Why ban guns?

[the_pragmaticist]

I've been trying to get a handle on this for a while, so perhaps a little ramble on a friendly forum will help. I'm trying to figure out the real reason that people like Nutter pass gun laws as a resolution to violence.

I don't think it's the standard "guns are bad" mentality. I don't think the politicians are particularly afraid of firearms as entities - I'm sure they are around armed guards all the time and never ask their acquaintances to disarm. Gun laws are largely crafted in such a manner that the police and other relevant officials are excluded, so it can't be a simple theory that if no one was armed, no one would be involved in a shooting.

I also have trouble with the concept that the government is trying to disarm us to better control us. It just smacks of tinfoil hats and kool-aid. Granted, on the day that I am wrong, I will still have an operational arsenal to take back what is ours, but nonetheless it seems ridiculous at the moment. While our weapons are the final line of defense against tyranny, I think there are many lines before that to cross.

Pandering to liberal hippies also strikes me as largely unnecessary. Most (all?) states enjoy a majority of gun owners and/or supporters, yes? If anything, standing against the freedom to bear arms is a miring and unpopular point within the democratic party when it comes to getting votes. The vocal minority makes a lot of ruckus for sure, but do they control a voting base which is both dependent on gun control and large enough to make a difference?

The only theory that comes to mind is pure pride. Legislators create and drive these laws into the books because they feel that because they wrote the law, everyone will follow it. Is it possible that they simply refuse to recognize that criminals, by definition, are breaking those laws without a moment's hesitation? Surely the legislator who passes a "no assault weapons in my city" rule doesn't actually believe that a legitimately purchased and legally owned semi-automatic AK47 in the safe of a collector or hunter will EVER be used to commit or facilitate a violent crime?


Lay into it, don't be gentle...What do you guys think?

[homefires]

Answer in three words:



Power and Control!:barf:

[bushidomosquito]

I think all of the reasons that you stated and more are behind it. You don't need a common motivation to have a common goal.

[TexasFats]

I think that the lure of having power over other people is one thing that attracts certain types of people into politics. In other words, our "leaders" are mostly control freaks. They cannot stand the idea of citizens who are independent of the government. That is how they get votes--by buying them out of the public treasury.

[HarrySchell]

many people would rather emote than think, and want someone to give them a "life without edges"...safe, cozy, consequence-free.

Such people are incompetent and it is offensive that there might be others who are. They cannot imagine themselves competently handling a firearm under stress, or being responsible for their own self-defense.

Forgive me, but I look at highly obese people and wonder what they are thinking they will do if there is an earthquake here and they have to walk out of danger zones. While we cannot tell whether such disaster is imminent, we cannot know that it isn't, and we can bet it could come at any point. To be so unprepared to take care of one's self, I just don't understand. I guess they think someone will look after them.

So, IMO an aversion to personal responsibility and an inferiority complex toward competent people couple to the pandering of politicians seeking dependents and take all the guns away!

The funny (not haha,either) is that there is far more violent crime than murder-20 to 30x depending on where you are talking about-rape, assault, etc. murders are usually the catalyst for whining about gun control, but it happens far less than situations where a handgun is likely more effective as a self-defense measure. The bleating about bodies in the street is about a tiny segment of violent crime. See FBI stats on 2006...

[bikerbill]

I think the answer is simple ... politicians are interested only in getting elected, and then in getting re-elected. If they think opposing gun ownership will help them in that mission (see California) that's their stand. If they think supporting the 2nd Amendment, concealed carry and gun ownership will help, that's their stand. I'm sure there are sincere politicians on both sides of the issue who truly believe the viewpoint they support. But most are cynical charlatans who are interested only in gorging at the public teat (ever wonder how so many politicians wind up so much richer when they leave office than they were when they entered, despite the relatively low salaries they're paid?)

I hate politicians. We haven't had a decent president, Reagan aside, in decades. Maybe since Truman. I voted for Bush, but he's run us into a hole we may never get out of. Who do I vote for this year? Which of the three stooges supports the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as written?

I'm glad it's Friday night and I have a bottle of vodka in the freezer.

