The REAL Reason the Hard Left Supports Gun Control

The part where it was claimed the shift in the market is what caused the increase in firearm-related incidents and criminal misuse to increase.

The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference does such make? Handguns have always been related to self defense, and have been available for such roles for centuries. It is not a new or unprecedented trend in the marketplace.

And the relevance of the above is what precisely? Are those present supposed to draw some sort of conclusion based on reports that hunting is becoming less common while firearms ownership in the united states is increasing? The second amendment is not about hunting, nor has it ever been, therefore any discussion pertaining to the hunting and sporting aspect of firearms is entirely irrelevant.

Exactly what point is being attempted at making with the above statement? Is it being stated that firearm owners are somehow responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms simply because their private property can be stolen by those who should not and cannot legally have access to firearms? Is the victim of one crime being blamed for the commission of another? Is the legal owner of a firearm responsible for the actions of the one who pulls the trigger with the intent of harming another, when the firearm was illegally procured from them?

Be specific. If there is an actual point to be made, then actually make it.

Then why the denigrating attitude with regard to the noted shift in the united states firearms market?

 

Yes it is you didn't look at the charts. The point I raised was that there has been an unequivocal change in the marketing and purchase decisions of firearms in the US away from more traditional sports and recreation towards the 'self defense' segment of the market. And that this decision resulted largely from the need of firearms manufacturers to find a new market for weapons because the 'old' traditional market was saturated.This is may be a 'rational' business decision from the industries industry perspective given flat lining sales for non self defense firearms but given even this market is reaching saturation point further sales require the industry to generate the perception of an ever increasing 'threat environment ' in order to generate sales.

The conclusion should be obvious - the change in mix of firearms in the population towards high capacity semi-auto and automatic hand guns and long arms enables that minute % of the population that wishes to cause harm to others to do so in a manner not possible with other firearm types. It amplifies their capacity to do harm.

OK - The vast bulk of US gun crimes are not committed by strangers breaking in and stealing the firearms of lawful users, they are committed by persons known to the occupant who have ready access to the home. Another survey - I won't bother to post it, showed that almost 50% of US gun owners polled did not bother to secure their firearms properly in the home. That kind of problem (together with other illicit forms of access like the black market) combined with the increased prevalence of auto/semi auto weapons in the home magnifies the capacity of criminals to do harm should they wish to do so.

They are also of course entirely lawful to own in the US but that ownership comes at cost to your society as a whole. Which is of course your business to work out.

Disagreeing with someones opinion is not denigration, its just disagreement. Everyone these days seems to feel the need to be 'offended' by an alternate viewpoint.

 

Seems like that fits in well with "self defense".

 

It can do that and tragically, sometimes it doesn't circumstances depending.

 

"Sometimes".
"Sometimes" people die because they wore a seat belt.

 

Yes, tyranny. It's a story as old as civilization itself. There has ALWAYS been a class of people who seek to oppress and exploit the masses. Modern times are no different. Those who think otherwise are fooling themselves.

Incorrect.

I worry about it because it's a recurrent theme throughout history.

Oh, well... as long as you're going to tell me what I feel and what I believe, then there's no need for me to even post. You can just post all my thoughts for me.

 

I have plenty of evidence.

Simply look at the gun control policies that urban Democrats pass into law inside the cities and States they control.

They want to export their failed gun control agenda to the rest of the country.

Thankfully, the rest of the country will not allow it. But that doesn't stop urban Democrats from trying.

 

Passing gun laws doesn't prove your motive for wanting to pass those gun laws. From the liberal I know, they are motivated out of a desire to reduce gun deaths. I suggest you look at pro-gun control threads and ask those people what their motives are for gun control.

 

Capital punishment is not vengeance. As the name implies it is punishment. What do we do with people once the prisons are full? Build more prisons? Those who commit violent crime should meat a violent death or at least death. People speak of cruel and unusual punishment. Personally given the choice of life in prison or death I would choose death. I think it cruel and unusual punishment to imprison someone for life when death would be more humane.

Again with how things are done in other countries. I don't live in other countries. I live in the US. I only worry about how we do things in the US.

 

Don't be silly. It's not "everyone" it's the Democrats my guns.

 

...b..b..but, tHiNk aBoUtZ tHe cHiLdReNz!!!!!

 

Broaden your horizons maybe?

