Guns and the conservative mind.

[DanTex]

Remember the study several years back about how liberal and conservative minds differ? Part of the conclusion was that conservatives tend to be driven by "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity". It was perfect for that time period, with the Iraq war, "freedom fries", and the "Decider".

This study came to mind again recently when I was perusing some right-wing pro-gun propaganda, because gun control is an issue where the right-wing arguments really line up almost perfectly with these psychological traits. This may help explain why liberals tend to strongly favor gun control, and why conservatives tend to be strongly opposed.

The "fear and aggression" part is, of course, the most obvious, with the vigilante fantasies and the exaggeration of defensive gun uses. And, almost as obviously, dogmatism and the NRA go hand in hand, as they oppose basically every single gun control idea offhand, regardless of how slight the imposition on gun owners or how great the potential for reducing gun violence.

But most interesting is the "intolerance of ambiguity" as applied to the gun debate. For instance, conservatives are likely to think that the world is split into "good" and "bad" people. Good people don't commit crimes, and bad people don't follow laws. Therefore gun control will only affect good people, and bad people will still have guns. To most liberals, this theory will sound childish and simplistic, but that's because we are able to understand the nuances, for example, that bad situations can arise among "good" people, and the outcome is invariably worse when guns are around.

You'll also see conservatives object that gun control will never be able prevent 100% of criminals from getting guns, whereas liberals will typically understand that nothing is 100%, but reducing availability of guns goes a long way towards reducing crime and gun violence. Crime is a complex, nuanced issue, with many factors, and the ability to comfortably accept that there are no easy or foolproof answers is precisely what allows liberals to clearly see the need to impose stronger, yet imperfect, regulations on guns.

[Ian David]

1. The gun is good.

The gun is good. The Penis is evil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOROvO2fxTc

[bluerum]

2. Some broadly brushed stereotypes that I don't entirely buy into.

But I do agree with almost all of the last paragraph.

[gejohnston]

7. Even though there is no empirical evidence supporting it?

It did not happen in UK, Canada, or any other place I could find. Of course, I know as soon as I post this, he will bring up something from another conversation as both a red herring and as a condescending personal attack.

[DanTex]

12. I can only assume you meant to say "no empirical evidence that I am aware of"

Yes, I am here to remind you of that other thread, where I pointed out to you that there are many studies published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, including but not limited to the New England Journal of Medicine, that support the effectiveness and importance of gun control in reducing homicide and suicide. A good summary of the evidence can be found here.

cue link to gunsaresogoddamkewl.com "exposing" the "liberal anti-gun bias" of the "mainstream academic journals" and "Ivy League elites"

edit: grammar fix

[gejohnston]

15. So are they written by criminologists in criminology or law journals?

No. Let me know where you find one. Even if I say "that I found", that does not change the fact that empirical evidence exists that disputes your claim. That evidence is just by looking at before and after crime statistics and in research done by criminologists and published in respected criminology journals. They even remember to submit the raw data. Since you brought up the subject, the burden of proof is on you not me.
Did you write the url correctly? Because it does not come up.

[DanTex]

16. Here's the url

http://www.amazon.com/Private-Public-Health-David-Hemenway/dp/0472114050

Rather than play silly games I suggest you actually read this book and familiarize yourself with the research on the topic. Because it's clear you have no idea what you are saying, and are completely unfamiliar with the literature.

That's as far as I go in doing your research for you.

[gejohnston]

18. I read his stuff and that is not the URL I was referring to

So how about being the open minded liberal you claim to be and read something by a criminologist?

http://www.amazon.com/Point-Blank-Guns-Violence-America/dp/020230762X

http://www.amazon.com/Armed-New-Perspectives-Gun-Control/dp/1573928836

[GreenStormCloud]

23. I bought the book. It is garbage. I will post why later today.

I am rushed right now.

[DanTex]

30. Why bother?

Whatever you have to say can't possibly be as in-depth a critique as has already appeared on countless right-wing websites.

The fact of the matter is, there is plenty of peer-reviewed empirical evidence, you just don't like it.

Let me guess, you're going to ramble on about "logical fallacies" and "correlation versus causation"? Something conspiratorial about "anti-gun bias" by the "academic elites"?

I would go on, but I've just posted on another thread about these amateur pro-gun critiques of peer-reviewed research:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x422017#422300

[gejohnston]

44. Personally, I would like to know what he has to add

Besides, what makes you think all of these guys are amateurs? I know I am. I make no claim otherwise. Can you address their critiques specifically with out your usual condescending broad brushed bullshit? My guess is that if you could, you would. So either you know they are right or you know as little or less than I do.
Answer me this. Simple question: What makes your guy more qualified than mine on the subject?
My guy's papers were published in criminology journals. The editor most likely had a background in criminology or sociology. The referees were criminologists. Dr. Kleck even remembered to add the raw data. Dr. Kleck won the Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology in 1993 for this work.

Your guy is an economist and was published in a health journal. I am guessing the editor had a public health or injury prevention background. My question is what were the backgrounds of the referees? Since he did not include his raw data, was it even sent out before publication?
Show us this plenty of peer-reviewed empirical evidence.

[GreenStormCloud]

57. Why it is garbage. Part One.

Your insulting, condescending post is a supreme example of a closed mind. You could have saved time and typed, “Don’t bother. My mind is made up.”
I bought the book sometime last year when a poster on another internet forum was promoting it as the last, best word for the gun control argument. If it is really their best shot then it is little surprise that our side is winning the public debate and that we are getting legislative victor after victory. I have Private Guns – Public Health by David Hemenway, 2004 edition. It is highly praised by JAMA, NYT, and a constellation of the usual gun-control luminaries.

Chapter 1: Guns and American Society

He begins by quoting the number of American killed by firearms every day. Like all antis he lumps suicides into the total, assumedly because it yields the biggest number. He seems to think that if a suicidal person was denied access to a gun then they would not find an alternate method.
He compares us to Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, claiming that we a similar except for our gun problem. He omits an extremely important different. Those three countries are largely uniform in ethnicity and culture of the population. Well, Canada does have French-speaking Quebec but they are still of European stock and culture. America has two very large sub-cultures that clash very strongly with the majority culture. All three of our cultures have strong histories of internal violence, and of violence against each other. In fact there are some who speculate that America will eventually go the way of Yugoslavia and rip itself apart into three nations, one Latino, one Black, and one White, but that is a different topic. I hope that enough of us of all the groups will identify as Americans first and build bridges instead of barriers. Anyway, Hemenway completely ignores the aspect of our history that is so different from his cherry-picked nations.

Chapter 2: The Public Health Approach

He spends talks about how the public health approach has lead to the cars having safer designs. He then switches to noting that we pro-gun people tend to divide the world into bad guys and good guys, and we claim that the bad guys will be bad and the good guys will be good. In general we do make that argument. And that suicidal people will commit suicide and those who aren’t, won’t. And gun accidents are usually done by reckless people who will find some other way to accidently kill themselves. Based on the success of the medical community in combating disease and in influencing car design he claims that the community can do something about gun deaths and injuries. That argument is reserved for following chapters.

