1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Liberals and Gun Control

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by Trucido, May 20, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Trucido

    Trucido TS Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    77
    Hello everyone,

    I thought that I would relate an interesting story to everyone here.

    First, I am 20 years old and a college students at a good college, studying mathematics. I am a very intelligent person and VERY conservative. I love shooting sports and enjoy trap shooting a good deal. I am, on advice of a friend, reading "More Guns, Less Crime", which is a book that does a statistical and economic analysis of gun control and specifically concealed carry laws and their effect on crime.

    My best friend is decidedly liberal, though I thought he was conservative in a reasonable number of things. He is very religious and considers himself a moral person who greatly values life. As I have gotten to know him better and argued my positions with logic and empirical information, I have found him to be decidedly stubborn in his indefensible liberal positions. I had not really confronted him about gun control...but finally did, inadvertently, tonight. What ensued was a three hour argument which ended with my telling him he was a liberal child and him being dumbstruck.

    I went into his room (we share an apartment for college) to show him the exciting and simple information in my book, specifically showing the reversal of crime trends when non-discretionary concealed carry laws are enacted. He immediately gave me some preconceived point about how he would never support a non-discretionary carry law. I asked for reasons and he was unable to provide them. Approximately 3 hours later, I had explained my views and evidence and had extracted a significant amount of information to the contrary. Specifically, I had gotten him to concede a number of points (all ridiculous):
    - The life of someone being victimized (murdered) is equal to the life of a cold-blooded murderer (shot by the victim)
    - God will not punish murderers in the afterlife, as long as they accept god (debatable, depending on how strictly one accepts the bible)
    - He feels uncomfortable with someone having a concealed weapon, because 'they might get angry and shoot him'
    - He feels uncomfortable with someone carrying an unloaded concealed weapon, only for use as a deterrent in the case of being attacked/accosted. (Ex: if I carried a pistol with no ammo and pulled it on someone trying to rob me...only to scare the crap out of them and make them leave me alone).
    - It is unfair to equally distribute tax dollars, provided there is some slim possibly (we got as far as 1 in a billion and he said I could name any ratio I wanted and he would still agree) that giving one group more money could provide someone of that group with the chance to jump social classes, even if you directly took that money away from someone in a higher social class who could move upwards themselves with good certainty. (This was in the context of taking money away from AP students in high school to directly give to students who were failing. Dollars to AP students means going to a better college, dollars to failing students means little, especially when they don't even show up for class).
    - It is immoral to carry a weapon to defend oneself...immoral on the same scale as killing someone
    - Empirical evidence should be overlooked for personal opinion (unsubstantiated) and beliefs
    - If many lives would be saved (~2000 less murders per year) from passing non-discretionary concealed handgun laws, it would still be immoral for people to vote for that law.
    - It is immoral to save lives by the deterrent usage of guns, even if a gun is not fired to save a life.

    Finally, I was exhausted and explained that decisions are formed using the following process: we take the information that we already have (our opinion) and the information presented to us (new information), weight both separately (not necessarily equally), and come to our new opinion. A thinking person (conservative) provides a reasonable weight to new information presented and a non-thinking person (liberal) provides little or no-weight to the new information. In this way, a conservative will take broad data and make an informed decision, whereas a liberal will take a single personal experience or feeling and make a decision, ignoring broad-scale data which does not support their decision. I explained that this was the ultimate difference and the reason that liberals are unabashedly wrong, though he contended that he couldn't be wrong, since it was his opinion. I explained that it was only his opinion until he voted to force it upon someone else, then it becomes something else entirely and can certainly be wrong.


    I came to the following conclusions, which I believe to be reasonably profound:

    Conservatives look at the world and try to gather as much information as possible to base any decision on. If we make a decision and more information is provided, we will change our opinion. If a conservative finds some internal conflict in their opinion, they will seek information or guidance to resolve that conflict. A conservative will do everything in their power before they impinge on another American's freedom. Conservatives believe in the idea of a benevolent majority; this is a majority that does what is best for most of the people, without purposely attacking the people in the minority.

