Americans Support Gun Rights Over Gun Control -Pew Poll Shows

[dead0man]

Cool.  I wanted to discuss what I wrote above.  I wish others displayed your honestly.  

A lot of what you wrote above is just as loaded as anything a gun nut would write.

Then explain the why after a mentally ill kid shoots up an elementary school we get public opinion numbers like this.

I can't, but do you think it's a good idea to base policy and laws on the things the media picks up and runs with?  Or just the things you believe in that they pick up and run with?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But people are outraged when that happens.  I'm totally not understanding the "but why aren't people outraged when gun violence happens?" line you're taking here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't weigh in on the case very much because clearly (at least to me), BOTH parties involved screwed up big time by the actions they chose to take that night, but if I have a legal gun on me and I'm getting my ass severely kicked, whipping it out and shooting the person whooping my ass isn't something out of the question.  People do die from beatings (much more often than die from rifles and by several orders of magnitude more than "assault" rifles....this fact is completely ignored by your side by the way....any guesses as to why?) every freaking day you know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In public, yeah, I can see the issue with stand your ground laws a few states have, but not in the home.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those things don't work as effectively as a fire arm.  What if your attacker is a better fighter than you?  Why even take the chance?  Stun guns and tasers are often illegal in the same states where there are heavy restrictions on fire arms (odd that) and again, are nowhere near as effective as shotgun for home defense.  Using a taser or stun gun to keep you safe in your home is about as useful as a BB gun and less useful than a baseball bat.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Cool.  I wanted to discuss what I wrote above.  I wish others displayed your honestly.  

A lot of what you wrote above is just as loaded as anything a gun nut would write.

Then explain the why after a mentally ill kid shoots up an elementary school we get public opinion numbers like this.

I can't, but do you think it's a good idea to base policy and laws on the things the media picks up and runs with?  Or just the things you believe in that they pick up and run with?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But people are outraged when that happens.  I'm totally not understanding the "but why aren't people outraged when gun violence happens?" line you're taking here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't weigh in on the case very much because clearly (at least to me), BOTH parties involved screwed up big time by the actions they chose to take that night, but if I have a legal gun on me and I'm getting my ass severely kicked, whipping it out and shooting the person whooping my ass isn't something out of the question.  People do die from beatings (much more often than die from rifles and by several orders of magnitude more than "assault" rifles....this fact is completely ignored by your side by the way....any guesses as to why?) every freaking day you know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In public, yeah, I can see the issue with stand your ground laws a few states have, but not in the home.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those things don't work as effectively as a fire arm.  What if your attacker is a better fighter than you?  Why even take the chance?  Stun guns and tasers are often illegal in the same states where there are heavy restrictions on fire arms (odd that) and again, are nowhere near as effective as shotgun for home defense.  Using a taser or stun gun to keep you safe in your home is about as useful as a BB gun and less useful than a baseball bat.

Ugh... I hate when people break up the quotes.

1. Poll numbers show people AREN'T outraged, as a whole.

2. Why aren't we developing better non-lethal forms of protection then?

3. Newtown was just something the media picked up and ran with?!  Oy vey...

4. Which of the recent (last several years) massacres have taken place in the home?

5. The Zimmerman case was a one-on-one scrum.  Most who die when beaten are beaten down by a group. 

[dead0man]

Ugh... I hate when people break up the quotes.

It's better than one long post answering another long post answering another long post....but yeah, they can a bitch to respond to what with all the coding issues that crop up.  Preview is our friend.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1.Seems about 50/50 to me, which is what I would expect.  There is a lot of outrage though, just not from everybody.

2.We are, it's just not usually for personal use and gun control fanatics tend to be against less than lethal means of subduing anyway.  Remember when your side was going stupid over tasers?  "OMG a fat guy with heart problems died after getting tasered, they should be banned!"...."you'd rather go back to batons and the broken arms, legs and skulls those caused?"...."well no, but tasers are horrible!"

