Changing Attitudes on Gun Control

[Jonathan Randall]

I have personally noticed that attitudes towards the right to bear arms are changing with more people (on average) accepting widescale firearm ownership and CCW permits. Of course there are great exceptions to this (much of New York), but overall, for a variety of reasons including the collapse of order following Katrina, many are now defending the right to bear arms who were previously anti-gun. I am thinking particularly of the Liberal side where one site that I frequent now has militant gun rights defenders. Thoughts? Observations?

Postscript: my personal attitudes have also done a 180 degree turn. I was for gun control at one time, and now, for a variety of reasons, I am a strong supporter of the right to bear arms.

 

[still learning]

Hello, As a responsible person and former NRA member (High School ROTC Rifle team member,4 years -22 small bore rifle) and Ex-National Guard soldier. I am for the right to bear arms and carry them.

Vote me in on this? ......Aloha

 

[Bigshadow]

Count me in! I like my arsenal!

 

[ginshun]

I am all for the right to bare arms.

Now if only we ccould get a governer in WI that isn't a dimwit lib, we could get some concealed carry permit action. Bills to allow CCW's have passed the state senate and house twice, only to be vetoed by stupid Doyle. Never mind that the vast majority of the state wants them to be allowed. I think both times they overrode the veto in one and were 1 or 2 short in the other.

Man, he's such an ***. It'd be nice to get sombody in office that cares about more than Madison and Milwaukee.

Sorry for the rant.

 

[7starmantis]

I dont equate gun control to being the oposite of the right to bear arms. Both can coexist. I am a supporter of both the right to bear arms and the regulation and control of said arms.

7sm

 

[Cruentus]

I dont equate gun control to being the oposite of the right to bear arms. Both can coexist. I am a supporter of both the right to bear arms and the regulation and control of said arms.

7sm

What would you consider "reasonable" gun control, and what would cross the line for you in terms of reasonableness?

 

[michaeledward]

I have personally noticed that attitudes towards the right to bear arms are changing with more people (on average) accepting widescale firearm ownership and CCW permits. Of course there are great exceptions to this (much of New York), but overall, for a variety of reasons including the collapse of order following Katrina, many are now defending the right to bear arms who were previously anti-gun. I am thinking particularly of the Liberal side where one site that I frequent now has militant gun rights defenders. Thoughts? Observations?

There are several items here that, I believe, require consideration.

First, your sample size. What you have personally observed is not an appropriate sample to use as the basis for a discussion about societal attitude changes.

If you have ever purchased a new automobile, you begin to notice how many other people are driving the make and model as you have selected. Before your purchase, you did not tend to notice those vehicles. Does that mean, those vehicles were not on the road, prior to your purchase decision?

Second, to describe surpise that a 'Liberal' site would have 'militant gun right defenders' speaks to prejudices and biases that can quite possibly be false. I am a self-described liberal. Several of the threads on this board call out on threats to the Bill of Rights. As the Second Amendment is an important part of that document, I would defend the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms. There is nothing in the defense of the Second Amendment that is opposition to the Liberal philosophy (if such a thing can be defined).

Now, I will state that my support for the Second Amendment, and rights of the citizenry to keep and bear arms, is not immune from legislative effect; meaning the citizenry, through their legislatures can prescribe controls on who can access firearms, and how many firearms they can possess, and how they can be carried.

 

[arnisador]

A recent article in USA Today discusses changing laws concerning the use of deadly force in self-defense; see the link here.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

There are several items here that, I believe, require consideration.

First, your sample size. What you have personally observed is not an appropriate sample to use as the basis for a discussion about societal attitude changes.

If you have ever purchased a new automobile, you begin to notice how many other people are driving the make and model as you have selected. Before your purchase, you did not tend to notice those vehicles. Does that mean, those vehicles were not on the road, prior to your purchase decision?

Certainly it is: Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation, Theory, Law. Scientific method starts with OBSERVATION. Also, this thread is about my PERSONAL observations and whether or not others have noticed the same thing. It is not an academic Sociology study.

The point about cars is a good one, and if I had not heard from many others that they are noticing the same thing, I might have discounted my own perceptions as based upon my personal change of view on the subject.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

I dont equate gun control to being the oposite of the right to bear arms. Both can coexist. I am a supporter of both the right to bear arms and the regulation and control of said arms.

7sm

Me too; it's just the EXTENT that I've changed positions on over the years. I want less control for law-abiding and mentally healthy citizens.

 

[7starmantis]

What would you consider "reasonable" gun control, and what would cross the line for you in terms of reasonableness?

I'm not sure I know the answer to that question yet. And dont get me wrong, the "hoops" one must jump through can get pretty annoying. I dont neccessarily agree with some of the denied rules (those who owe taxes or child support) I dont see the rational connection. However, I can see that in the world we live in, regulation of firearms does help (maybe just a bit, but it helps) to keep gund out of the hands of those who aren't morrally or otherwise responsible. Take my grandfather for instance, he walks into a wal-mart, buys a handgun within an hour, goes home and shoots himself in the head. Now, if there had been stricter regulations (which are in place now, weren't then) we might have been able to stop that. Would we have stopped him from killing himself if he really wanted to? Probably not, but the man living next to him in the "retirement" facility wouldn't have caught the first shot he made which didn't hit its mark. The potential handguns carry is extreme, thats why education and regulation need to be in place.