    Liberals look at a single instance and base their decision on that instance. If more information (broad scale or otherwise) is provided, they will refuse to change their opinion. Liberals do not see internals conflict - the external information in conflict will be considered irrelevant and they will not be proven wrong. A liberal has no problem impinging on another American's freedom, so long as they disagree with that person on the issue. Liberals believe that a majority should impose their will on everyone else, so long as the liberal agrees with the majority; in the case where the majority is against the liberal (most of the time), the liberal says that the conservative is a nazi or impinges their intentions.

    I guess my point was this: went people won't listen to reason, they are a liberal. I believe, and the evidence proves, that armed individuals save lives. Liberals don't care about the lives being saved, because 'guns are immoral'. I would suggest the following: if you are debating a liberal on gun control, provide the facts and then stop wasting your time: they will never change their minds on this or any other issue, because they are stubbornly non-thinking people.



    Thanks for reading this everyone and I apologize if this does not make sense or is rambling...but I am a bit tired and just spent from 1am to 4:30am arguing logic against 'feeings' with someone who I thought had a brain.

    -Kyle
     
  2. j2jake

    j2jake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,289
    Kyle your opioion exceedes your years, good observation and quite true. The same can be cited for Dem v/s Rep. Jake
     
  3. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,649
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    I will contribute to your roommate's vasectomy. His genes should not be allowed to continue.

    HM
     
  4. bwvan

    bwvan TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    71
    Hey Truc:

    I read your post earlier this morning and thought about it for a few hours before I replied. I am 40 and have been teaching math for 17 years.

    Stress has horrible negative consequences on your life, so to help you avoid it, I offer these unsolicited words of advice.

    1. If you're intelligent, you don't have to exclaim that yourself. Those who matter will figure it out for themselves very quickly. Likewise they will figure it out if the truth falls the other way, too, no matter how much you promote your own intelligence. And those that don't matter just...don't matter.

    2. Debating gun control with a liberal is akin to debating with swine the virtues of cleanliness. Use your time to practice your ciphering skills and trapshooting.

    3. You have a good, solid base under you. Now go build something on it.

    Best wishes,

    Byron V.
     
  5. Trucido

    Trucido TS Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    77
    Hey Guys,

    Thanks for the comments - I have to say that I was sad/disappointed with his liberal viewpoint.

    Jake - IMO, the only difference between liberals and democrats is that the vast majority of democrats are sheople and just follow the liberals leading them. If everyone in the country was required to read the constitution & a bit of history before voting, I think that most of the dems would realize that they were voting for the wrong party.

    Half - luckily his 'morals' mean that he will only ever have children with one woman (I happen to share that belief)...which is good, because I'm pretty sure that he only want 1-2 kids. Could be much worse - he could be spreading seeds like a dandelion.

    Byron - I certainly take your advice to heart
    1. I try not to do that and I think that last night I was thinking about the (expected) forthcoming responses of 'you are stupid', which is usually what happens when I write something controversial from the conservative side. I certainly agree that sounding pompous is unattractive & I don't usually introduce myself as intelligent...because it is rude and inappropriate - I apologize for this.
    2. Having raised pigs for ~10 years through 4-H, I completely disagree: pigs are some of the cleanest animals around. :) I usually don't debate with liberals...but I usually know who they are...in this case, I didn't realize that my best friend was so mindless.
    3. I certainly plan on building my life around my conservative principles. I feel that I will eventually be actually pulled into the political arena to fight for my beliefs, because I hate how our current political system works & the politicians that we are forced to vote for.

    Thanks again guys - its nice to get some support. :)
    -Kyle
     
  6. Sgt. Mike

    Sgt. Mike TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    301
    Kyle,

    What you have stated is so true. We fight with liberals to the point of frustration. Actually we should not be frustrated but sad. The conservative will, as you stated, get their opinion based on a set of facts. If our stand is not supported by facts we will change our point of view. I've found the liberal to be very quick to anger and "win" with the anger and not with facts.