Chapter 3: Gun-Related Injury and Death

He begins with the accidental gun deaths between 1965 and 2000. This give a higher total then by going with the current rate of gun accidental deaths. That accident rate has been declining for decades. He then includes the CDC tap dance away from justified homicide shootings. The CDC calls them gun deaths of “undetermined intent”. If one checks the CDC WISQARS page one can see it for themselves. He then points out that states with more guns have more guns accidents. No kidding? Duh. And states with more cars will have more car accidents. And states with more swimming pools will have more swimming pool accidents. Thank you Dr. “Obvious” Hemenway. He points the number of children killed but does not notice the size of our population. For a nation of 310 million people, 54 child (Age 0-9) deaths annually is not a high number. It is much lower than many other forms of child accidental deaths. He then proceeds to recommend some changes to the design of guns to make them “safer”. In doing so he shows that he knows next to nothing about guns.

He recommends stiffer trigger pulls to make guns harder for children to pull the trigger. He also wants loaded chamber indicators, magazine disconnect safeties, and personalized guns that can only be fired by the authorized person.

I consider loaded chamber indicators a good thing. Magazine disconnect safeties are a pain in the ass but I can tolerate them. Stiffer trigger pulls are a hazard that would render guns unusable by many adults. (My wife has weak hand strength. I am getting arthritis and might have trouble using one.) A stifer pull would degrade accuracy because the extra pressure needed to pull the trigger would cause the gun to move off target during firing.

Personalized guns are vaporware. They don’t exist, nor is the engineering available to make reliable personalized guns.

He then moves on to discuss homicides. This post is already long enough. I shall return to the topic and pick up on what he says in another post.

[GreenStormCloud]

100. Why it is garbage. Part Two

Hemenway then discusses the high gun murder rate in the U.S. None of the pro-RKBA people dispute that we have a very high homicide rate, both for guns and for other killing methods. He relies upon the Kellerman study to put forward the idea that guns are more dangerous to have than the protection they offer. But the Kellerman study did not count a defensive gun use unless the burglar was killed. If he was scared away, it didn’t count. Nor did the Kellerman study control for violent lifestyles. Criminals are much more likely to shoot someone, or be shot themselves than are law abiding types.

He references a 1998 NCVS study to show that guns are much more likely to be used in a crime than to prevent one. That a 1998 study would show that is not surprising. Prior to 1995 only a few states allowed shall-issue CCW and many states, like Texas were no-issue. It is somewhat difficult to defend yourself with a gun if you don’t have one. Even from 1995 to 1998 would have seen only a small increase in the number of citizens actually armed. It would be interesting to see that same study done now that shall-issue CCW is common in many states.

Surprisingly, Hemenway does admit that gun robberies have a lower injury rate because the victim is less inclined to resist. He even states, (page 55)”…robbers who use the crudest weapons or none at all are often the most reckless, causing the most injuries and deaths and making the least profit.”
He then discuss adolescent use of guns in crime, neglecting to observe that such gun possession is already illegal.

He then makes some suggestions for reducing gun crime. He wants police departments to destroy confiscated guns instead of reselling them. That is like trying to empty a river by dipping water out with a bucket. New guns will instantly fill the hole he has created.

He then suggests the usual list of failed strategies, licensing gun owners, registration of all guns, mandatory NICS check on all transfers.

Chapter 4 Self-Defense Use of Guns

He attempts to show that guns are rarely used for genuine self-defense. He disputes Kleck’s findings of 2.5 million DGUs annually. In all honesty, I do not accept Kleck’s number either. I had previously done some calculations of my own and found his number to be far too high. His study was done while CCWs were rare to non-existent. Again, it is difficult to use a gun for self-defense if you are not allowed to have one, as Ms. Hupp has testified.

He then engages in some speculations on how armed citizens may be changing their behavior in a more dangerous direction and how criminals may also become more dangerous in response. But they are mere speculations without evidence. He lists some famous anecdotes of gun tragedies to prove his point. But anecdotes are not data. Again, he relies upon old studies from before the great expansion in the number of armed citizens, and attempt to apply them to today’s different situation.

He claims that many DGUs were themselves illegal use of firearms, and under the laws at the time many of them would have been. Since the time of the studies (1991) we have seen a change in much of the legal landscape regarding armed self-defense. He claims that many cases that have been dismissed by grand juries should have actually gone to trial for murder. Those are rather interesting claims since he did not see the evidence presented to the juries but relied upon media accounts.

On page 75 he makes an interesting admission. “The possibility of using a gun in a socially useful manner – against a criminal during the commission of a crime – will occur, for the average person, perhaps once in a lifetime.” Let’s take that figure, - once in a lifetime – and look more closely at it. Let us assume a lifespan of 70 years, 50 of them will be as an adult. So in a nation of about 310 million people we would have about 6 million DGUs annually, except that much of the population is disarmed, either by law or by choice, and can’t use a gun because they don’t have one when they need one.

His chapter on self-defense is deeply flawed by the use of old studies and speculation.

More to follow tomorrow.

[Starboard Tack]

25. How didn't it work in the UK?

Because almost 50 gun deaths a year still happen as opposed to 30,000 in the US. So adjusted for population size that would translate into 250. Oh, yes, let's not forget the gun suicides here, that we don't like to count, which leaves us with a score of UK 250 vs US 15,000.
By what standard doesn't it work?
You can call the sun the moon all day long and you can believe the sun is the moon, but perception is not reality.

[gejohnston]

29. because the murder rate and suicide rate remained the same

That is why. Focusing on just gun deaths is stupid. Just like in Canada in 1977, the only change was the number of suicide by guns went down. Suicide by other means went up to fell the vacuum. Suicide rate stayed the same. Murder rate was unchanged. By your logic, US mental health officials should be more concerned than their Japanese counterparts because Americans shoot themselves more than Japanese, ignoring the fact that Japan still has a suicide rate much higher than our murder and suicide rate combined. Russia may have fewer gun deaths than the US, but it does not change the fact that their murder rate is still higher than ours.

[Starboard Tack]

33. "because the murder rate and suicide rate remained the same"

How do you interpret that as not working, when the numbers were so low to start with. Gun ownership has always been low in Britain and the laws have always been strict. Firearms certificates have never been easy to acquire and self defense was not considered a valid reason to possess a firearm. Those who had firearm certificates were not permitted to carry loaded weapons and the carrying of one bullet on one's person could get you 5 years in prison. The latest legislation in 1997 basically banned all handguns and other firearms and reclassified shotguns.
A measure of the extent of legal firearms ownership in the UK (post-Dunblane legislation did not extend to Northern Ireland) is that the handgun bans affected an estimated 57,000 people - 0.1% of the population, or 1 in every 960 persons .

