The REAL Reason the Hard Left Supports Gun Control

We DON'T have these problems *NOW*. In fact, our crime rates, across the board, including violent crime, murder, rape, and even non-violent crime have dropped by about 50% since the early 90s. And nobody, including LE agencies is sure why.

 

Our gun death rate is many times what any other developed country has

 

Rates of violent crime are dropping across most if not all of the Western World. And you are correct when you say there is no consensus as to why (although there are some theories - which are a matter for another thread perhaps).

However the problems chiefly under discussion (by me at least relate) to the high numbers of accidental deaths and injury that could most likely be reduced through better public education on the issue. The 'leakage of legal firearms onto the black market has also been discussed but the main emphasis on my part has been the above.

 

It is not understood. What exactly does the above matter of marketing hype have to do with the discussion currently at hand?

Semi-automatic rifles.

The main point remains, however. It was not the firearm manufacturers who caused the current trends in defensive firearms to come into existence. They merely recognized the demand of the consumer was changing, and adjusted accordingly.

Unlike motor vehicles, televisions, or most other consumer goods, firearms have an exceedingly long life of operation. Taken care of, even with regular and frequent use, they can function for a century or more before ever becoming too worn to function in a safe manner. Firearms produced long before world war one are still functional and operational. Manufacturers are not pressured to come up with something new every year just to stay relevant and competitive with others in the business.

There appears to be a miscommunication occurring. It is not being stated that public health campaigns are unenforceable. Rather it is being stated that certain firearm-related restrictions are unenforceable, and thus devoid of a reason for existing as a result.

Only if there is a willingness on the part of others to actually change their behavior. In the current world where everyone is selfish and does not care about others being inconvenienced so long as they get what they themselves want, it is unlikely at best that anyone will be swayed. At best such campaign efforts may only have a placebo effect on those who support them.

Except for the fact that they are indeed refusing to comply. For example, the Heller ruling specified that the second amendment applied to all implements that constituted bearable arms that are in common use for legal purposes. Yet numerous states have proceeded with prohibitions on semi-automatic firearms, with their courts ruling Heller does not apply to them. At least one court of appeal that heard such a legal challenge ruled that the prohibition was justified on the basis of the public believing it made them safer, even if it did not.

Exactly which firearm-related problem is being referred to in the above?

Could not the above be interpreted as a statement that it is simply more cost effective to allow criminal individuals to engage in crimes, rather than trying to prevent them from doing such? Would not such mean that the societal cost of crime is less than the cost of justice?

The manner in which any given individual may choose to store their privately owned firearm, does not directly correlate to a disavowment of responsibility. This is especially so when the standard set for safe or responsible storage has already been declared unconstitutional and cannot be required.

If an individual does not already understand that firearms are dangerous by their very nature, can it really be claimed that any degree of effort relating to either advertisement, marketing practices, or even legal mandates, will serve to convince them to engage in basic safety?

 

Sigh, you were the one who insisted that people only ever buy any product (guns or otherwise) off their bat i.e. without any external influence or persuasion from the manufacturer. Which as I have stated repeatedly is simply not how the marketing works. As any first year marketing textbook at university will tell you.

As I have repeatedly said and you repeatedly ignore - it works both ways. You insist on stating without offering any evidence to support the contention that consumers and consumers alone drive the gun market in the US. You then quote my point about the longevity of firearms, which proves the opposite of what you are saying. It’s exactly because firearms last so long lasting that manufactures have to market and promote new models heavily. They have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in plant and equipment that can’t sit idle waiting for people to replace items that rarely if ever 'break down' . If they did this they would go bankrupt. And they can’t sell much more product overseas due to competition from foreign manufacturers and restrictions on civilian ownership in other countries. They have to persuade US customers to buy more guns or go under, its that simple. The ONLY way they can survive is to ‘convince’ owners they need ever more or ‘better’ guns.

Which has nothing to do with the point I raised – so why say it. I keep talking about non-enforceable public education campaigns and you keep talking about the legal restrictions. If we are going to debate this topic please address the issues I raise rather than ones I don't.

You raise a very good point. It is true we are all ‘selfish’ to some degree or another. Firstly though there are limits to that selfishness (for most people). The average person may not modify their behavior to benefit a perfect stranger but they will do so to benefit people they care about i.e. family, friends and neighbors if they can be persuaded that the any change is in the best interest of those people. Secondly selfishness can be harnessed to market products, which is what the whole ‘self-protection’ market in the gun industry is about anyway. People will buy products that ‘protect’ them and their kindred from harm. Including safely products

If it is illegal it can be overturned on appeal - it is that simple. And if no-one has appealed in such circumstances as you describe (and the gun lobby in the US is well enough funded that someone almost certainly would) it’s because either no-one is affected or no-one has bothered or the problem does not really exist

How to assess whether a public health campaign is viable. You questioned how you tell if a campaign was be effective or not i.e. would it only reach (what was it you said? - 1/10,000th of a percent of the population? Or some minute figure like that). The above explains how such assessments are made.

I also forgot to mention the old tried and true method of testing products and advertising campaigns – test marketing in small sample markets prior to launching nation-wide campaigns.

Look the argument you raised on this particular point was simply incorrect, accept it and move on. Ridiculous assertions like the above are just as juvenile as stating for example that the ‘answer’ to solving accidental shootings is to ‘take everyone’s guns away’. I don’t posit such silly assertions, please do me the same favor.

Exactly what part of the concept of free will escapes your grasp? It’s called choice. Choosing to do or not do something is not a ‘requirement and it is not unconstitutional.