3.The media loves mass shootings.  Newtown was a national tragedy unlike most shootings which are regional tragedies at best, but the cable news channels and the network news shows run with all of them.  Perhaps not as much as the gun control side would like, but they do.  I can guarantee you that if these got less press, the names of the shooters not revealed nor their motives there would be fewer mass shootings.

4.i have no idea

5.cite?  I can't find nothing.  Not that it changes anything.  People can and do die from one individual beating the snot out of them, often not even on purpose.  Sometimes it just takes one punch.  If you start a fight with somebody for no good reason and he shoots you, you are to blame as you instigated the encounter.

I'm for background checks.  I'm against letting felons (especially violent felons) having guns.  Same with the mentally ill.  Most of the rest your side proposes is silly sh**t that wouldn't stop any mass shootings.  Like assault weapons bans or the banning of specific weapons or features.  I can sort of understand magazine limits and if it would shut your side up, I might even be convinced to not be against it, but I know it won't so I remain against it.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Ugh... I hate when people break up the quotes.

It's better than one long post answering another long post answering another long post....but yeah, they can a bitch to respond to what with all the coding issues that crop up.  Preview is our friend.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1.Seems about 50/50 to me, which is what I would expect.  There is a lot of outrage though, just not from everybody.

2.We are, it's just not usually for personal use and gun control fanatics tend to be against less than lethal means of subduing anyway.  Remember when your side was going stupid over tasers?  "OMG a fat guy with heart problems died after getting tasered, they should be banned!"...."you'd rather go back to batons and the broken arms, legs and skulls those caused?"...."well no, but tasers are horrible!"

3.The media loves mass shootings.  Newtown was a national tragedy unlike most shootings which are regional tragedies at best, but the cable news channels and the network news shows run with all of them.  Perhaps not as much as the gun control side would like, but they do.  I can guarantee you that if these got less press, the names of the shooters not revealed nor their motives there would be fewer mass shootings.

4.i have no idea

5.cite?  I can't find nothing.  Not that it changes anything.  People can and do die from one individual beating the snot out of them, often not even on purpose.  Sometimes it just takes one punch.  If you start a fight with somebody for no good reason and he shoots you, you are to blame as you instigated the encounter.

I'm for background checks.  I'm against letting felons (especially violent felons) having guns.  Same with the mentally ill.  Most of the rest your side proposes is silly sh**t that wouldn't stop any mass shootings.  Like assault weapons bans or the banning of specific weapons or features.  I can sort of understand magazine limits and if it would shut your side up, I might even be convinced to not be against it, but I know it won't so I remain against it.

Whaddya know.  We hold almost the exact same stance.  However, I am talking about a culture of violence, love of guns, and the dismissal of dead people as "sh*t happens". 

[Deus Naturae]

Democrats aren't interested in controlling guns, only law-abiding citizens who wish to own them, which isn't going to do a damn thing to fight crime.

Exactly.  Criminals break the law by definition, so if they want guns, they're going to try to get them.  They don't care about the law in the first place, so trying to restrict gun rights that way is completely stupid.

How do you feel about the criminalization of drugs?

How do you?

[dead0man]

Whaddya know.  We hold almost the exact same stance.  However, I am talking about a culture of violence, love of guns, and the dismissal of dead people as "sh*t happens". 

I don't think we're quite as violent as you think we are.  I don't remember the  last time I saw two men fighting.  I've never seen a gun pulled in anger.  Maybe it's because I live in a nice place?  Maybe the coasts are more violent?  I don't know.  I also don't see what's wrong with loving guns.  Some people love guns.  Some people love rollerblading, others enjoy a nice car, some love whiskey or beer...all of those can and do lead to your or some innocents death.


...and sometimes sh**t does happen.  And sh**t will continue to happen even if Franzl gets his wish and all legal guns go away.  You can't make sh**t not happen.  Bad things (sh**t) happen to good people everyday.  Mostly guns aren't involved.

[AggregateDemand]

Yea srsly.  I love how they just use that blanket term "criminals".  In their far-right world, there is just nothing to distinguish one law-breaker from another.  All criminals.  All bad.  Such a black-and-white (heh) world to live in. 