    To carry a gun is very scarey. First you must admit that something deadly can happen to you and others. You see the world as having very cruel people who want to feed from their victims blood and do not want to be a victim. I have reached the point where I don't try to talk a liberal into the approving of the gun issue. They love their freedom as long as it's someone else doing the fighting. Oh, don't carry an empty gun. Good post. Michael
     
  7. Trucido

    Trucido TS Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    77
    Hey Mike - I can't carry a gun AT ALL right now. :( First, I'm only 20...so I can't even own a pistol in most states. Second, I am from Kalifornia (no carry), go to school in upstate new york (no carry & a permit to OWN), and I am currently on internship in Iowa (can't own until 21 & I dunno about carry, since I will be gone before I turn 21).

    Also - I would NEVER carry an empty gun. I used that to illustrate the point that liberals don't like the idea of deterrence, which is all that a unloaded cc is. I am reasonably sure (don't have the numbers right now) that most crimes stopped with a gun are via deterrent rather than actually pulling the trigger. However, if I was going to go to the trouble of carrying a pistol all the time...it would ABSOLUTELY be loaded. :)

    -Kyle
     
  8. BDodd

    BDodd TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,594
    Kyle - I, for one, find your post dead on accurate; dead center on target. Kudos do, breakemall....Bob Dodd
     
  9. jimbob

    jimbob TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    655
    Kudos to you Kyle.

    It's a proven fact that liberalisim is a mental disorder. Currently, there are no drugs on the market to cure this disease.

    You're a smart young man and I think you got the world by the tail.
     
  10. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,649
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    The jproblem with liberals is that most of the time they are RIGHT!

    Until they try to apply their utopian ideals to the real world.

    Their mantra is to get someone else to do the dirty work. Pass a law, call the dogcatcher, dial 911, complain to city hall.

    Never talk to the neighbbor about what bothers you, or take your safety into your own hands, or get dirty cleaning up a mess that bothers you.

    That's why they are PUKES!

    HM
     
  11. Sgt. Mike

    Sgt. Mike TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    301
    I did not mean to insult. The example was good. A lot of people think showing off their gun "threatening" will get them out of trouble. In California check out 417 PC, probably changed by now. In California you can get a CCW but it is a "may" issue state unless things have change since I retired. Basically it's up to the department head, being SO or PD.

    Your points are well made and very truthful. My apology if I offended. Michael
     
  12. Trucido

    Trucido TS Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    77
    Hey Michael,

    I was certainly not offended at all. I understand that if you are going to carry...there is no reason to have it unloaded. I used the unloaded example only to show to my friend that his reasoning was immature and unsubstantiated.

    With regard to a CCW - I'm not going to worry about it until I turn 21...then I have to figure out where I want to live when I get out of college...and having a CCW may well factor into that.

    Thanks again,
    Kyle
     
  13. BDodd

    BDodd TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,594
    kyle, Mike retired after me in the Golden State but my experience: there are counties where the Sheriff considers his jurisdiction to be basically "shall issue" plus citizens of cities are in "their" county too. But, other jurisdictions where the Chief or Sheriff consider their jurisdictions "shall never issue without compelling facts." Your S. CA jurisdictions are/were in the most difficult to get along with and the cow counties are likely the most reasonable. Consider that when you're deciding where you want to live.....breakemall....Bob Dodd
     
  14. Jennifer

    Jennifer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    463
    Nice post Kyle, thank you. You are clearly wise beyond your years.

    I would add that liberals tend to be very emotional in their decision making which is usually disastrous. The old saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is all about liberal decision making. You can't reason with an emotional person. When they see something bad happen, they want to pass a law so it never happens again and they never have to face such a horrible thing again. A rational, logical, calm, collected conservative knows and accepts that bad things can and will happen and that passing restrictive laws can only result in the restriction of the LAW ABIDING, resulting in degradation of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Life is dangerous and not guaranteed - conservatives know it and understand that liberty is much more important than trying to guarantee that everybody will live a long but highly restricted, unhappy life.

    If you like reading about the 2nd Amendment, you might try "The Seven Myths of Gun Control" by Richard Poe (see link). It's an easy read and a small book but is packed with great insight into the causes of anti-gun thinking, such as the feminist movement and lack of ability of liberals or pacifists to trust others with gun ownership.

    You're on the right track Kyle, keep up the good work!

