Gun Control

[Marc DuQuesne]

So I read through the text of Obama's speech this morning and it really irritated me. A few excerpts.

 

"Now, I want to be clear. Congress still needs to act. The folks in this room will not rest until Congress does. (Applause.) Because once Congress gets on board with common-sense gun safety measures we can reduce gun violence a whole lot more. But we also can’t wait. Until we have a Congress that’s in line with the majority of Americans, there are actions within my legal authority that we can take to help reduce gun violence and save more lives -– actions that protect our rights and our kids."

 

"So all of us need to demand a Congress brave enough to stand up to the gun lobby’s lies. All of us need to stand up and protect its citizens. All of us need to demand governors and legislatures and businesses do their part to make our communities safer. We need the wide majority of responsible gun owners who grieve with us every time this happens and feel like your views are not being properly represented to join with us to demand something better.

And we need voters who want safer gun laws, and who are disappointed in leaders who stand in their way, to remember come election time.

I mean, some of this is just simple math. Yes, the gun lobby is loud and it is organized in defense of making it effortless for guns to be available for anybody, any time. Well, you know what, the rest of us, we all have to be just as passionate. We have to be just as organized in defense of our kids. This is not that complicated. The reason Congress blocks laws is because they want to win elections. And if you make it hard for them to win an election if they block those laws, they’ll change course, I promise you."

 

It is clear from his speech that the majority of Americans agree with his actions, hate the NRA, and think Republicans are wrong when it comes to gun control.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/186284/despite-criticism-nra-enjoys-majority-support.aspx?g_source=gun&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

 

58% of Americans view the NRA favorably.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/186248/quarter-voters-say-candidate-share-view-guns.aspx?g_source=gun&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

 

46% say the Republican party better reflects their views on gun control, 37% say Democrats.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125729/obama-job-approval-weekly.aspx

 

Obama gets a 45% approval and 52% disapproval.

 

Congress doesn't pass these laws because their constituents don't want them to. He is right that it is about getting elected. He is just lying about what Americans believe. He frames this action as giving the vast majority of Americans what they want. In reality this is taxation without representation. Ignoring our representation is the same as not having any.

[monkeygirl]

I don't think he's lying-I think it's a disconnect in the way we feel and what we SAY we feel. Anyone who has even conducted an opinion poll
can tell you people don't do what they say they want others to do.

Gun control is an emotional issue in the USA. We SAY we want "something to be done" about this and what we mean by that is that we don't ever
again want to see a random, mass shooting on our teevees. "Doing something" about "it" requires voters to pay attention, get involved in
the political process and have the patience to see through a cultural change.

Also, ask most of those people about gun violence and they rarely include the top causes; suicide, domestic violence and gang warfare. They truly
don't understand what makes up the data and they're not willing to tackle the causes. They simply see that school children have been shot and killed
and they want it to stop. Ironically, these shootings will be the toughest to curb if this country ever does get serious about gun violence.

I'm debating with many on social media about this and one hysterical person ranted "Little school kids, KILLED in Newtown and we did NOTHING after!
WHAT has changed? NOTHING!" And I did a little research and found a dozen things that have been done since that shooting-including many new laws,
but this guy totally discounted all of that because "well then explain San Bernadino"!!

Americans want an instant fix to mass shootings but don't really give a **** about any other gun violence numbers because they believe everyone
who commits suicide, is in an abusive relationship or is killed in gang violence put themselves in their situations, so they deserve what they got.

[Tex]

The problem with gun control is that it's too late. If you ban guns they're still gonna be out there, and banning them will only make gun owners more trigger happy. Better off just leaving it alone.

 

Same can be said for climate change. Does it exist? Yes. Is it man made? Many think so. Can we fix it? Probably not.

 

The only thing that is accomplished when politicians pretend to care about this shit is that they get votes. You can make the same argument about the "drug war". Doesn't matter how many drug lords you kill, the demand for that garbage will always be there which means it's never going away.

 

Politicians love to exploit these unsolvable problems so they can live like kings. We would be so much better off if we gave up the illusion that any of them can do anything about these moot points.

[Pong Messiah]

Obama's a ****bot.

 

Also, thank you for the statistics, MG. I am aware of them, and I am aware that there are people who will continue to associate any and all gun deaths in the U.S. with kindergarten mass shootings, no matter how many times they are told otherwise, but for normal people that stuff is helpful.

 

As for guns, I'm OK with background checks.

 

I'm also OK with putting anybody who uses a firearm to commit a crime in prison for a long time. I'm not talking mandatory minimums (that's another issue), but if somebody is caught on camera holding up a convenience store, nobody got hurt, and they only walk out with $50, I'd still be fine with them getting 10+ years in prison. If there's no room, just release some of the non-violent offenders (oh, wait... that's another issue). If they shoot somebody and it's not life-threatening, 20+. If they kill somebody, life in prison and make them do jobs Americans won't do (oh wait..)!