I think we are up to my limit of reasonableness, but I hear so many people speaking against regulation or control as if there should be none....that in my opinion is just as bad as the prohibition of guns. If we regulate paint thinner, and over the counter diet pills we need to also regulate firearms.

7sm

 

[Cruentus]

I guess that is where we differ, philisophically. I don't think that we should regulate paint thinner, or diet pills, for example. I think that the dangers of things need to be made evident (warning labels and such) so that people know the dangers. But, essentially I don't think the government should be making laws to keep us safe from ourselves, and generally speaking I think that the government should focus on penalizing people for bad behavior that effects other people rather then regulating ownership or personal choice. But, I realize that my views when it comes to personal liberties are much more libritarian then most people can tolerate...

Paul

 

[Bigshadow]

I guess that is where we differ, philisophically. I don't think that we should regulate paint thinner, or diet pills, for example. I think that the dangers of things need to be made evident (warning labels and such) so that people know the dangers. But, essentially I don't think the government should be making laws to keep us safe from ourselves, and generally speaking I think that the government should focus on penalizing people for bad behavior that effects other people rather then regulating ownership or personal choice.

Ditto! I agree!

 

[Kreth]

I dont equate gun control to being the oposite of the right to bear arms. Both can coexist. I am a supporter of both the right to bear arms and the regulation and control of said arms.

7sm

I think the main reason that some of the pro-gun crowd is against gun control is that, extremist anti-gunners tend to try to continue to expand controls once they are in place. First fully automatic weapons, then weapons that can be altered into fully automatic mode, then weapons that look like automatics, and so on...
Expanding gun control in that fashion only hurts the law-abiding gun owner. It does nothing to prevent crime.

 

[ginshun]

A) The number of doctors in the U.S. is 700,000
(B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 17.14%

Statistics courtesy of the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services


(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.001875%

Statistics courtesy of the FBI

So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous
than gun owners.

 

[7starmantis]

I guess that is where we differ, philisophically. I don't think that we should regulate paint thinner, or diet pills, for example. I think that the dangers of things need to be made evident (warning labels and such) so that people know the dangers. But, essentially I don't think the government should be making laws to keep us safe from ourselves, and generally speaking I think that the government should focus on penalizing people for bad behavior that effects other people rather then regulating ownership or personal choice. But, I realize that my views when it comes to personal liberties are much more libritarian then most people can tolerate...

Paul

Yes, I agree. I'm deffinitely of he opinion that the government shouldn't be saving us from ourselves, but saving me from me and saving me from the repeat violent offender down the street are two different things. I think I'm not stating my idea clearly enough. I'm talking of gun control on a holistic level if you will. Not saying it should be expanded, but that some type of regulation and control is important and needed. I'm just as concerned with the squelching of my rights as the next guy, but I dont think the answer is doing away with regulation of firearms. Without any regulation or control of firearms we not acting responsible. I think everyone agrees that violent offenders shouldn't be allowed the right to carry handguns, but without any regulation or control that is what you get. Thats what I'm talking about, not further regulation for law-abiding citizens. And I dont think the process we have to go through to receive a CCL (and in my state it is the strictest) is too much to ask either. I'm willing to give up that little bit of my time and money to help keep things safe. I'm ok with that because I have nothing to hide.

In a perfect societ it would be great ot have no regulation or control of firearms, but I have yet to reside in a perfect society, so I'll wait for that one later.

7sm

 

[Kreth]

I think everyone agrees that violent offenders shouldn't be allowed the right to carry handguns, but without any regulation or control that is what you get. Thats what I'm talking about, not further regulation for law-abiding citizens.

This I definitely agree with. I just don't think that a plethora of gun legislation will do much good, when the laws already on the books are not being enforced effectively.
I'm of a similar mindset on hate crime legislation. I don't think that it's necessary to make it somehow more of a crime if a murderer specifically targets someone because of their race, religion, or sexual preference. Throw the book at them on a "plain" murder charge and have done with it.

 

[Hand Sword]

Your right, it won't do much good. The problem is with illegal guns in comunnities, not so much legal ones. The flow of illegal ones needs to be dealt with first.

 

[7starmantis]

I wouldn't say first, "as well" is a better way to say it. It seems so many people think on a singular and static level about issues that must be addressed from many different sides at the same time in order to actually be effective. No one effort is going to fix any of these issues, only the collection of many different ways and many different angles.

7sm

 

[ginshun]

I don't really have problem with the gun laws that are on the books now, but we don't need any more.

People need to realize that criminals don't follow gun laws, so the only people that you are affecting with them is law abiding citizens. If a guy is going to take his gun and rob a store with it, do you really think that making it illeagal for him to own a gun is going to stop him from having one? Thats just stupid.