    Jennifer - NRA Life-Endowment
     
  15. ukwildcat

    ukwildcat Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2006
    Messages:
    67
    Republican Beliefs Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

    Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

    Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

    The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

    A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

    Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

    The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

    If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

    A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

    Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

    HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

    Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

    A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

    Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

    The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's drunk driving record and cocaine arrest are none of our business.

    Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.

    You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.

    Clinton's business interests in the 1970s in which he lost money are of vital national interest, but Bush's activities in the 1980s in which he made money under questionable circumstances is unimportant
     
  16. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,251
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    The real problem with many liberals is that they are elitist utopians who have no concept about the realities of the real world. Their sound bite answers barely begin to address real issues, and their solutions often cause more problems than they resolve.<br.
    <br>
    In fact, many liberals believe themselves to be above "the common man", and have taken the position that whatever "the common man" believes in, they therefore must believe the opposite, because they are better than the masses and are above them. Unfortunately for them, the "common man" often has a helluva lot more common sense than the elitist liberals.<br>
    <br>
    Firearms are hated by liberals because they represent independance from the state, and are a means of regulating the state should the state become tyrannical. Since the goal of many liberals, particularly the socialists and closet communists, is to reshape America into Amerika, they know they MUST ban firearms to prevent the masses from opposing them shoudl things get nasty. This is why liberals can justify banning guns "if it saves even one life" but then can turn a blind eye to CCW and handguns even if they can "save just one life".<br>
    <br>
    In fact, I'll go so far as to say that there are some liberals who are deliberately sacrificing their fellow Americans by ensuring there is no solution to crime. Because if we really addressed the crime issue - by focusing on the criminals instead of the guns - crime would be greatly reduced. This does not fit in with the plan to ban guns. Therefore, crime must be kept elevated or at least only reduced a small amount at best, in order to keep the pressure up on guns. If some citizens are killed as a result of this, so much the better for their cause.
     
  17. ukwildcat

    ukwildcat Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2006
    Messages:
    67
    Reagan last week declared his support for a bill requiring a
    seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases. He did so at a
    George Washington University ceremony marking the 10th anniversary
    of the shooting that almost killed him and permanently disabled his
    press secretary, James S. Brady.

    It is called the Brady Bill, and Reagan said Congress should
    enact it without delay. ``It's just plain common sense that there
    be a waiting period to allow local law enforcement officials to
    conduct background checks on those who wish to buy a handgun,'' the
    former president said.

    When he was in office, Reagan had endorsed the idea of waiting
    periods, but he said they should be imposed by state laws, not by
    the federal government. Sixteen states now require waiting periods.
    Where state laws match the week's wait required by the federal
    bill, it wouldn't apply.

    The waiting period is supposed to provide time for a police
    check to determine whether a buyer has a criminal record or a
    history of mental illness.

    The variance in state laws was never clearer than after John W.
    Hinckley Jr. bought a pistol in Texas, which doesn't require a
    delay or background check, then fired it at Reagan in Washington
    on March 30, 1981. Hinckley said later he doubted he would have
    done it if he'd had to wait a week for the gun.

    Reagan said he had supported and signed a 15-day waiting period
    when he was governor of California. He didn't say yes or no when
    an earlier version of the Brady Bill was before the House in 1988,
    during his second term. Others in his administration opposed the
    measure, which was rejected by a 36-vote margin.

    Reagan now favors afederal law to fill the gaps left by the
    states. He said he's still a member of the National Rifle
    Association and still supports a constitutional right to bear arms,
    but believes that with it ``comes a great responsibility to use
    caution and common sense on handgun purchases.''

    He also said that he'd always supported the idea of a waiting
    period, and ``maybe there was some misunderstanding'' about his
    earlier position. Maybe there was, but Reagan certainly didn't try
    to dispel it.

    He said as president that a federal handgun control law would
    be virtually unenforceable. Better, he said, to stiffen penalties
    for criminals who use firearms in committing crimes.

    That's about the position the Bush administration has taken
    since inheriting the political problem of gun laws, an issue that
    often is framed by the concerns of home states and congressional
    districts rather than by party or political philosophy. A liberal
    Democrat with a pro-gun constituency is not likely to be found on
    the side of federal controls.