 

I would be OK with mandatory firearms training for everybody so long as this doesn't reduce the number of households with guns. Maybe mandatory gun ownership, too? Less for purposes of safety and saving lives than for purposes of getting the idiots who **** themselves at the sight of a gun over their damned selves. You're not holding a ****ing live cobra, dip****.

 

In summary and conclusion, vote for me and together we'll get things done!

[The Kurgan]

Lies. Damned lies. And ...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/186284/despite-criticism-nra-enjoys-majority-support.aspx?g_source=gun&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

58% of Americans view the NRA favorably

http://www.gallup.com/poll/186248/quarter-voters-say-candidate-share-view-guns.aspx?g_source=gun&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

46% say the Republican party better reflects their views on gun control, 37% say Democrats.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125729/obama-job-approval-weekly.aspx

Obama gets a 45% approval and 52% disapproval.

The results of things like this inevitably boil down to how the question is phrased, who's asking it and who's answering.

My experience has been that guns are a much bigger issue to conservatives than they are to liberals. The right wing pages I subscribe to on Facebook, for instance, make guns almost front and center. So much so that the brilliant skeptic Michael Shermer recently posted on his Facebook page that "Guns in America are treated as a sacred/religious relics & fetishized objects venerated as near mystical & deified tokens of worship." This is not far from the way in which American conservatives look at gun ownership. Liberals, on the other hand, while they don't like the conservative stance on guns, don't seem to despise guns to the extent that conservatives venerate them. Worshipful reverence on part of liberals is reserved for racial and sexual identity politics. They're much more likely to make violence and society's response to it about racism or misogyny than they are about guns, though they don't shy away from questioning whether or not such easy access to guns is a good thing.

 

[i bold that last sentence for a reason. To preempt anyone suggesting that I'm saying liberals don't care about the gun issue. That's not it. Liberals do not like unrestricted gun ownership, and do not hesitate to denounce it. But restricting gun ownership is not so sacred a cow to the left as unrestricted gun ownership is a sacred cow to the right, which is why the NRA has had the upper hand on this issue this long. Abortion would be the flip side to this]

[Pong Messiah]

Liberals, on the other hand, while they don't like the conservative stance on guns, don't seem to despise guns to the extent that conservatives venerate them.

In my experience, this is true.

 

I have 2-3 friends who post literally hundreds of anti-gun memes a month (current fave: individually listing all fatalities caused by "responsible gun owners" over the last 365 days), but they are outliers with way too much free time on their hands. Generally speaking, your average American "liberal" is going to be less anti-gun than your average American "conservative" is pro-gun.

[The Kurgan]

I've noticed that their true hatred of guns comes out principally when guns are presented as a phallic object, meant to represent macho masculinity and male privilege. Then the liberal hatred of guns becomes primal, and it is, of course, their hatred of the male and the masculine rather than of guns in and of themselves that's coming forth. Guns are central to redneck culture, but also to gansta culture, and so the two maybe balance each other out in progressive eyes. Beyond that, the hard core liberals I know are anti gun for no other reason than that conservatives worship gun ownership to the extent that they do. Outside that context, I doubt they'd really care all of that much.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

Granted, the following executive orders probably would not have prevented any of the mass shootings in recent years and are pretty much a feel-good action, but for the life of me, I can't figure out how this justifies the hysteria as if Obama is personally going into each and every home in the US and grabbing guns. If you read through it all, everything is nothing but vague platitudes:

 

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/white-house-gun-violence-reduction-executive-actions/248/

[monkeygirl]

EXACTLY, THANK you! The man even STARTED by saying "nobody's coming for your guns"

 

But with all the DEATH SQUADS being conducted on the elderly after Obamacare, you can see why they don't trust...

[Pong Messiah]

I think it's more distrust and fear of the slippery slope.

 

Most people, I think, understand that Democratic politicians generally run on a spectrum of "Don't care about gun rights" to "Hate guns, and are only OK with police/military having them," so anything a Democrat does in regards to guns is suspect, even if it is something they might otherwise support. People "know" (correct or not) that the only reason Dems don't really act on guns is because they know they'll get voted out of office.

 

Think of it like this: 29% of American are OK with abortion under any circumstances. This means 71% of the American public is OK with some limitations placed on abortion (generally speaking, the further along in a pregnancy you go, the less people support it). But if, say, Ted Cruz were to suggest a ban on abortion from 8.5 months onward, with exceptions only if the mother's health is in danger, a LOT of people would freak out. Even people who are fundamentally opposed to late term abortion. Why? Because Republican politicians generally run on a spectrum of "Don't care about abortion rights" to "Hate abortions, and they are only OK (maybe) if the fetus threatens the life of the mother (or maybe screw the mother)," so anything a Repub says about abortion is going to be suspect -- even if people generally agree with it -- because it is viewed as a camel nose toward eventually eliminating ALL abortion rights.

