hard working” is meant to refer to “whites, who aren’t on welfare”. You have to learn which whites are on welfare and likewise, you have to learn which blacks are Not.
“Immigrants are destroying our society.”
Because the demographics are turning the white majority into a minority. A non-white majority is doomed to becoming a failure.
“There is something “off” about President Obama.”
Worse than off-white, he’s black. He wants to steal whats precious to you - its an agenda of his fellow travelers too.
I think the fear of tyranny is based on a particular resolution of cognitive dissonance:
[ol]
[li]My beliefs are normal, therefore common.[/li][li]The President’s beliefs diverge significantly from mine[/li][li]The President’s beliefs are unpopular[/li][li]The President must have reached office by some means other than a majority of people voting for him on the basis of his beliefs[/li][/ol]
Liberals tend to revise (1) to “my beliefs are common among smart people,” but conservatives make it all the way to (4), and conclude that either the reported outcome of the election doesn’t reflect the way the votes actually went, or that the winner of the election won by misleading people, or that the winner bribed or pandered to people.
Inasmuch as guns are not the literal cause of the problem, I do think the AWB is a misguided way to address it. But I really do think we somehow need to get the national cohort of weaponry under control. I would start with stringent registration and back that up with an accessory clause: if a gun registered to you is used in a crime, you are an accessory, no exceptions, so make sure you keep track of those things and do not let them get into the wrong hands.
We can all pull numbers out of our dank crevices. This one appears to be unmitigated BS. The only number I could find was 60000 in-home robberies in a year. How you might be able to extrapolate that to three and a half million home invasions overall I cannot begin to imagine.
You want more straw?
Please cite ONE instance where I think anyone is actually going to take away all my guns. I think there are certainly people on this board that would like to but I don’t think they are anywhere close to rational enough on the issue to be very convincing.
I’m sorry that you find the facts inconvenient.
Like I have said before. Banning Assault weapons to address gun violence when handguns account for 95%+ of all gun violence is like trying to address voter fraud by requiring voter ID when absentee ballots account for 90%+ of all voter fraud. You start to get the impression that the other guy is either lying or stupid.
Well, the obvious answer is to shoot all the dogs. After all what do we need them for in this day and age?
22, 23 or 27?
You are overturning about 250 years of judicial precedence because you can’t be arsed to amend the constitution?
Pro-life advocates feel the same way about abortion. Can we just disregard the constitution whenever we find it inconvenient or contrary to our political posture?
Licensing and registration would solve most of it. When was the last time you heard of someone getting murdered by machine gun fire? Every machine gun is registered in a national registry and every machine gun owner has a special license that allows them to own that machine gun. The criteria for owning that machine gun is the same criteria for owning a gun in most states and yet even without all the ridiculous rules that some people want to implement, we have largely eliminated machine guns from the hands of criminals over the decades.
I voted for Obama twice.
I am a tax lawyer. Some of my best friends work for the IRS.
I haven’t gone to church in over a decade. Sometimes I wonder if I’ll go up in flames if I cross the threshhold.
I try not to be racist, I don’t always succeed.
I am an immigrant.
Did I mention that I voted for him twice?
[quote=“For You, post:173, topic:647551”]
Inasmuch as guns are not the literal cause of the problem, I do think the AWB is a misguided way to address it. But I really do think we somehow need to get the national cohort of weaponry under control. I would start with stringent registration and back that up with an accessory clause: if a gun registered to you is used in a crime, you are an accessory, no exceptions, so make sure you keep track of those things and do not let them get into the wrong hands.
[quote]
The accessory clause is not necessary and probably not constitutional. You are effectively criminalizing gun ownership. Licensing and registration requirements are entirely sufficient to reduce gun crime over time.
I get most of mine from the Department of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
None of the above, I don’t care for Glocks, though they are well-made pistols. They don’t feel right in my hands, and I’m fond of manual safeties, or at least a DA/SA trigger. DAO with no safety just makes me uncomfortable, though this could be irrational, it’s still a factor.
In the winter I carry a Sig P229, in the summer a Taurus PT140 Millennium Pro, and when I’m wearing a shirt tucked in with no jacket, a Taurus Model 651 Protector in .357. It conceals remarkable well when worn inside the waistband.
Ahh. I have a 27 for my EDC I really like all the after market upgrades and parts there are for glocks (I have a couple of threaded conversion barrels for it so I can fire different rounds). They are the iphone of handguns.
I used to have a preference for revovlers (my first was a bulldog 357) but I only have one now. A taurus raging judge magnum 45lc/410/454casull. Its loads of fun but entirely impractical.
I sort of wish I did like Glocks, because they are exceptionally well-supported in the aftermarket, reasonably priced, and durable. But, they just don’t feel right.
I’m not a big revolver fan, but I really like my 651. It’s amazingly concealable, has a shrounded hammer so as to be snag-free, and packs a lot more power than similarly-sized .380 autos.
Giant overpowered revolvers are fun, but I’m much more of a rifle gun than a handgun guy when it comes to shooting for fun. My handguns were all chosen purely for their suitability for concealed carry.
It would not be criminalizing responsible gun ownership. Failing to secure your guns from theft or transferring to people who are crazy or ex-cons is irresponsible gun ownership.
Okay, I looked it over. The crime section on pages 8-10 was ultimately quite blurry. Mostly I failed to see where it could come close to supporting the 10000 home invasions per day. Even DoJ says they cannot provide a home invasion statistic because that information is not collected. So I call gimme-solid-evidence-or-concede-ignorance on that point.
No, I was making an argument for repealing the 2nd Amendment. Thought that was clear enough.
Agreed. Works well enough in Canada.