It took 6 years for existing licenses to cycle out. In a country of 60 million inhabitants, I find it amazing and highly laudable that the numbers have remained so low as to be almost statistically irrelevant. Especially when looked at in the context of recent history.

[gejohnston]

35. If the goal was to lower crime rate, it did not.

Because the crime rate did not drop. If that was not the goal, then what was? Prior to 1920, there were lax if any gun laws in UK, and yes the ownership was always low. Crime rate was always lower than ours.

[Starboard Tack]

39. The goal of 1997's Amendment was to help avoid another Dunblane massacre

which has not occurred since. The overall intent of legislation since 1937 has been to keep violent crime rates low, especially in terms of death and serious injury. Statistics are often misleading, as firearm injuries in the UK include pointing (not firing) an air gun or fake gun at someone. Imagine what the stats would look like here using those criteria.

The overall crime rate has little to do with gun ownership and more to do with socio-economic factors.

[gejohnston]

45. This is your first post that actually made sense.

although I like to know how many people report someone pointing a fake gun at them. Does that include kids playing cops and robbers?

[Starboard Tack]

64. It does not include kids playing cops and robbers.

Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%, from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. Most of the rise in injuries were in the category slight injuries from the non-air weapons. "Slight" in this context means an injury that was not classified as "serious" (i.e., did not require detention in hospital, did not involve fractures, concussion, severe general shock, penetration by a bullet or multiple shot wounds). In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. In 2007, the British government was accused by Shadow Home Secretary David Davis of making "inaccurate and misleading" statements claiming that gun crime was falling, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998, mainly due to a rise in non-fatal injuries. Justice Minister Mr Jack Straw told the BBC, "We are concerned that within the overall record, which is a good one, of crime going down in the last 10-11 years, the number of gun-related incidents has gone up. But it has now started to fall."

In 2008 The Independent reported that there were 42 gun-related deaths in Great Britain, a 20-year low. However, in late 2009 The Telegraph, a very conservative newspaper, reported that gun crime had doubled in the last 10 years, with an increase in both firearms offenses and deaths. A government spokesman said this increase was a result of a change in reporting practices in 2001 and that gun crime had actually fallen since 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

[Atypical Liberal]

92. And what was the price of that avoidance?

Since the murder nor suicide rate in the UK has declined appreciably since the 1997 amendment, it seems that violent crime is still an issue in the UK.

However, because the right to keep and bear arms has been significantly curtailed, many people now cannot resist their assailants except to engage in a physical contest of strength against their attacker.

So in avoiding another Dunblane massacre, most of the citizens of the UK are now at the mercy of anyone stronger than they are who wishes to abuse them. The weak are at the mercy of the strong.

[Straw Man]

55. Define "always."

Gun ownership has always been low in Britain and the laws have always been strict.

There were no restrictions on firearms ownership prior to 1870, yet even then their murder rates were much lower than ours. Pistol licensure began in 1903.

Firearms certificates have never been easy to acquire and self defense was not considered a valid reason to possess a firearm.

Wrong again--until 1920, licenses could be bought over the counter at a Post Office if one was over 18 and of sound mind. After 1920, scrutiny was increased, but self-defense was considered a valid justification until 1937.

[Starboard Tack]

65. My bad. I was sloppy there.

The first British firearm controls were introduced as part of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which was set up in a reaction against the large number of people roaming the country with weapons brought back from the Napoleonic wars. The Act allowed the police to arrest "any person with any gun, pistol, hanger , cutlass, bludgeon or other offensive weapon ... with intent to commit a felonious act". This was followed by the Night Poaching Act 1828 and Night Poaching Act 1844, the Game Act 1831, and the Poaching Prevention Act 1862, which made it an offense to illegally shoot game using a firearm.

A series of laws have been enacted since then, as Parliament countermanded the Bill of Rights and the Parliamentary Declaration of Rights (1689) under the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

[Straw Man]

69. Still sloppy...

The first British firearm controls were introduced as part of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which was set up in a reaction against the large number of people roaming the country with weapons brought back from the Napoleonic wars. The Act allowed the police to arrest "any person with any gun, pistol, hanger , cutlass, bludgeon or other offensive weapon ... with intent to commit a felonious act". This was followed by the Night Poaching Act 1828 and Night Poaching Act 1844, the Game Act 1831, and the Poaching Prevention Act 1862, which made it an offense to illegally shoot game using a firearm.

All of those refer to other offenses committed with a firearm. Gun control as such doesn't crop up until 1870.

[benEzra]

78. Guns appear to have been less restricted in the UK than they are in the United States now until 1937

with the passage of the 1937 Firearms Act. Even the 1920 Firearms Act would have been considered fairly free by current U.S. standards.

[Starboard Tack]

80. Just a very different mentality towards guns in the UK

Only a tiny percentage of criminals would ever consider using a gun. It's not playing by the rules.

[benEzra]

81. Not just guns---any weapon, it seems. Or at least it used to be that way.

I think the UK's focus on more and more gun restrictions after 1997 did themselves something of a disservice, in that they got complacent about the real keys to their low gun violence rate. It was never their gun restrictions, IMO.

In recent years, it seems that sublethal violence has been getting out of hand, though. I work with a British expat and she says she feels much safer here than she did in the UK.

[Starboard Tack]

82. Interesting! I can relate to that, having lived in both places for many years.

Sublethal (interesting word) violence has always been more prevalent in the UK in my experience. But it is "sublethal" which is kind of preferable. Disagreements tend to get resolved with a little fisticuffs followed by a nice cup of tea and no hard feelings. Here, guys might be somewhat more reticent, never knowing if their opponent is carrying a gun, which makes for a good argument in favor of toting. No society is perfect, but I prefer the less lethal option, even if it seems more bestial. Especially, though, because of the nice cup of tea

[Straw Man]

84. Your view of the UK is unrealistically rosy.

Disagreements tend to get resolved with a little fisticuffs followed by a nice cup of tea and no hard feelings.

The UK has a problem with violent crime that goes well beyond the quaint "tea and fisticuffs" image. We're not talking about gentlemen settling their cricket disputes in a manly fashion; this is knock-'em-down, boot-to-the-head thug violence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/may/19/violent-bicycle-muggings
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-dies-following-street-assault-2290999.html
http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2011/05/23/britains-youngest-hitman-convicted-of-womans-murder/
http://www.siasat.com/english/news/15-yr-old-schoolboy-britain-murder-plan-hatched-facebook
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2008/07/18/knife-crime-spree-sweeps-britain-leaving-victims-and-fear-in-its-wake
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7400372/True-scale-of-violent-crime-rise-revealed.html

[Starboard Tack]

90. I really wasn't being serious about the "tea and fisticuffs"

I am very aware of the brutality and thuggery that goes on and have had to deal with it personally many times. Fortunately, there are very few guns in the equation, for they would only serve to exacerbate the situation. I believe the number one reason why there are so few guns is because the police are unarmed for the most part and have no desire to be armed with guns.