I'm not particularly enamored with widespread gun ownership because the average American is not gun-savvy or safe. I'd prefer a society in which few gun enthusiasts owned lots of guns; therefore, I'm not necessarily opposed to more gun control.

I am opposed to political-operators in the Democratic Party who continuously try to hammer-down legal gun-owners with restrictions, while they are soft on gang-crime and organized drug-trade for racial reasons. I'm also tired of their pretentious constituents who believe moral virtue is derived from complaining about cosmetic gun-control issues while ignoring the serious diseases.

You're not better than anyone else. You're just uninformed, and bitter that people won't placate you with terrible policy. A microcosm for the Democratic constituency.

[All Along The Watchtower]

In Europe, we have a different culture surrounding hunting and guns. In the UK the idea of a working class person hunting is completely absurd - it is a sport of the landed gentry. That is why the left in America is walking in an electorally risky direction by being "the" party of gun control. I think gun control is good (European) but I certainly think it's a strange thing to spend political capital on.

I think this brings up a good point-namely, that there are still a good number of (disproportionately rural, white, and working class) Democratic voters who own guns and are skeptical (if not suspicious) of attempts by urban progressives to enact stricter gun control laws.

The thing is-Democrats still need many of these voters to win majorities in Congress and in state legislatures. So they really can't afford to alienate them. In contrast, the electoral situation that exists in many progressive, diverse urban areas- where Democrats routinely win 70% or more-means that Democrats will always win by huge margins there, regardless of whether they pursue a political strategy of stricter gun control.

It's the difference between those who will always vote for you, and those whose votes you need to win.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This will restart the conversation

http://news.yahoo.com/portland-police-2-victims-high-school-shooting-205202888.html

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

This will restart the conversation

http://news.yahoo.com/portland-police-2-victims-high-school-shooting-205202888.html

Sh*t happens, Grumpy Santa.  Let's move along. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Yea srsly.  I love how they just use that blanket term "criminals".  In their far-right world, there is just nothing to distinguish one law-breaker from another.  All criminals.  All bad.  Such a black-and-white (heh) world to live in. 

I'm not particularly enamored with widespread gun ownership because the average American is not gun-savvy or safe. I'd prefer a society in which few gun enthusiasts owned lots of guns; therefore, I'm not necessarily opposed to more gun control.

I am opposed to political-operators in the Democratic Party who continuously try to hammer-down legal gun-owners with restrictions, while they are soft on gang-crime and organized drug-trade for racial reasons. I'm also tired of their pretentious constituents who believe moral virtue is derived from complaining about cosmetic gun-control issues while ignoring the serious diseases.

You're not better than anyone else. You're just uninformed, and bitter that people won't placate you with terrible policy. A microcosm for the Democratic constituency.

No, you're just delusional. 

[AggregateDemand]

No, you're just delusional. 

This would be less tragic, if you weren't reading a thread that indicated the opposite. The number of people who obsess about gun control are dwindling because Democrats have not done anything but rattle sabers and cause problems for ordinary people.

[Simfan34]

While I initially thought (and still feel) that the wording might be slanted, an assumed "right" being rather loaded a term, particularly when the "protection" of such a "right" is contrasted with its"control", it appears that they've used the same wording since they started asking the question in 1993. Slanted or not, they're certainly observing a real trend.

So the real question is when (if ever) did we start thinking about gun ownership through the lens of it being self-justifying "right", as opposed to a practical measure for self-defense or sport? I'm not qualified to speak definitively here, but I'm of the impression that the "protection against tyranny" rhetoric one hears coming from a surprising amount of people nowadays wasn't how people looked at the it 20 years ago.

(I ought to add that I find such rhetoric to be patently insane, if that wasn't obvious. The idea that arms are somehow legal as to enable the citizenry to overthrow the state if it is deemed "tyrannical"- and by whom?- is not something one would support enshrining in a constitution unless they were to the left of Makhno. Certainly it's not something a group of people as skeptical of the capacities of the "common man" as the Framers would believe in.)

