Posted on 10/06/2015 6:16:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
On the assumption that there are good and bad people on both the right and the left and that everyone is horrified by mass shootings, how is one to explain the great divide between right and left on the gun issue as it relates to these mass murders?
Why does the left focus on more gun control laws, and why doesn't the right?
One reason is quintessentially American. Most Americans believe that it is their right -- and even their duty -- to own guns for self-protection. Unique among major democratic and industrialized nations, Americans have traditionally believed in relying on the state as little as possible. The right carries on this tradition, while the left believes in relying on the state as much possible -- including, just to name a few areas, education, health care and personal protection.
A second reason for the left-right divide is that the left is uncomfortable with blaming people for bad actions. The right, on the other hand, is far more inclined to blame people for their bad actions.
Thus, liberals generally blame racism and poverty for violent crimes committed by poor blacks and Hispanics, while conservatives blame the criminals. Likewise, during the Cold War the left regarded nuclear weapons as the enemy while conservatives saw Communist regimes that possessed nuclear weapons as the enemy. It was the arms, not the values of those in possession of the arms, that troubled the left.
The third reason for the left-right divide on guns is that the two sides ask different questions when formulating social policies. The right tends to ask, "Does it do good?" The left is more likely to ask, "Does it feel good?"
Attitudes toward the minimum wage provide an excellent example.
As I noted in a recent column, in 1987, The New York Times editorialized against any minimum wage. The title of the editorial said it all: "The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00."
"There's a virtual consensus among economists," wrote the Times editorial, "that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed. Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market."
In 1987 the Times editorialized against having any minimum wage because it asked the question: "Does it do good?"
Twenty-seven years later, the same editorial page wrote the opposite of what it had written in 1987, and called for a major increase in the minimum wage.
Why? Did the laws of economics change? Of course not.
What changed was the question the Times asked. Having moved further and further left, the Times editorial page was now preoccupied not with what does good, but with what feels good. And it feels good to raise poor people's minimum wage.
So, too, on gun control. Immediately after the killings in Oregon, President Obama expressed great anger over Congress's unwillingness to pass more gun laws. But neither he nor other left-wing gun control advocates tell us what law or laws -- short of universal confiscation of guns (which is as possible as universal deportation of immigrants here illegally) -- would have stopped any of the mass shootings that recently occurred.
To liberals it feels good to declare a college a "gun-free zone." Does it do good? Of course not. It does the opposite. It informs would-be murderers that no one will shoot them.
On gun violence, the left doesn't ask, "What does good?" It asks, "What feels good?" It feels good to call for more gun laws. It enables liberals to feel good about themselves; it makes the right look bad; and it increases government control over the citizenry. A liberal trifecta.
Are federal background checks a good idea? The idea sounds perfectly reasonable. But if they wouldn't have prevented any of the recent mass shootings, they would have been no help.
So, then, short of universal confiscation, which is both practically and constitutionally impossible, what will do good? What will reduce gun violence?
One thing that would make incomparably more difference than more gun laws is more fathers, especially in the great majority of shooting murders -- those that are not part of a mass shooting. Why aren't liberals as passionate about policies that ensure that millions more men father their children as they are about gun laws? Because such thinking is anathema to the left. The left works diligently to keep single mothers dependent on the state (and therefore on the Democratic Party). And emphasizing a lack of fathers means human behavior is more to blame than guns.
Another is to cultivate participation in organized religion. Young men who attend church weekly commit far fewer murders than those who do not. But this too is anathema to the left. The secular left never offers religion as a solution to social problems. To do so, like emphasizing fathers, would shift the blame from guns to the criminal users of guns.
I would ask every journalist who cares about truth to ask every politician who argues for more guns laws, and every anti-gun activist, just two questions:
"Which do you believe would do more to decrease gun violence in America -- more gun laws or more fathers?" "More gun laws or more church attendance?"
Barack Obama says, "Our gun supply leads to more deaths. The GOP has no plausible alternative theory."
The GOP does. But as usual, few Republicans say what it is. And no liberal wants to hear it.
Require ownership of guns and people will think twice about causing mayhem.
IIRC, it was ole Ben Franklin who said: “An armed society is a polite society.”
Was he a “gun nut” or what? LOL!
This is the key difference.
They have this response to everything, not just gun violence.
One of the many valuable lessons we can teach our kids is about guns. If your kids only knowledge of guns is from TV, well... curiosity, bad decisions, etc. could be the result.
Even if you don’t have any guns in your house, you still can talk about what gun safety. You still can talk about what guns are for. You can still talk about the 2nd amendment. You can talk about how responsible gun owners help make for a safer society.
