Posted on 06/27/2016 8:32:30 AM PDT by justlurking
On average, Democrats (that’s my team (*) see footnote below) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.
On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.
If you don’t believe me, you can check the statistics on the Internet that don’t exist. At least I couldn’t find any that looked credible.
But we do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Trump) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.
That’s a gross generalization. Obviously. Your town might be totally different.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.dilbert.com ...
So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”
Let’s all take a deep breath and shake off the mental discomfort I just induced in half of my readers. You can quibble with my unsupported assumptions about gun use, but keep in mind that my point is about psychology and about big group averages. If Republicans think they need guns to protect against Democrats, that’s their reality. And if Democrats believe guns make the world more dangerous for themselves, that is their reality. And they can both be right. Your risk profile is different from mine.
So let’s stop acting as if there is something like “common sense” gun control to be had if we all act reasonably. That’s not an option in this case because we all have different risk profiles when it comes to guns. My gun probably makes me safer, but perhaps yours makes you less safe. You can’t reconcile those interests.
Our situation in the United States is that people with different risk profiles are voting for their self-interests as they see it. There is no compromise to be had in this situation unless you brainwash one side or the other to see their self-interest differently. And I don’t see anyone with persuasion skills trying to do that on either side.
Fear always beats reason. So as long as Democrats are mostly using guns to shoot innocent people (intentionally or accidentally) and Republicans are mostly using guns for sport or self-defense, no compromise can be had.
If we had a real government – the kind that works – we would acknowledge that gun violence is not one big problem with one big solution. It is millions of people with different risk profiles voting their self-interest as they see it.
So stop acting like one side is stupid. Both sides of the gun issue are scared, and both have legitimate reasons to be that way. Neither side is “right.”
Footnote (*): I endorsed Clinton for president for my personal safety. I write about Trump’s powers of persuasion and it is not safe to live in California if people think you support Trump in any way. Also, I’m rich, so I don’t want anything to change in this country. The rest of you might have a different risk profile.
“I write about Trump’s powers of persuasion and it is not safe to live in California if people think you support Trump in any way.”
Wow. That’s the most powerful and damning comment in the whole post!
Actually, I find the most damning thing to be, that despite every thing the author states, he STILL identifies as a democrat.
Yes, you might want to read this first post that Adams wrote on this topic:
He has been repeating some variation of this statement on almost every blog post since then. It's what I'll call a "back-handed" endorsement, and I'll bet that most Clinton supporters don't even realize what he is doing.
If you still believe that after reading the footnote, you missed his point.
another reason is Obama and his administration threatening our rights and our Constitution....
(Obama the gun salesman in chief)...fear of tyranny.
” Also, I’m rich, so I don’t want anything to change in this country. The rest of you might have a different risk profile. “ Thanks for telling it like it is Scott. LOL! One persons facts or reality is NOT somebody else’s facts or reality. One persons truth may not be your truth. I think we’ve just been Dilbertized.
All the BS about guns on both sides is nothing more than a red herring. It’s all to curry political favor. No one is serious about anything. As long as the 2nd Amendment exists, the gun issue will never be solved in this country. Ever. So until some politician tries to repeal the 2nd Amendment, I’ll continue believing that most of this is all bluster.
To wit: If I could snap my fingers and “ban guns” beginning tomorrow - forgetting the 2nd Amendment for a moment, it would likely do no good.
1) There are 300M guns in the US. And that’s likely just the legal ones.
2) There are likely millions more (like my 3 shotguns) that were passed down from generation to generation that are presumably unregistered etc...
3) How would we “get” the guns in circulation? A) Buy back program? who’d pay for that? And millions wouldn’t turn them in. And if they didn’t, then what happens? B) do we grandfather clause all legal guns in circulation? Ok, fine. But if so, what’s the point?
This is all political grandstanding.
You have to read with intent to not believe deep down this is said facetiously. In California, being a self proclaimed Republican makes you a target as he implies.
The author’s risk profile should have schizophrenia
at the top of the list.
America does not have a problem with gun crime.
America has a problem with black crime.
Another way of saying it:
“The best way to prevent black criminals from shooting one another during drug deals is to take away the guns of law abiding white people”.
He makes perfect sense to me. What is the difference between perception and reality when both can affect, hurt or help you in life? One example is positive thinking definitely motivates and increases a persons mental and physical being to the extent that they may succeed where otherwise they would not. On the other hand stress and/or psychosomatic induced symptoms affect patients detrimentally sometimes to the point of death. Perception is indistinguishable from reality in these cases.
Interesting point that I will make. In 1950 the poverty rate in the U.S. was roughly 50%.
By 1965 the poverty rate in the U.S. had fallen to under 15%.
That is when Johnson decided to start his "war on poverty" in order to break up the black family and have the 'blacks' voting Democrat for the next 200 years.
After 60 years and trillions of welfare dollars spent the poverty rate in the U.S. is still at 15%.
Go figure.
At least as a matter of self defense.
Yep. Of course poverty and crime are not really correlated or else we shoul expect the crime rate in the 50s to have been much hight per.
We have a “fatherhood” problem, not a poverty problem.
Sarcasm and irony. Some people just don’t get it.
Thanks for helping even though making the “gist” of his writings explicit dims the brilliance of it.
Look up the definition of poverty. At least the one the government defines and uses for policy making. It is not an objective standard but a floating one that will never allow the stated rate to go much below 15% let alone 0.
By this definition the war on poverty can never be won.
I stopped reading his cartoons and paying any attention to him a few years back when I read something that was clearly written by him, and I thought he was having a nervous breakdown.
And I am not kidding, it was alarming. I honestly can’t remember what it was about, but I didn’t just disagree with it, I was highly repulsed by both the content and delivery.
I agree with much of what I have seen him saying lately (and he has been saying a lot) but back then (2006-2012) he sounded unhinged.
I really have a hard time being able to reconcile what I am seeing now with what I saw then.
It is true that people can change their mind, but this seemed like he literally WAS changing his mind, swapping it out.
This puzzles me. I used to love his cartoons and sayings, had the books, etc. and I just stopped cold.
Nonsense, all problems have solutions.
The first step to solving a problem is to define the problem.
Create legislation that stops citizens who would harm others without infringing on the rights of citizens who would not harm others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.