[Straw Man]

94. Sorry -- I misread you.

My sarcasm meter needs recalibration.

[rrneck]

83. If they played by the rules they wouldn't be criminals. nt

[X_Digger]

86. "always been strict" ??

Before 1920 or so, there was damned little gun control in the UK.. and NYC still had a murder rate five times that of London.

[Starboard Tack]

93. True. There was little gun control and little gun use.

Apart from sports and some shotgun hunting of vermin by farmers and stag hunting by the nobility, guns were rarely owned by individuals and almost never carried in peacetime.

[X_Digger]

95. We've been through this dance before.. you seem to have forgotten..

Violent crime and homicide did not go down to 1997 levels in the UK- until 14 years later.

Gun control had little effect on crime. It was low before, it went up, various gun control measures passed, it continued to ruse, more gun control, more rising.. then it dropped. Without additional gun control being passed.

[Starboard Tack]

97. Wasn't intended to reduce crime, just gun crime. It worked.

Are you suggesting the Brits start carrying? Good luck with that.

[gejohnston]

98. The rare tragidy, that can be avoided, with proper mental health and alert and caring family

is the reason to punish those who had nothing to do with it. Sorry, that is not the hallmark of a sane or just society.

[Starboard Tack]

99. Unfortunately yes, it was the reason to punish those who were not to blame

But you won't find too many Brits who have a problem with it.

[X_Digger]

101. It didn't lower gun crime (generally).

Need I drag out the 2005 BBC articles, again that noted a rise in gun crime?

[hlthe2b]

3. Hoo Boy...

:popcorn:

I'm sort of thinking you are new to the gun debate around DU--at least in the gungeon...

[gejohnston]

54. Buttered our unbuttered?

:beer:

[TPaine7]

4. Simpleminded bullshit, and self- contradictory to boot...

For example:

But most interesting is the "intolerance of ambiguity" as applied to the gun debate... the outcome is invariably worse when guns are around.

Talk about childish and simplistic. And ironic.

Let's take a nuanced case where a "good" man is frustrated by a woman who won't put out. He thinks she looks down on him, after all, other guys she's dated report successful seduction.

Our good guy gets drunk and decides to take what he wants. But the woman is armed and the idea of dying sobers and disuades him. Later, he apologizes profusely and she forgives him--on the condition that he permanently leaves her alone. Both live and no one is raped or stalked... He's a good guy, remember?

Either that scenario has never happened, or it is worse than a completed or at least an attempted rape. The words "childish" and "simplistic" spring to mind.

"Invariably." "Intolerance of ambiguity" indeed.

[DanTex]

5. Thanks for your feedback, and I agree, more accurate would have been "almost invariably".

[TPaine7]

8. Wow!!!

Intellectual honesty in an anti! No bull, no evasion, no scurrying off into the dark.

I am sincerely impressed. No matter how much we disagree, I respect that answer. I have no choice.

It looks like I won't be able to discuss your OP in depth now, but I look forward to future encounters.

[Starboard Tack]

27. Your supercilious condescension towards anyone who disagrees with you

does little to help your cause. You take intolerance to a whole new level that is less than endearing. You might try engaging every now and then with those of differing views and learn something, rather than bullying every member who disagrees with your rigid view of the world. This OP is particularly applicable to you and others of a conservative persuasion, be they "pro" or "anti".

[Starboard Tack]

28. Your supercilious condescension towards anyone who disagrees with you

does little to help your cause. You take intolerance to a whole new level that is less than endearing. You might try engaging every now and then with those of differing views and learn something, rather than bullying every member who disagrees with your rigid view of the world. This OP is particularly applicable to you and others of a conservative persuasion, be they "pro" or "anti".

[gejohnston]

32. Project much?

[TPaine7]

61. OK, I have a little time. I'll engage you.

Let's see what I can learn.

1) I am haughtily disdainful (supercilious) and condescending.
2) I am intolerant.
3) My intolerance is less than endearing.
4) I might try engaging occasionally with those of differing views--I might learn something.
5) I have a rigid view of the world
6) I am of a conservative persuasion.

And by implication:

7) It is best not to address the substance of someone's post, but rather address them personally and accuse them of having a flawed character and incorrect political views.

I humbly request that you correct any mistakes in my understanding of your post.

Now I admit that I usually don't take kindly to posts where people--people who don't know me--undertake to teach me about myself. Not about my logical mistakes, not about the flaws in my reasoning, not about defects in my premises, but about me, about things that go on in my head and about my personal political views.

I usually assume that they are unqualified--that they aren't either God or an advanced being with sufficient abilities to read my mind.

For the sake of this post, however, I will assume that you are God or an advanced being.

What are my views on gay marriage? Abortion? The Patriot Act? Torture? Domestic spying? Rendition? Where do I stand on school vouchers? Prayer in schools? Capitol punishment? The war on drugs?

How are these views conservative, and how can I correct them to be progressive or liberal?

And finally sir, in what way is your attack on my character while ignoring the substance of my post correct while my attack on the OP's position while leaving out any personal observations was supercilious, condescending and bullying?

Please help me to learn.

Thank you.

[Starboard Tack]

66. Easy. Don't start a dialog with an initial response of "Simpleminded bullshit!"

I don't challenge your character, views or opinions here, just your behavior towards another member. I meant no offense to you, but just wanted to get your attention. Looks like it worked. I have been guilty of similar behavior from time to time and as tempting as it may be, I try to avoid it and encourage fellow members to do the same.

[TPaine7]

71. I know this probably didn't occur to you, but I wanted to get his attention, too.

A big difference is that I didn't call him a conservative to do so.

It struck me that the OP was clearly guilty of the same black-and-white thinking it decried. It was blatant throughout, IMO, but I found a clearcut, hard to argue example and hit it hard. But if you re-read my post, you will find that all of my insults were directed at THE ARGUMENT.

Perhaps I should tone things down; but I didn't attack the person--except maybe by implication.

[oneshooter]

70. Best be careful TPaine7 or you may find your post deliberately misquoted

And lied about. It has happened to me.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[ileus]

6. why not just come out and say guns kill people? talk about simple minded...

[SlimJimmy]

11. Guns *do* kill people. That's their intended purpose. And because of that,

many robberies, rapes, and burglaries have been prevented just by the presentation of one. The intended action is stopped because the perpetrator decided they wanted to live more than they wanted the money or property.

[Starboard Tack]

26. Many robberies, rapes and burglaries have also been committed by

the presentation of a gun, and many have been prevented by other means. I don't think you will find any empirical evidence to show that more of these crimes are stopped by the presentation of a gun, than those that go awry when the victim presents a gun.

[SlimJimmy]

59. And how many of those guns used in the commission of a crime were not purchased because of gun

control laws? Answer - nearly zero. But go ahead gun control zealot; tell a rape victim you are taking away her gun because it's very important to control guns in order to stop crime, and see what kind of reaction you get. Oh, and let me get out of the room first.