    Advocates of the Brady Bill say the measure is gaining support,
    and they claim they can gain House approval this spring. They
    thought the Reagan endorsement would add momentum. Rep. Charles A.
    Schumer, D-N.Y., a leading sponsor, said the former president had
    put the Bush administration in a box on the issue by generating
    pressure for the bill.

    The White House countered by saying that the administration
    might deal with gun control as part of a broader package in which
    Congress would approve Bush's crime bill.

    There's no sign that Democrats backing the Brady Bill would be
    make that bargain; the Bush crime measure includes provisions on
    the death penalty and criminal court procedures that have been
    opposed by liberals who favor handgun controls.

    And the complications don't stop there. The two top Democrats
    in Congress both are opposed to the current Brady Bill. Speaker
    Thomas S. Foley of Washington kept the measure from a House vote
    last year. Sen. George J. Mitchell of Maine, the majority leader,
    said he won't support it without changes ``to have a waiting period
    that makes sense and accomplishes something ....''

    ``I don't think the Brady Bill will pass in the form in which
    it now stands,'' Mitchell said Sunday on the NBC program ``Meet the
    Press.''

    He said there should be a central national register of criminal
    records, so that there would be a real way to check gun buyers, and
    Congress should appropriate money to pay for the process.

    Nor did Mitchell buy the idea that Reagan's endorsement had
    changed the outlook. ``There's a great deal of political analysis
    which tends to generalize from specific events,'' the Senate leader
    said. ``I don't know of a single member of Congress who has changed
    his mind because President Reagan changed his mind.''

    Base your conclusions and opinions on fact!
     
  18. Trucido

    Trucido TS Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    77
    Sammie, I believe that, to some extent, you misread me. Specifically, I said that conservatives take their prior information (opinions, beliefs, religious views) and combine that with new information. Either type of information does not necessarily need be actual direct proof, as in the case of statistics, but can certainly be religious belief or many other non-data defined informations. Taking in new information does not make you a reactionary.

    With regard to Bush: he is very stubborn in his views, but for the most part, that is due to information that he has gathered in the past. On certain issues, he is stubborn out of religious belief. It seems to me that religious beliefs overwhelm much logical information, though people with religious belief do actually take in contrary information, but their beliefs overwhelm that contrary information. The difference between this and a liberal is that a liberal does not even consider the contrary information, because they believe contrary information to be flawed or biased.

    With regard to the differences among conservatives, this is based on their interpretation of the information presented and their personal beliefs. I certainly judge everyone as fitting into one side or another. However, I think that black and white are not really adequate to describe this difference...red and yellow would be more accurate. Conservatives are red and liberals are yellow: there is some crossover between red and yellow (orange), but there is little mixing in this case. However, red can differ in shades, such that a pale pink is very different from a blood red. I do certainly judge everyone individually, but that does not stop me (or people in general) from dividing individuals into appropriate groupings. It is simple human nature to divide everything into groups and pass judgement.

    Thanks for your advice and viewpoint, I will certainly take it into consideration.
    -Kyle
     
  19. ukwildcat

    ukwildcat Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2006
    Messages:
    67
    NEWSMAX.COM - Anti-gun crusaders seem worried about the advent of a Republican administration. Heaven knows why. Republicans, in recent years, have managed to do nearly as much damage to the Second Amendment as Democrats.

    In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

    It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

    It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

    Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

    One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.

    Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation’s strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned "assault weapons," the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison.

    Gun control crusaders argue that the Republicans are simply yielding to grassroots pressure, to gain political advantage. But polls show little evidence of such pressure.
     
  20. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,251
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    If you're trying to make the point that"conservatives" are passing anti-gun laws, you're right - they are.<br>
    <br>
    The majority of these "conservatives" are RINOs - Republicans In Name Only. They are closet Democrats, and indeed, if you look at their position, it's where the liberals were years ago. They play a political game similar to "The Price is Right". Remember how to play that game? You simply pick a number that's incremented one cent above your opponent.<br>
    <br>
    Regardless, the main stream gun banners are hard core liberals. There is no denying this, because it is a fact.<br>
    <br>
    As it is, the RINOs are losing votes for the Republicans, and should be run out of office before they permanently damage the party.<br>
    <br>
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.