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!
another reason is Obama and his administration threatening our rights and our Constitution....
(Obama the gun salesman in chief)...fear of tyranny.
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.
The author’s risk profile should have schizophrenia
at the top of the list.
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.
Probably one of the most rational discussions on this topic that I have read.
Bttt
“I endorsed Clinton for president for my personal safety.”
Then he makes himself into an enemy.
Simple: disarm all Democrats. Problem solved.