[Starboard Tack]

68. Thou dost presume and protest too much

I am no zealot, but someone searching for solutions to our problems. I would prefer not to infringe on anyone's rights, but I fear the madness afoot currently will eventually lead to the downfall of the pro-toting zealots and result in repressive legislation affecting all of us.
When moderation fails, society invariably suffers, either by disintegrating into anarchy or by embracing some form of authoritarianism.
So, my advice to those who blow their horns too loudly is "Be careful what you wish for."

[SlimJimmy]

72. Give me a break. There is no, and hasn't been an explosion of violent crime due to the sale

of firearms. And likewise, there has definitely *not* been a collapse of crime due to stricter gun laws - and there won't be one. The use of the term "Pro-toting zealots" tells me everything I need to know about you. (nt)

[Starboard Tack]

75. Major comprehension fail on your part. Try reading more slowly.

Nowhere did I suggest that there has been an explosion of crime due to the sale of firearms. Neither did I suggest there has or ever would be a collapse of crime due to stricter gun laws.
You assume that I am a zealot of some sort. You are wrong. I warn of zealots, be they pro or anti toting, for they will ruin things for everyone.
Extremism of any kind inevitably leads to disaster.

[SlimJimmy]

96. Thanks for typing s-l-o-w-l-y. I don't know what I would have done without that

assistance. I make no presumption as to what you are except that you don't think much of advocating gun ownership for personal or home defense. I strongly disagree.

[Zoeisright]

21. What, you think that guns don't kill people?

THAT is simple-minded.

[ileus]

79. No...the gun is a simple machine.

[Common Sense Party]

91. It's usually the bullets that kill, not the gun.

In case you were wondering.

[Straw Man]

9. "Broad brush stereotypes" is putting it mildly.

I do not now consider, nor have I ever considered myself a conservative, but this characterization of difference of political opinion as a function of psychological makeup is not only patronizing and self-congratulatory, but ultimately dangerous. One is reminded of the commitment of dissidents to psychiatric facilities in the former Soviet Union. But I digress...

For instance, conservatives are likely to think that the world is split into "good" and "bad" people. Good people don't commit crimes, and bad people don't follow laws.

Nuanced views and moral relativity are all well and good, but I'm hard pressed to think of a better social-utilitarian definition of "good" and "bad" than the above.

Therefore gun control will only affect good people, and bad people will still have guns. To most liberals, this theory will sound childish and simplistic, but that's because we are able to understand the nuances, for example, that bad situations can arise among "good" people, and the outcome is invariably worse when guns are around.

The fact remains that gun crime still exists in cities like Chicago and DC, despite rigorous gun control efforts. The law-abiding are virtually disarmed, and the criminal subculture that flourishes around the drug trade is unfazed by the slight amount of additional legal jeopardy that gun laws constitute. Remove the buzzwords "good" and "bad" and what you're calling "childish and simplistic" is actually an accurate assessment of the situation. Perhaps you could explain the "nuances" that I may be missing.

[Starboard Tack]

31. "I'm hard pressed to think of a better social-utilitarian definition of "good" and "bad"

And yet the "good guy" toters in this forum constantly use the term "bad guys" to justify their toting. What kind of social-utilitarian rationale is that?
We wouldn't want anyone who has been convicted of a felony and paid his debt to society to be able to defend himself against a "bad guy", even though he may have been convicted of a non-violent crime.
The inner city drug dealers and gang bangers tend to victimize each other in turf wars, rather than the "law abiding" citizens who make up their customer base. The prohibition of drugs and the drug war provide the uneducated and under privileged with a sub-economy. The availability of guns makes them the cheapest and easiest way for young males to assert themselves.

[spin]

42. One big step to reducing gun violence would be to stop the War on Drugs ...

The War on Drugs is a campaign of prohibition and foreign military aid and military intervention being undertaken by the United States government, with the assistance of participating countries, intended to both define and reduce the illegal drug trade.<1><2> This initiative includes a set of drug policies of the United States that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of illegal psychoactive drugs. The term "War on Drugs" was first used by President Richard Nixon on June 17, 1971.<3><4><5><6>

On May 13, 2009, Gil Kerlikowske, the current Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, signaled that although it did not plan to significantly alter drug enforcement policy, the Obama administration would not use the term "War on Drugs," as he claims it is "counter-productive".<7> One of the alternatives that Mr Kerlikowske has showcased is Sweden's Drug Control Policies that combine balanced public health approach and opposition to drug legalization. The prevalence rates for cocaine use in Sweden are barely one-fifth of European neighbors such as the United Kingdom and Spain.<8>emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs

[Starboard Tack]

56. I could not agree more

[Straw Man]

52. Not sure I understand your objection.

And yet the "good guy" toters in this forum constantly use the term "bad guys" to justify their toting. What kind of social-utilitarian rationale is that?

A perfectly good one: the innocent victim of violent crime (or "good" person) uses a weapon to defend himself/herself against the perpetrator of the crime (or "bad" person). This is maintenance of social order at the grassroots level.

We wouldn't want anyone who has been convicted of a felony and paid his debt to society to be able to defend himself against a "bad guy", even though he may have been convicted of a non-violent crime.

Who's "we"? I'm not so sure about that. Restoration of rights after paying one's debt for a non-violent offense sounds reasonable to me, but I'm open to counter-arguments.

The inner city drug dealers and gang bangers tend to victimize each other in turf wars, rather than the "law abiding" citizens who make up their customer base.

Not entirely true (see "snitches get stitches," etc.), but even so, that's violence that we don't want in society.

The prohibition of drugs and the drug war provide the uneducated and under privileged with a sub-economy. The availability of guns makes them the cheapest and easiest way for young males to assert themselves.

Yes, so let's address the root causes, because removing guns from the equation will just result in a change of weaponry. In a wholesale gun ban, drug gangsters would be the last people to be disarmed, and they would pick up other weapons long before the last gun was gone.

[Starboard Tack]

60. Sorry I don't buy your definition of good and bad. Way too simplistic and very conservative.

Was Robin Hood a good guy or a bad guy?
Is Dubya a good guy or bad guy?
Which was Richard Nixon? J. Edgar Hoover?
We may agree on most, but maybe not all. Even Manson had people who loved him and maybe still do.
Liberals don't see everything in black and white.

The rest of what you say makes sense.

[Straw Man]

63. OK, you've raised the issue of unjust laws. That's not what we're talking about here.

Assuming a liberal democracy (maybe a big assumption, but I maintain that we still have one), then the person robbing is "bad" and the person being robbed is "good." This distinction has to be maintained if society is to function. I don't see that as simplistic. I'm not making an overall judgement on the person, although that's what the OP seems to think that "we" (guns rights advocates, whom he wrongly conflates with conservatives) do.

Yes, Manson had people who loved him. His actions, however, were simply unacceptable and had to be punished. I consider myself a liberal (or progressive, or whatever term you prefer), and I can see that very clearly. Again, nothing simplistic there. We're talking social utility.