 

Abortion is actually somewhat less dangerous than guns -- lots of people who support abortion rights will never vote GOP under any circumstances, while people who are pro-life will never vote Democrat under any circumstances... there are a lot more liberal/Democratic gun owners than there are pro-choice conservatives/Republicans.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

That is a good and sound analogy, Pong, and I think it describes the gun debate overall very well.

 

However, in this case, reading the 23 points made, there is nothing there more than just platitudes. This is nothing more than a dog and pony show, so Obama can claim to have done "something." They are basically a list of "things we would like to accomplish." But none of it is really actionable, and none of it is any different than what Obama, Dems, and even some republicans have said before. Particularly the mentally ill. Every time there is a shooting, republicans trip over themselves to run to a microphone to proclaim (and there is merit to this argument) that said shooting is an example of a need to regulate the mentally ill from gaining access to guns, improve background checks, or to enforce existing laws. I seriously think no one is in favor of another James Holmes shooting up a theater. Also, only those who profit from gun show loopholes don't want to see a person who goes through a background check and legally purchases guns on one hand, then turn around and go to a gun show, and sell it as a private seller to another person without giving them the same background check they went through to buy the gun. Basically, these 23 points say just that.

 

Now I know some of it is the NRA needing to have a straw man to beat up, because the NRA doesn't make money and doesn't have people willing to donate, unless they are the victim, and are "losing" the fight to save the 2nd amendment. And I know there are politicians who pander to the NRA and its supporters. So I know there is a lot of hyperbole going on there. And I know there is no love for the dems or Obama on their part.

 

But seriously, I have to conclude that the most vocal people who are complaining about these executive orders are either willfully ignoring or misrepresenting them. This alarmism and false representation is why I hate the current GOP. Let the facts make your case, and if it is sound, you don't have to twist them to gain support.

[Pong Messiah]

However, in this case, reading the 23 points made, there is nothing there more than just platitudes. This is nothing more than a dog and pony show, so Obama can claim to have done "something."

Oh, I totally agree. The overall trend in violent crime in the country is downward, including crimes with guns -- this despite the fact that we have way, way more guns and gun owners than we did 50 years ago. I know the media likes to sell news with portrayals of American life as if we're living in some civil-war torn developing nation, but if you just take a few crazily violent urban centers out of the equation, the U.S. is one of the safest places around. I think on some level, Obama understands the trend, and is just riding that wave -- acting like he is doing something so he can take credit for it in 5-10 years as the numbers drop even further.

 

But seriously, I have to conclude that the most vocal people who are complaining about these executive orders are either willfully ignoring or misrepresenting them. This alarmism and false representation is why I hate the current GOP. Let the facts make your case, and if it is sound, you don't have to twist them to gain support.

Also agreed!

[Marc DuQuesne]

First let me say I have no problem with reasonable background checks. It is the snow job I hate. He couldn't get the mob to elect people to pass the laws he wanted (he got the opposite), so now he just pretends the mob is with him anyway and does what he wants. Checks and balances mean nothing anymore.

 

And don't take me for some Republican drone, I would have said GWB was the worst Pres till about a year and a half ago.

[DANA-kin Skywalker]

Warren G Harding < James Buchanan < Richard Nixon < Herbert Hoover < G W Bush < Obama

[Ms. Spam]

I actually think that Obama's done an okay job. I mean I'm not running for president. I think it takes a nut to want to be in that position or someone who is really devoted and has pretty thick skin concerning what people say.

 

I honestly cannot come up with a true gripe about his presidency besides the fact that if a person choses to not get health insurance they should not pay a tax premium at the time taxes are filed and that I think Obamacare should have made it so premiums for health care are not so outrageous because even if you get insurance you're scared to use it because the cheapest is a high deductable insurance where you spend more out of pocket in the year than you pay into the plan. He's been pretty reasonable otherwise as I am for gay marriages, like the idea of some gun control and he got Osama as well as telling people we should take Syrian refugees in.

[monkeygirl]

I think it's more distrust and fear of the slippery slope.

 

 

 

But if, say, Ted Cruz were to suggest a ban on abortion from 8.5 months onward, with exceptions only if the mother's health is in danger, a LOT of people would freak out. Even people who are fundamentally opposed to late term abortion.

 

 

 

TRUE. And I'd be one of them.

 

I do see the slippery slope argument as valid in law since we pay attention to legal precedents.

[Marc DuQuesne]

Warren G Harding < James Buchanan < Richard Nixon < Herbert Hoover < G W Bush < Obama

Harding was widely believed to be an excellent President till well after his death. His mistakes finally caught up with his legacy.

 

I believe the mistakes made by GWB and Obama will eventually propel them to the bottom of that list. The foreign policy blunders of these two could be the start of a world war. If you don't think another Cold War has already begun you are not watching things.