[Simfan34]

OR TL;DR:



it is nigh impossible for anyone to rationally justify possession of weapons such as these assuming a normally functioning state, so people just stopped trying and started saying that we had a "right" to such things.

[AggregateDemand]

OR TL;DR:



it is nigh impossible for anyone to rationally justify possession of weapons such as these assuming a normally functioning state, so people just stopped trying and started saying that we had a "right" to such things.

Have you ever read the 2nd Amendment?

[Kraxner]

OR TL;DR:



it is nigh impossible for anyone to rationally justify possession of weapons such as these assuming a normally functioning state, so people just stopped trying and started saying that we had a "right" to such things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Ebowed]

Democrats aren't interested in controlling guns, only law-abiding citizens who wish to own them, which isn't going to do a damn thing to fight crime.

Exactly.  Criminals break the law by definition, so if they want guns, they're going to try to get them.  They don't care about the law in the first place, so trying to restrict gun rights that way is completely stupid.

Yes, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that one of the problems with legal guns is that they are then mass produced and sold.  Obviously if you distribute tons of weapons into the market, the criminals are going to use them.

[krazen1211]

After great stories like this, of course. Power to the people!

Link

MAPLE VALLEY, Wash. -- A suspected car thief who was in the middle of breaking into a pickup truck was shot and killed by the truck's owner in Maple Valley early Tuesday morning, King County Sheriff's deputies said.

[Simfan34]

OR TL;DR:



it is nigh impossible for anyone to rationally justify possession of weapons such as these assuming a normally functioning state, so people just stopped trying and started saying that we had a "right" to such things.

Have you ever read the 2nd Amendment?

Exactly what I mean! You've boiled it down perfectly!

[Deus Naturae]

Whaddya know.  We hold almost the exact same stance.  However, I am talking about a culture of violence, love of guns, and the dismissal of dead people as "sh*t happens". 

If there was actually an endemic "culture of violence" in the US related to guns don't you think we might have seen, I dunno, more gun violence? Sorry man but I feel like you've got this preconceived notion that there MUST be something deeply wrong (and getting worse) when in reality things are getting better when you look at the data. You remind me of conservatives who claim that "urban areas are lawless" or "the border is in chaos" despite the fact that crime rates and illegal immigration are both on the decline. Don't get me wrong, the US still has plenty of problems, but solving the real issues isn't helped by ranting about alleged crises in contravention of actual data.

[AggregateDemand]

Exactly what I mean! You've boiled it down perfectly!

It says the right to bear arms is accompanied by an implied duty to defend the country in a militia. Standard issue battle rifles would be the most justifiable weapons, perhaps, under strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I suspect the American people might be preparing for the 2016 elections to be cancelled.

Wow you're dumb.

This once BRTD calling somebody else "dumb" isn't ironic, but accurate.

[user12345]

After great stories like this, of course. Power to the people!

Link

MAPLE VALLEY, Wash. -- A suspected car thief who was in the middle of breaking into a pickup truck was shot and killed by the truck's owner in Maple Valley early Tuesday morning, King County Sheriff's deputies said.

Because you obviously deserve to die for attempting to steal a truck.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

After great stories like this, of course. Power to the people!

Link

MAPLE VALLEY, Wash. -- A suspected car thief who was in the middle of breaking into a pickup truck was shot and killed by the truck's owner in Maple Valley early Tuesday morning, King County Sheriff's deputies said.

Because you obviously deserve to die for attempting to steal a truck.

What would Jesus do?

He would have blasted away.

[courts]

Yes, yes, Americans are stupid and crazy.  We know already.

Really? I thought Americans overwhelmingly supported Democratic policies and only voted GOP because of ignorance and propaganda? I guess Dem talking points after an election disappear as fast as support for gun control after whatever shooting the media decides it wants to publicize.

I'm not sure why you just made up a bunch of stuff and then used that as proof of something else, but okay

do you have sigs disabled? that could have saved you some time reading the post. then again yellow avatar so...