 

What is missed on the part of yourself, is the fact that semi-automatic handguns and rifles with detachable magazines, and adequate for purposes of self defense rather than traditional sport, have been available to the general public since the early twentieth century, many decades before there was ever a perceived widespread misuse of them. Therefore it cannot be the firearms that are the problem, nor the firearms manufacturers for taking note of changing market trends, and adjusting accordingly.

See above. Such firearms have been easily available to the general public in the united states since the early twentieth century. Yet they were not used in such a manner for many decades, coinciding largely with the cocaine epidemic that swept the united states in the late twentieth century.

Explain why that is.

Cite such.

That survey has been read. The definition of proper firearms storage that was used for the purpose of the survey, involved the firearm itself being stored unloaded and locked in one room, and the ammunition being stored and locked in an entirely different room. Such is a nonsensical, redundant manner of storage that is entirely unnecessary with regards to safety.

Then you are indeed blaming the legal owners of firearms, for the misuse of firearms by prohibited individuals who cannot legally own them.

Except for the fact that such is simply not the case, and there is no evidence to actually support such an accusation. It is nothing more than speculation and scapegoating by those who wish to complain about an existing problem, but do not wish to assign blame to the individuals themselves who are committing socially unacceptable offenses.

The supposed "viewpoint" is nothing but false information and the improper assigning of blaming and responsibility.

 

They claim they're motivated out of a desire to reduce gun deaths - and they may even believe it to a certain extent - but the reality is that gun control advocates do not believe in self-responsibility and they believe they have a "right" to somehow be "protected" from danger without having to lift a finger to protect themselves from the dangers of the world.

 

And therefore by their thinking you must do the same too least you have an unfair advantage over them.

 

Exactly so, and if you don't think like them they sneer and denigrate you for your "regressive" viewpoints.

 

I have. That's why I don't really care how things are done in other nations.

 

The U.S. is not another nor comparable to any other nation, we have vast freedoms which is why so many people want to come here.

However there are some here who have no respect for our freedoms or any freedoms and wish to make us like so many of the s-hole nations they envy, nations where if they where in charge they would have the freedom to take yours away from you.

To the anti's that's the only way they can get any respect from anyone their lives be such.

 

I'm talking more about the elites who control the parties and the government, not the rank and file.

Attempts by rulers to disarm the populace are a constant theme throughout the history of civilization. Our civilization is no exception.

 

But how will gun control help these elites control everyone? They have the most advanced military in the world that can easily defeat a population with some rifles. Also, we have just never had a situation where we needed to put down a gun owner revolt in the US anyway. The population is already cooperative with the law enforcement and the military. What politicians are looking for in the gun control issue is popularity because they want to become president. A majority of the population supports stricter gun control, if you are looking for dishonest motives, look there.

 

By disarmament, when the population cannot defend themselves they are at the mercy of the elites to provide protection for them, if the population then complains about increasing taxes the elites threaten to cut back on protection.

It has already happened in urban areas such as Broward County, when the county pushed a 1% increase in property tax there was quite a pushback, inturn the County Commissioners threatened to cut back on police and fire protection, due to a lack of funding, a compromise was reached and tax's where raised .6%.

 

Here is the problem. This issue you are discussing is at the local government level and it is local governments that threaten to cut back on services when they have insufficient funds. But gun control is done on the national and state level. So in your conspiracy theory, gun control is implemented by the federal government to help local governments in the rare cases where they are lacking funds for the police department? I just don't see a lot of selfish motive for the federal government to want to do this and this police department funding issue doesn't even come up very often. Even with gun rights we still need the police department and that threat will still be the same. Also, most of the time people are likely to sufficiently fund their police departments even without this threat.

 

The feds have a lot of control over what protects the public and cutting those programs would have the same effect when their local sycophants go along with the idea, which they will.

A disarmed populace is much easier to manipulate, which is why history has demonstrated it is one of the primary tasks to be completed before invoking socialism.

 

No, the feds are in charge of the military, FBI, and CIA. However left-leaning politicians who support gun control actually tend to want to reduce the size of the military and restrict the powers of law enforcement. They are not in charge of the local police and don't manage those affairs.

A disarms populace is more dependent on protection, but you are suggesting that politicians are supporting gun control, so that this dependency will benefit the politicians somehow. We need to be specific about what that is and it needs to make sense. We then need to look at specific politicians and see if we can prove who has this motive.

 

Totally incorrect, the feds control a huge amount of local law enforcement funding and as such have a lot of control as to how those agencies can or cannot operate.