[Yellowfin]

It could be to try to make another California. CA's laws were crafted to drive gun ownership out of the state. No more, no less. CA kicked out the gun shops, divided and marginalized the gun owners, then gerrymandered the districts with over 75% of the population to insure perpetual power to the left. That's not conspiracy theory that's irrefutable fact. Why? Because personal firearms ownership is in its concept opposite to that of a nanny state with absolute power. Those who believe that personal protection is a right and a responsibility, thus espousing both absolute rights and responsibility itself as concepts, those who believe that the government can and will do things wrong and cannot be trusted to provide for one's every need, those who clearly know the difference between right and wrong, and those who educate their children about history are a direct and absolute opposition to the kind of politics and power grabbing that Nutter and his kind thrive on. They don't want to have to oppose us because they will lose most of the time or at very least have difficulty they don't want to deal with. We ask questions. We live by the law and demand that others do the same. We believe the law says what it says not what someone pulls out of their *** when it's convenient for them.

Socialism can't proliferate in that kind of environment. That's why every time communists or socialists or other authoritarian governments seek to take over the very first thing they want to do is disarm the people. Thus every attempt at such must be met and destroyed without hesitance. PA is a major thorn in the side of the neocommunists who have full control of NY, MA, NJ, and MD. They want to topple PA so they have unilateral control of a huge percentage of the US population which lies between DC, NYC, Philly, and Boston. Add that to the majority of California then Chicago and they've got almost unilateral control of the country through Congress and the electoral college.

PA must stand.

[JP Sarte]

I believe that many liberal/gun hating gun ban individuals truly want to reduce violent crime. The problem with violent crime is how they address the problem.

These people generally love easy, one dimensional, quick answers that on the surface look good whether they are effective or not. For these people it is easier to blame an inanimate object (the gun) than it is to address the real issue: human behavior (i.e the lack of accountability).

Which is easier? Blame the gun or try and change untold numbers of people?

Blaming the gun is easier (not bad press either if your business is politics).

JP

[Kreyzhorse]

The gun is an easy icon to blame for the problems of society. Guns are easy to make into villians.

Education, criminal prosecution and an honest look at gun crimes and why they happen and how to prevent them are hard.

[Shorts]

Can't we just ban criminals? Oh wait...

[Rangefinder]

I have several theories on this matter. There is, as already stated, a drug called power, position, authority, etc... Those with an elitist belief see firearms as a simbol of resistance to their authority. Eliminate the symbol and they strangle the chance of opposition to their position. Then, there are those who simply have their answer to the world's problems, if we'd all just love one-another---the "tree-hugger type" that still carry a lot of control when it's polling time. They live in their own version of reality where teddybears grow on trees and everything is warm and fuzzy--except there are all these evil guns out there causing violence and destruction wherever they're found. Then there are the innocent/ignorant type, who could be pursuaded against all the dillusional paranoia and propoganda, except they don't get exposure to the reality of firearms beyond hollywood, terrible news coverage, and a generally biased propoganda machine that pre-programs them to believe guns mean criminals, so only criminals would have such evil contraptions... Blah-blah-blah.

What it all comes down to is a population that is less and less capable of rational common sense and personal willpower of free-thinking. It's general laziness and the inability of personal responsibility or accountability. Funny thing though, no matter the topic, there is always someone else or something else to blame for these people--never them.

[Derius_T]

Others have said it, and so have you. It is about control. Some think they know better than us ignorant unwashed masses, so they decide whats best for us. They forget that their JOB is to be the voice for what the majority of their supporters (voters) thinkm not to be decision makers in and of themselves. Their opinions do not really matter. They are supposed to be OUR voice.

The rest just want the power, period. They think power equals respect. And guns in the hands of those who don't bow to their beliefs equals opposition to their power.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Elitist mentality. Not trusting the great unwashed with such power. Also, as stated before it is (to them) an easy fix. If there were no guns then there would be no gun deaths. True statement but impossible to have, just like saying if nobody drove cars we would have no car deaths. Also, the question of need always comes up with anti-gun people I talk to. Why do you need a gun? Your chances of getting attacked are very low! That sort of stuff.

[Forwardassist]

It is not just liberals, their are plenty of conservatives that are anti-gun. Lets not paint all liberal with a broad brush. There are many liberals out there that are more pro RKBA than some conservatives. I will say the elitist mentality is one of the major factors for the gun control. Anti gunners, like many control freaks believe they know what is best for you. The other factor is people called bliss ninnies. These people are so opposed to violence that the actually believe removing firearms from the populace will stop crime. While it might in the long run reduce some types of crimes, all what will happen is other types of crime with grow more common. There are many reasons why America is a violent country,but that is a topic for another discussion. All I will say is guns are not the reason we have the highest murder rate in the civilized world. It goes way beyond guns.