[DanTex]

38. I love the pro-gun people getting all worked up about me stereotyping conservatives

I'm being so rough on those poor right-wingers. How dare I speculate that their political beliefs might stem from psychological issues like fear and aggression. Why, that might be the most horribly anti-conservative thing I've ever seen posted on DU!

characterization of difference of political opinion as a function of psychological makeup is not only patronizing and self-congratulatory, but ultimately dangerous

I guess you draw an exception to this rule when it comes to the deluge of stereotypes and general demeaning statements about "antis" that regularly appear on this board. Because I haven't really seen you take anyone task for making patronizing and self-congratulatory anti-"anti" caricatures here.

So let's review: snarky stereotypes are OK as long as you are criticizing proponents of gun control. But people on the complete opposite of the political spectrum, who are wholly responsible for the pit this country has fallen into over the last decade, they're off limits.

[benEzra]

48. The problem I have with your post is your conflation of gun owners and conservatives.

I am a gun owner, competitive shooter, and nonhunter, and I am most assuredly not a conservative. You are trying to cram the gun issue into a conservative/liberal dichotomy and it simply does not fit.

[SlimJimmy]

73. Agreed. Some of the most progressive folks I know own personal firearms. We

see this conflation all the time when anti-gun folks are trying to make some anti-gun point.

[rrneck]

49. They're not wholly responsible.

We let them get away with it.

[Straw Man]

50. So you agree that you are stereotyping.

I guess you draw an exception to this rule when it comes to the deluge of stereotypes and general demeaning statements about "antis" that regularly appear on this board.

No, I don't. I don't subscribe to the personality-types theory of political belief. I try to stay out of those arguments.

Because I haven't really seen you take anyone task for making patronizing and self-congratulatory anti-"anti" caricatures here.

They aren't directed at me, so I don't take them as personally. Is that wrong? Is this like where the moderate Muslims are supposed to disavow the extremists?

But people on the complete opposite of the political spectrum, who are wholly responsible for the pit this country has fallen into over the last decade, they're off limits.

Your brush is getting broader by the minute. Are you talking about conservatives or gun-rights advocates? Your original post attempted to link gun rights to conservatism with some pseudo-science that I totally reject. Does that make me "responsible for the pit this country has fallen into"?

[David West]

10. Fear, aggression, dogmatism, and intolerance are all impartial to the false left/right dichotomy.

As the OP so aptly demonstrates.

[rrneck]

13. Partisan tomfoolery.

Inaccurate contradictory tomfoolery at that.

A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".

As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.

...

The authors, presumably aware of the outrage they were likely to trigger, added a disclaimer that their study "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false".

Limbaugh et al are not conservatives. They are fascists. Conservatives merely desire a reduced rate of cultural change. Such a desire is inadvisable in light of the changes we will be required to make in the face of our current socioeconomic and environmental problems, but conservatives are hardly evil simpletons.

While tolerance for ambiguity and a desire to nurture are admirable traits, sometimes that tolerance can be fatal. There is no time to vacillate when one is being assaulted. Anyone who cannot tell who the bad guy is under those circumstances and act to defend themselves is an idiot, no matter their political persuasion. Anybody who thinks they can dictate how an individual may defend themselves without offering a viable substitute is an arrogant ideologue. No sensitive, thinking person likes to fight, but every person with any sense has to be aware of the possibility. And any sensitive person has to consider that others may not be as fortunate as themselves and have to fight to stay alive.

Human interactions are significantly more subtle and complex than the OP would have us believe. Even the most tolerant and nurturing left wing liberal has the ability to respond unambiguously and deceivingly to a threat. In fact, the lack of decisive action and cooperation has been the undoing of the Democratic party for quite some time. That's probably because liberals have stopped being liberals and have rested of the laurels of their jaundiced memories of the 1960's and failed to be the change they are supposed to be. I suspect that too many liberals have been behaving like the conservatives described in the linked article in the OP in that they have spent more time pining for the days of Berkley flower power and hippie love and failed to keep up with the times. Of course, while pining for the past of the 60's liberals may inadvertently get reintroduced to the the skull cracking, building burning, street shooting labor riots of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

Vague platitudes like "reducing the availability of guns" don't cut it with people in the real world. Guns, and the self defense issues that go with them, figure large in people's minds. It's a personal issue that is just as important as all the personal issues that liberals are best at defending like GLBT rights, racial and gender equality, choice, and marriage. There are eighty million or so gun owners in this country, and it's political suicide to tell them they might be collateral damage for some ideological construct that leaves out the possibility of a viable self defense for them or their loved ones.

The best thing for us to do is put aside all this partisan bullshit and ideological parsing for our own gratification and remember the words of robber baron Jay Gould who said, "You can always hire one half of the poor to kill the other half."

[DWC]

22. Exceptionally intelligent and accurate post. Thank you. n/t

[lawodevolution]

14. Gun control is born from fear and those who fear guns and gun owners fall for gun control

Gun freedom is liberal not conservative.

[sharesunited]

17. Guns empower people to extinguish ALL of each other's genuine Constitutional rights

with extreme prejudice and on a whim.

I don't view that as progressive at all. I view that as barbaric.

[lawodevolution]

19. Barbaric is being chopped up my a machete in one of you gun free paradises like

Haiti, Jamaica or Nigeria. Guns are kept by most gun owners as a tool to preserve life and constitutional rights.

[Straw Man]

20. And that's a power you want reserved for agents of the State, right?

Guns empower people to extinguish ALL of each other's genuine Constitutional rights

You believe that a uniform justifies the wielding of that power. And no, I'm not talking about armed revolution, so you can stop beating that lifeless equine.

All this "empowerment" talk is unadulterated nonsense. People are "empowered" to do all sorts of things they would never dream of doing. You trust your life to complete strangers every time you get out on the highway.

On the other hand, someone with a desire to do bad deeds will find no end of ways to do them.

[oneshooter]

37. Speaking of Constitutional rights, how are the negotiations going

with Canada and Mexico to use their army's to go door to door and confiscate weapons and ammo from the US? We need to be kept informed so that we can place them on the corner for you.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[benEzra]

24. A whole lot of gun control was and is pushed by conservatives or using conservative ideas.

The common denominator has typically been a demonized outgroup (immigrants, African-Americans, poor or uneducated whites, Communists, labor, Muslims) and fearmongering about guns in the hands of the outgroup. That doesn't account for all gun control, but it accounts for a lot of it, from New York's xenophobic Sullivan Law, to the South's racist Jim Crow gun restrictions, to red-scare enactment of gun registration in the UK, to California's Mulford Act (signed by some guy named Ronald Reagan, maybe you've heard of him), to the Bush Administration's effort to outlaw gun possession or purchase by people on the secret terrah watchlists. Haven't you ever noticed the Brady Campaign's subtext that "good" gun ownership is ownership by monied country-club "sportsmen", and "bad" ownership is ownership by the poor and urban, as reflected in their "stuff we want to ban" lists?

