My theory: Gun control advocacy is largely a way of fighting "sinful" behavior- i.e. gun ownership

[friendly_iconoclast]

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10026691602#post16

et seq

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1172201247

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172167667

https://www.google.com/search?q=guns+pollute+society&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com

https://www.democraticunderground.com/117215801

[Thomas Hurt]

1. I think the right frames issues as sinful...

liberals seem to frame things more as civilized and reasonable.

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. I speak of the underlying motive- it's just not directly *phrased* as such

Yes, the RW does exactly the same. Per Eric Hoffer, all mass movements have a 'religious' aspect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer

The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements is a 1951 social psychology book by American writer Eric Hoffer, in which the author discusses the psychological causes of fanaticism.

Hoffer analyzes and attempts to explain the motives of the various types of personalities that give rise to mass movements; why and how mass movements start, progress and end; and the similarities between them, whether religious, political, radical or reactionary. He argues that even when their stated goals or values differ, mass movements are interchangeable, that adherents will often flip from one movement to another, and that the motivations for mass movements are interchangeable. Thus, religious, nationalist and social movements, whether radical or reactionary, tend to attract the same type of followers, behave in the same way and use the same tactics and rhetorical tools. As examples, he often refers to Communism, Fascism, National Socialism, Christianity, Protestantism, and Islam...

[lark]

3. I think gun control advocates care more about saving lives, especially childrens' lives.

As a committed gun control advocates I never heard sin enter into any discussion of this. I gave a cursory look at 3 of the links and see nothing at all about sin, not wasting further time. I see mentions of laws, but laws are far different than sins - one is secular and the other is religious. Looks like you are looking for justification in the wrong places.

Really, if you haven't noticed the caring about life and safety, think you need to read more carefully.

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. Thinking of the children, are they?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Save_Our_Children

[krispos42]

7. Perhaps "shame" would be better than "sin".

But they seem to be reacting to high-profile events that trigger us into "moral crisis" mode rather than effective solutions.

The laws that seem to get pushed first and hardest are generally the least effective way possible to get positive change, but garner lots of attention. The thing is that gun owners, facing the direct impact of such laws, tend to mobilize and motivate themselves. People that don't own guns and never will really don't seem to care how expensive, unrealistic, or burdensome a law it because it doesn't affect them. "A million-dollar tax on a gun? Sure, why not? I never going to buy one!"

For example, the original ban on "assault weapons". If your rifle was semi-automatic and fed from a detachable magazine, it could have one, and only one, of the following features:

— Pistol grip
— Flash reducer
— Folding or telescoping buttstock
— Bayonet mount
— Attachment for firing rifle grenades

Not two... only one.


After the Sandy Hook massacre the Democrats pushed for a new Federal AWB that changed the number allowable from "one" to "zero".

5% of gun-related homicides are done with all types of rifles: semi-auto, bolt-action, pump, lever. 90% are done with handguns. And the "solution" is to outlaw accessories from being attached to the gun?

Basically, I could have had an AR-15 in my closet with only a pistol grip, and in the same closet had a flash reducer, bayonet mount, and telescoping buttstock on the shelf in the closet, and I would be totally legal.

Likewise with waiting periods. They don't really work for preventing homicides, and they have a pretty small effect on reducing suicides. Yet it is something that is touted as "reasonable" and "important". Even if I already own a gun, or a dozen guns, I have to wait X number of days to buy another one. How is that sane or reasonable? And yet...

Anyway, the fact is that the best way to reduce the crime rate is to deal with society in a progressive way: birth control, including abortion; clean air, water, and food; treating addiction as an illness rather than a crime; mental health care as well as physical (universal single-payer), etc., etc., etc. But we can't get there if we're not running things.

Most gun control is a tried-and-failed attempt to manage hardware to manage crime. It doesn't work, and people that work and vote AGAINST progressive candidates because of it. Which puts conservatives in power. Who take away birth control and abortion services, pollute the air, water, and food, stuff the private prisons full of convicts, and deny health services to those that can't afford it.

The massive drop in crime from 1990 to about 2002 was not due to gun-control laws. It was due to birth control and abortion becoming widespread and the removal of brain-damaging lead in gasoline. Both of these occurred a generation before the start of the crime drop, and combined they had the effect of making the pool of future criminals much smaller. Far fewer unwanted pregnancies, no more lead in the air, and thus far fewer kids brought up in life-of-crime patterns of behavior.

We're backsliding because conservatives in power are increasing poverty, increasing airborne and waterborne pollution levels, and taking away abortion and birth control options.

How many votes did Al Gore lose by in Florida? How many votes in a couple of critical states flipped them out of Clinton's column? Less than 600 in one state, and less than 80,000 in 4 states.

How many people voted for Dolt45 because he ran as a Republican, and Republicans are better for gun owners?

Enough to throw the EC to Dolt45?

For what? Tightened regulations on a small segment of guns used in a tiny percentage of homicides? You do know that we average about 370 people a year murdered with rifles, right? All kinds of rifles. And something on the order of 8,000 a year with handguns?

Well, it's late. Time for bed.

[melm00se]

4. I disagree with the 1st link you posted

that effective control can only come from the federal government.

The needs and reasons for gun ownership are heavily local.

If you live in a rural area where you can (and do) run across predators and pests, a firearm is almost a necessity unless you want your livelihood wiped out. Living in an urban environment, the likelihood of waking up and finding a bear or fox or cougar or or or in your backyard are really really low so the reasons an urbanite for owning a gun are completely different.

The federal government takes the "one size fits all" approach to regulations and not everyone is the round peg fitting in the round hole.

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. Local interpretation of what is or isn't a civil right got Proposition 8 passed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Houston,_Texas_Proposition_1

[The Mouth]

8. Everybody likes fascist authoritarianism

As long as the fascist authoritarians are oppressing what that person thinks *should* be oppressed.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. I agree in a way but I think it's a bit simpler

Many people involved in the gun-control movement are involved politically. Whenever there's a problem, good people want to find an answer that will help. Finding a problem can lead to a search for a person, group or segment of the people to blame for the problem.

This is the kind of thinking which can backfire. Our host made a few points up thread:

The massive drop in crime from 1990 to about 2002 was not due to gun-control laws. It was due to birth control and abortion becoming widespread and the removal of brain-damaging lead in gasoline. Both of these occurred a generation before the start of the crime drop, and combined they had the effect of making the pool of future criminals much smaller. Far fewer unwanted pregnancies, no more lead in the air, and thus far fewer kids brought up in life-of-crime patterns of behavior.
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1172209180#post7

IMHO supporting safety efforts (lock giveaways) and partnering with gun sellers and buyers to give them a way to keep guns away from those with violent issues will be more productive than banning stuff based on bayonet lugs or pistol grips.

Just because you CAN make a law, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Sometimes when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Gun-control needs to get creative. Work with people and creative incentives is generally more productive than punishing those you blame.