[FireMax]

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

~~ Thomas Jefferson

So you see... they plan tyranny for you and I. They must remove our defenses from us first, of course.

[LostOne]

Being anti gun is literally saying your aginst freedom, your aginst the citizens having power.

Its beyond me, I really have no idea why people are anti gun.

[SecDef]

I believe that many liberal/gun hating gun ban individuals truly want to reduce violent crime. The problem with violent crime is how they address the problem.

Pretty much what I was going to write.

Politicians see a problem: Dry-by shootings, school shootings, DC snipers, kids find a gun without a lock and shoots his brother... there are very few ways for them to actively show their opposition and response to these things.

Tighter gun regulation is their misguided way of taking some kind of action to prevent these things.

[AirForceShooter]

Homefire nailed it.
It's really simple

AFS

[TEDDY]

dont call them liberals.divide them there are liberals and there are socialists.
one wants to do their thing, the other wants you to do their thing.
trouble is one side pushes an agenda that makes things worse.the free to do your thing needs to be controled when it flows over on some one else.freedom has its limits and its limits is when it interferes with me and my freedom.
unfortunatly gun owners as a class are dumb bunnies.see Mass.1,500,000 gun owners and thats more than vote in whole state.there are only 260,000 gun owners licensed in Mass since1998.:

[HarrySchell]

Tighter gun regulation is their misguided way of taking some kind of action to prevent these things.


The problem I have with that analysis is the mountains of hard evidence which show gun controls DON'T succeed...they make matters worse.

Remember, most criminals are operating under a gun ban already, with no further law required. Look at the records of the guys who killed that Philly cop last week. They should have had trouble getting a water pistol under the law in Philly. How can anyone expect new law to help that situation?

Nobody can be so stupid as to ignore what is out there so consistently. Like Barry O "discovering" what Wright was saying after 20 years. Either the man is dumber than a post or he's a liar...or both. There is no other legitimate conclusion. You can't get there from here and to claim they are doing something "to prevent crime" is asinine on its face.

As for the US having "the highest murder rate in the world", I don't think that is true. I am sure that the UK has the highest violent crime rates of any developed country, as of 2005 and the three prior years, and that 06 was worse by double digit percentages. And that in some crimes, the UK is approaching US crime rates in numbers, forget per capita. We kill more people with guns, IMO, but the rest of the picture-80-90% of violent crime, they are ahead of us.

The UN gave them that award, and you know they would have rather given it to US.

[SecDef]

Nobody can be so stupid as to ignore what is out there so consistently.

Don't be so sure. There are proponents of ID invading the school systems.

[wuluf]

Many of today's career politicians learned in the '60's that it's more important
to APPEAR to do something than to actually make a difference. Gun control legislation is easy to point to as an effort to DO SOMETHING.

[the_pragmaticist]

HarrySchell summarized it nicely...With all that data, all the facts, all the statistics ranging from the simplest (17% of this, more than half of that) to the more mathematical (p-values & trending) refute the hypothesis of a positive relationship between guns and crime. This is actually why this is an interesting discussion...The facts and efficacy of the policy cannot have anything to do with the actual policy because the two are contradictory.

Maybe I should go get that foil out, it's looking bad.

[copenhagen]

I also have trouble with the concept that the government is trying to disarm us to better control us. It just smacks of tinfoil hats and kool-aid.

I wish I believed you- for my own peace of mind. Unfortunately, the only valid reason I can logically come up with for gun control is just that: CONTROL.

[HarrySchell]

As to improving control over us, gun control has proven essential in dictatorshipls. We in this country generally look at places like Zimbabwe and think it can't happen here.

Thre is no such thing as "can't". I agree it is unlikely, but that is a function of a well-armed populace and our heritage, which is under intellectual assault every day. When you lose your heritage, as they have in the UK, you start losing identity, and without identity you become whatever the more powerful forces in the society want you to be.

Being disarmed automatically makes you dependent on those more powerful to define your "rights"...whatever you have you enjoy at their sufferance, not because you are in your own deserving. That is not freedom, it is waiting for those with power to come and take what they want. They may not come for a long time, but they will, because humans are fallen creatures, capable of good and evil.

If a powerful guy becomes evil, you have trouble and there is little you can do.