There's also the pesky fact that the initial Federal "assault weapon" fraud, an issue which became Priority One of the gun control movement for a generation, was the brainchild of arch-right-winger William J. Bennett.

On the Dem side of the issue, the harsher forms of gun control that characterized Dem efforts in the '90s weren't driven by the Left; they were driven by communitarian Third Way centrists largely affiliated with the DLC, in an attempt to look "tough on crime" to right-leaning authoritarians.




And you want to talk about the cynical creation and exploitation of fear? Look at the fears that the corporate media is trying to stoke this week about the least misused class of firearms in the United States:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51875012-78/weapons-gun-says-military.html.csp

That article has it all: intentional conflation of non-automatic Title 1 civilian-market guns with tightly restricted Title 2 rapid-fire military weapons; the implication that civilian semiauto rifles are new, extra powerful, and a grave threat to society; even the canard about long-range target rifles shooting down airliners. But then look at the cold, hard facts:

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

Total murders...........................13,636.....100.00%
Handguns.................................6,452......47.32%
Firearms (type unknown)..................1,928......14.14%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,864......13.67%
Edged weapons............................1,825......13.38%
Hands, feet, etc...........................801.......5.87%
Shotguns...................................418.......3.07%
Rifles.....................................348.......2.55%

Even though modern-looking rifles dominate the civilian market, dominate centerfire target-shooting in this country, and are the overwhelming choice for the HD carbine role, all rifles put together account for half as many murders as shoes and bare hands, never mind knives and clubs. "Weapons of mass destruction", indeed. :eyes:




More on the Sullivan Law, Mulford Act, and whatnot:

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Ronald Reagan and California Gun Control




I do hope you stick around, and I look forward to discussing the issue with you. I'm one of those evil "assault weapon" owners that Reagan Republican Sarah Brady always warned you about. :hi:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

34. how would you juxtapose this with Guns and the Liberal Mind . . ?

:shrug:

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

36. Re: Guns

"...conservatives are likely to think that the world is split into "good" and "bad" people." - Your straw-man is showing.

- Once you have broken the law, you need to be held accountable. This is one of the reasons for having laws.



"...conservatives object that gun control will never be able prevent 100% of criminals from getting guns, whereas liberals will typically understand that nothing is 100%, but reducing availability of guns goes a long way towards reducing crime and gun violence."

- Understand that "reducing availability" will have a much greater effect on the honest, law abiding members of society than on any true criminals. Those effects will also be felt much faster by the pool of crime victims than by the would be assailants. IT SIMPLY ISN'T WORTH IT.




* Mohandas K. Gandhi: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
* The Dalai Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
* David Prosser, Wisconsin Supreme Court justice: "If the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is to mean anything, it must, as a general matter, permit a person to possess, carry and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of his private residence or privately operated business."
* Thomas Paine: "...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
* Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
* Joseph Story: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." (Supreme Court Justice, first Dane Professor of Law at Harvard University)
* Thomas Aquinas: "Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one’s life, one’s goods or one’s physical integrity; sometimes, even 'til the aggressor’s death..."
* St. Augustine: "Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."

[DanTex]

41. Not sure you want to be quoting David Prosser at this particular moment...

Just saying, you do realize he's been in the news recently...

I guess quoting Scalia or Clarence Thomas didn't seem like such a great idea on this board, so instead you went for a state supreme court justice that surely nobody has ever heard of...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

53. "Not sure you want to be quoting David Prosser..."

"Just saying, you do realize he's been in the news recently..."

- No, I like the quote. The fact that he does or doesn't favor something is incidental to my point. The fact that some may like or dislike him is incidental to my point. I'm sure if I looked that I could find a quote containing truth and wisdom from the worst despot one could image. This would also be incidental to my point.

- And just curious, for what is he in the news?

- Per your suggestion: "Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention 'the people,' the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset... The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms... The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.'" Justice Antonin Scalia

[spin]

40. SOME Liberals favor gun control ...

Not all.

My parents were very Liberal Democrats but I was raised in a very conservative area of Ohio. I remember distinctly being called a Communist by a teacher in high school because I felt Social Security was a good idea.

I will admit that my father did not own firearms when I was growing up but he had been authorized to carry a concealed pistol as an investigator for Naval Intelligence during WWII. He was involved in investigating German spy rings in Pittsburgh Pa. and also performed background checks on scientists for the Manhattan Project. My uncle told me after my father's death that they both had enjoyed shooting handguns during their youth with a neighbor who was a police officer.

My uncle also was a liberal Democrat and a union steel worker who worked his entire life for and retired from the Jones and Laughlin Steel Company in Pittsburgh. He owned handguns and once used one successfully to stop a robbery without having to fire a shot. My mother worked many years for H. J. Heinz Company also in Pittsburgh and had once used a small revolver to deter a rapist who attacked her in the 1920s while she was walking home in a rural area of Pennsylvania. She did fire two shots over the man's head. He ran.

Much depends on your background and that's why painting people with a broad brush is a poor idea.

My personal experience an my background has taught me that your statement:

Therefore gun control will only affect good people, and bad people will still have guns. To most liberals, this theory will sound childish and simplistic, but that's because we are able to understand the nuances, for example, that bad situations can arise among "good" people, and the outcome is invariably worse when guns are around.

is in itself childish and simplistic.

I personally favor many gun control measures such as the NICS background check system and would like to see this system improved and opened to private sellers.

However, I oppose many current gun control ideas pushed by the very liberal wing of our party such as another assault weapons ban, micro-stamping ammunition or gun registration because such schemes do little or nothing to address the problem of gun violence in our nation.

The fact remains that since the mid 90s the violent crime rate in our nation as been falling dramatically during the same period of time that "shall issue" concealed carry has become commonplace and the sale of firearms has skyrocketed.

I personally distrust Republicans as much or more than I do liberal Democrats on the issue of draconian gun control. While they have successfully used gun control as a wedge issue to increase votes for their party, they will sell gun owners out in a heartbeat given half a chance.

Twenty years ago, I asked Richard Nixon what he thought of gun control. His on-the-record reply: 'Guns are an abomination.' Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles.
--- William Safire (originally from a New York Times column), Los Angeles Daily News, June 15, 1999, P. 15.

Governor Ronald Reagan of California signed the Mulford Act in 1967 which prohibited the public carrying of loaded firearms. This bill was a response to the Black Panthers march on the California Capitol. ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

President George Bush, Sr. banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

Under the GCA, the Administration has the authority to prohibit the importation of non-sporting firearms. In 1989, in response to growing drug gang violence, the ATF under President George H.W. Bush denied applications to import a series of semiautomatic rifles that it found were designed and intended to be particularly suitable for combat rather than sporting applications.
http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2011/02/another-california-senator-heard-from.html

[DanTex]

43. Gotta love the conspiracy theories

I personally distrust Republicans as much or more than I do liberal Democrats on the issue of draconian gun control. While they have successfully used gun control as a wedge issue to increase votes for their party, they will sell gun owners out in a heartbeat given half a chance.