At my house, the gun cabinet is not some mysterious black metal object. We talk (not talked, but ongoing talk) about gun safety. The kids have held the guns and there’s no longer any mystery about them.
When my Son was ready, we went out an bought him his first BB gun. He uses safety rules taught, and he has an appreciate of shooting sports. And the little bugger is better shot than me.
Gun Free Zones attract the crazies like a magnet.
Not too difficult to figure that one out if you have any common sense.
READ and learn Bill OReilly.
“In addition, the NICS Section receives calls, often in emergency situations, from mental
health care providers, police departments, and family members requesting placement of
individuals into the NICS Index. Documentation justifying entry into the NICS Index must be
available to originating agencies.” [7]
Read and Learn...at least get an intern to read it...
and explain it to you ...Bill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System
Actually, I think that was Robert A. Heinlein, but I think he and old Ben would have agreed on that and many other things.
There is another reasonable policy alternative. Stop making celebrities of the shooters:
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/10/umpqua-shooting-more-blood-on-media.html
One of the things that you’ll notice regarding television and movies, is if someone has a firearm, it =will= be fired during the course of the show. That, despite the fact that millions carry daily and yet the vast majority of folks never have need to ever fire it except at a range.
You’ll never see a scene like this on TV or the movies:
Boy: Dad why do you carry a gun?
Dad: Well, son, it’s important for citizens to be armed. I feel that it is my duty to protect my family to the best of my ability. A firearm will help make me or your mother able to deal with the situation, if we are ever faced with a threat to our family. We both pray daily that we’ll never, in our entire lives need to, but we’ll be prepared if it does, because you are important enough to us to protect.
Boy: What about the police, dad? Don’t they protect us?
Dad: If, they happen to be there, they will do what they can. However they won’t always be there. I carry a gun because I can’t carry a cop. Pay attention while we’re out and about today, and you’ll see how seldom a policeman is at hand in our daily lives.
If there =is= such a discussion during the program, you can bet just about any amount of money that sometime before the program is over, the firearm will be used, most likely discharged, most likely with death as a result. Again, this is despite the fact that even most policemen rarely, if ever actually discharge their service weapon. In the case of a private individual, the mere display is often all that is required to end the threat in a given circumstance.
Yet, this is a side of the 2nd amendment debate that is almost never discussed or displayed in media of any kind. Responsible people take responsibility of the lives of themselves and their families.
Well said. For those drinking the leftarded Kool-Aid and living the life of an enlightened liberal, the scene would be played out as follows:
Boy: Dad, a man just walked into the store with a pistol in hand and he’s yelling at the clerk to give him all the money in the cash register!
Dad: Well, that’s impossible. Criminals know that we have common sense gun laws, background checks, a $.02 tax on each bullet, eliminated private sales, and most importantly - this is a gun free zone!
Boy: OH MY GOSH! He just shot the clerk!!!!
Dad: What? Are you sure? But we have all these laws and restrictions on guns.
Boy: He just fired again! Oh my gosh! he just shot a man in a wheel chair!
Dad: Relax, the Police will be here any second - just like we see every day on TV. Maybe he needs to be reminded about our gun laws.
Boy: We’ve got to stop him!
Dad: Son, you need to more sensitive to the strong likelihood that the gunman grew up in poverty. His mamma probably didn’t love him. He’s a person, possibly an aspiring rap artist.
Boy: You damned idiot! We have to fight, do you have a gun, a knife, anything? He’s coming our way!
Dad: Modern man doesn’t need guns, we are civilized people, and
BANG.
BANG.
Who is this “Mr. President”? Obama? He should be called “Mr. Potato Head”.
I have the Smith & Wesson my great, great grandfather
used to carry when he was a lightskeeper on the
Tennessee River. Rough place, those river banks; may
still be!
Daddy used to make his own ammunition for that gun; so
he got his ammo cheap. - Twinkie’s aim is not great.
I think Daddy thought if he didn’t teach Twinkie to
shoot that she would never have to go to war.
Well done. It hurts my head to try to think like them.
The GOP does. But as usual, few Republicans say what it is. And no liberal wants to hear it.
The left is always distorting the NRA as a radical lobbying group when in fact the NRA was founded to teach proper handling of firearms, safety, marksmanship, and train instructors for training various police agencies. Their "Eddy Eagle" program is intended to educate children that guns they may find are not play toys and are to be reported to an adult for safe keeping.
Ironically, Our schools do not avail themselves of the "Eddy Eagle" program as it does not fit with their agenda (nearly hysterical anti-gun and totally ignoring the safety aspects offered).
Regards,
GtG
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.