I guess that's one way of dealing with the cognitive dissonance of standing with Palin, Beck, Gingrich, and the rest.

The best part of this theory is that it can never be proven wrong, because the time that Republicans sell out gun owners, much like the rapture, is always in the future. So you can keep it forever! (As long as you don't try to get specific about timing...)

[benEzra]

46. And you're standing with Bush, Bennett, Guliani, Romney, and the rest.

You are trying to shoehorn this issue into a dichotomy, and it's not. Ronald Reagan was the most anti-gun governor in California history (a dubious distinction that stood until the '90s), and Bush I and Bush II were both more anti-gun than Obama has turned out to be. The Third Way is still pushing the Bush Administration's proposal to bar blacklisted individuals from owning or purchasing firearms.

FWIW, Gingrich is no friend of gun owners, either; he helped pass the 1994 Feinstein ban in conference committee and let Dems take all the credit, hoping to ride the inevitable backlash into the Speaker's chair (which, as it turns out, he did).

[gejohnston]

47. So if these three changed their minds

I am guessing you would too. Besides, why should the claimed opinions of a half wit, a self described rodeo clown who said "don't give a rat's ass about the political process", and a hypocritical opportunist matter in forming my opinion about anything?

[spin]

51. You are dodging my contention that not all liberals support draconian gun control ...

and instead choosing to attack my view that Republicans are as or more likely than Democrats to impose very restrictive gun control legislation if given the chance.

Interesting.

[TPaine7]

62. There is no cognitive dissonance.

There is no cognitive dissonance in "standing with Palin, Beck, Gingrich" if by that you mean agreeing with them when they are correct. I will also "stand with" Hitler, Stalin and GW Bush on any of their correct stands.

If I could prove to you definitively that all of the above, along with any villain of your choosing, believed something correct, would you then change to an incorrect view? If they all believed that 2 + 2 = 4, would you lose the ability to balance your checkbook?

[GreenStormCloud]

58. "Invariably worse"? Not even. Try "Very rarely worse" - among good people.

bad situations can arise among "good" people, and the outcome is invariably worse when guns are around.

It is extremely rare for a person to have a homicide for their first major offense. Almost always a murderer will have a history of violence and usually a prior felony conviction. Usually it is already illegal for such a person the have a gun.

Among genuine good guys would be the people in Texas who have CHLs. We have all passed an FBI background investigation. There are oover 460K of us. During 2009 (Last year for which stats are available.) only one of that number was convicted of a murder. Only 109 were convicted of any serious crime, to include non-violent crimes. That is a safety record that is far better than the general public. Certainly among those 460K+ people there were lots of bad situations that were not made worse by their guns, and some bad situations that were made better by a victim being able to effectively resist unlawful attack.

So you need to change your "invariably worse" to "rarely worse and sometimes better".

[ergot]

67. Not sure what point you're trying for here...there are millions of Democrats with conservative

positions on some issues. I can't find any rule either for Democrats in general or here at DU that says every Democrat must be one hundred percent liberal on every issue to be real or acceptable. If unflinching support for the Bill of Rights (including the 2nd)is some indication that the supporter isn't a 'real' Democrat, I guess I'm not real.

[WatsonT]

74. What are your thoughts on using empirical evidence to determine policy?

So like say if no real world evidence can be provided to show a casual link between gun control and lower crime (or access to legal guns and increased crime). The logical conclusion then would be that gun-control is not the answer. Right?

[eqfan592]

76. But guns are clearly linked to higher crime rates!

I mean...DUH! Forget causal links! I got all sorts of correlative evidence! That's enough, right? And I can always just ignore the correlative evidence that doesn't support my position!

Causal link? HA! Who needs that when determining public policy????

:sarcasm:

[WatsonT]

77. In all 50 states gun ownership is directly and positively linked* to murder rates!

*once 48 outliers are removed and the remainders are heavily adjusted.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Factually flawed from the start.

"The "fear and aggression" part is, of course, the most obvious, with the vigilante fantasies and the exaggeration of defensive gun uses. And, almost as obviously, dogmatism and the NRA go hand in hand, as they oppose basically every single gun control idea offhand, regardless of how slight the imposition on gun owners or how great the potential for reducing gun violence."

The NRA has sponsored and endorsed gun control legislation at various points. I'll give you a chance to retract that statement before I link you to the associated laws endorsed by the NRA.

[jpak]

87. Great Post - and most conservatives think the 2nd Amendment is ABSOLUTE

even though the SCOTUS sez otherwise

yup

[eqfan592]

88. Ignorant? Check.

Closed minded? Check. Anti-gun and gun owner? Check. It gets the jpak seal of approval! :P

yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup

[Atypical Liberal]

89. Instead of "nuances", why not just look at STATISICAL DATA?

But most interesting is the "intolerance of ambiguity" as applied to the gun debate. For instance, conservatives are likely to think that the world is split into "good" and "bad" people. Good people don't commit crimes, and bad people don't follow laws. Therefore gun control will only affect good people, and bad people will still have guns. To most liberals, this theory will sound childish and simplistic, but that's because we are able to understand the nuances, for example, that bad situations can arise among "good" people, and the outcome is invariably worse when guns are around.

Except when you look at the DATA, the picture is really not ambiguous at all. We don't need to fall back on some kind of nebulous "nuance" to help define firearm policy.

The simple fact is that most firearm homicides are committed by people with extensive prior criminal histories.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

Another simple fact is that when you look at CCW permit holders, we see that not only are they hardly every involved in firearm crime, they are hardly ever involved in crime at all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=374332

The picture being painted is quite clear: The vast majority of firearm owners are law-abiding and hardly ever involved in firearm-related crime. And the people who are involved in firearm-related crime are almost always people with such extensive criminal histories that they can't even legally own firearms anyway.

Since most gun control efforts are aimed at guns, rather than classes of people, that means that most gun control does mostly affect good people, and the bad people will still have guns.

There is nothing simplistic or nuanced about it, and the only reason you'd couch the debate in such terms is to hide this reality of the situation.

You'll also see conservatives object that gun control will never be able prevent 100% of criminals from getting guns, whereas liberals will typically understand that nothing is 100%, but reducing availability of guns goes a long way towards reducing crime and gun violence.

This is another version of the "if it saves just one life" song. The question just becomes how many people's rights do you want to restrict in a futile bid to restrict crime and gun violence?

Crime is a complex, nuanced issue, with many factors, and the ability to comfortably accept that there are no easy or foolproof answers is precisely what allows liberals to clearly see the need to impose stronger, yet imperfect, regulations on guns.

I will never allow the actions of criminals to be used to justify restrictions on the overwhelming majority of firearm owners. No matter how cloudy you want to try and make the issue sound, the bottom line is most firearm owners are law-abiding. I'm not going to allow the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater because of some "nuance".