I fully accept that firearm owners have the right to secure their firearms in their home as they see fit but leaving a loaded hand gun in the reach unsupervised children in the epitome of disavowing responsibility. As are other things like choosing the drive on the wrong side of the road or choosing to not follow safety regs in dangerous workplaces.

Again you point to the absolute extreme end of the scale to justify no action that might influence the behavior of the other 99% of the US gun owning population who are not inherently that stupid. Unless of course you are asserting (based on experience) that most firearm owners in the US are in fact that dumb? Something I find unlikely in the extreme.

If you accept that the accidental death and injury rates from firearms in the US justifies some form off action stating that a tiny % of the gun owing population will not get the message is not a valid reason for taking no action.

 

The entire point of the discussion relating to manufacturers and their advertisements was to address the incorrect position that it is the firearm manufacturers who are somehow responsible for the current trends of firearm-related violence, simply because they are producing and marketing certain products. It is not the manufacturers who created the problem, rather it is members of the public with a disposition towards violence against others. That was the point of entering in this back and forth, to demonstrate the fallacy of the position being presented as an excuse.

Then do try and keep specific points separated from one another.

And how exactly does one convince an individual that their purchase or possession of a firearm poses a risk of harm to either family members or neighbors? The only supposed "research" to support such a basis, is based on the debunked, discredited work by Arthur Kellermann, who went out of his way to skew his findings as far against legal firearm ownership as possible.

More accurately, the united state supreme court had not taking up any appeals after the McDonald ruling, simply because the same justices who decided Heller were present, and there was no guarantee as to which way the vote would go. Neither side of the political divide was sure which way the swing vote would go, so neither side wanted to take the risk. This is especially true in light of the open confession by then-Justice John Stevens. He admitted he went out of his way to sway the vote on the Heller ruling to ensure the united state supreme court recognized the legitimacy of firearm-related restrictions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/us/politics/john-paul-stevens-memoir.html

In short, one sitting justice of the united state supreme court engaged in what is essentially obstruction of justice on the matter.

The united states has decades of data to rely on relating to the matter of firearm-related restrictions. And in each case, no matter the law that is examined, it is always found to have zero to negligible effect on either the criminal use of a firearm, or the negligent and reckless use of a firearm often written off as being an accident.

If even laws cannot force the public to change its practices to any measurable degree, it stands to reason that public health campaigns do not have any greater measure of success.

The argument of cost was introduced to the discussion. Therefore the matter is being addressed. If it is simply too expensive to make life sentence for murder a viable proposal, it must be questioned just what proposals are worthwhile since the bottom line appears to be the dollar amount attached.

And those who choose to engage in such will learn these hard lessons the hard way. It is doubtful they will ever forget the consequences of their actions and engage in such behaviors again. Therefore the best sort of education that can be had comes not from legislative requirements, or public health campaigns, but simply standing back and let the people discover the negative consequences of their actions for themselves.

It is the contrary, actually. The vast majority of firearm owners in the united states are not dumb, rather they understand the matter quite well. That is why the number of firearm-related injuries and non-homicide deaths in the united states are so low, despite the sheer number of firearms that are privately owned. In truth those numbers have always been quite low, and there has been no legitimate, overwhelming need for the matters to be addressed, either through legislative actions, or public health campaigns to try and raise awareness of the dangers posed by firearms kept within the home.

It does not. The number of so-called "accidental" deaths and injuries attributed to firearms are among some of the lowest in their categories. It is a myth that there is a widespread problem of such in the united states, perpetuated by those who seek to deliberately misrepresent the matter.

 

Then the reduction seems unrelated to strict gun control there and lax gun control here.

What high numbers of accidental deaths and injuries? The accidental gun death rate has fallen by 80% since 1981. More people are killed in falls at home than by gun accidents at home.

 

Very true but when was the last time you saw a story about a person dying from a fall on the evening news?

A lot of the misconceptions about firearms are the result of they way American media sorts what they will report, man falls down a flight of stairs and dies, yawn, a person is shot to death in his home and every station van in town will be parked in the street in front of that persons home.

Death is death, but some deaths will pump the ratings so they get reported while others get ignored.

 

Have public service ads encouraging gun safety been banned?

 

I don't think so, but to date I have yet to see one.

 

If so, someone better tell Project Childsafe. Their ads pop up in my FB feed at least weekly.

 

Are those PSA's?

To me a PSA is a broadcast spot that broadcasters are required to air per FCC rules.

 

In my mind the definition is a bit broader than that.

 

That's what I thought.

 

And individuals or groups concerned with gun safety are free to promote that cause with informational material.
The promotion of more irrational gun control schemes undermine public safety.

 

Child Safe is a product of the NSSF which is the U.S. firearms industry trade association.

 

If you educate yourself you will learn that it is a hard left the center left and the right as well who are all for gun control. Most Americans see what is happening. While you’re worried about the emigrants thousands of Americans are being killed by good old American boys.The only people against gun control are gun nuts and usually men who think it’s macho
Of course to a right wing nut the only reason we want done control is to take total control of society. Obviously people like you don’t give a **** about all the thousands of people killed by guns.Hey we all need high powered military guns,

 

Please tell me why anyone needs a gun that can kill dozens in seconds

 

Such does not exist.

A gun cannot kill anyone, the only way dozens can be killed in seconds is if a rather sick human pulls the trigger.

 

Research is your friend.

 

Point out precisely which firearms that are capable of doing such, are actually available on the private market at the moment.

 

The number of firearm-related homicides in the united states is presently at a fifty year low.

 

IOW, there is no evidence that the gun control movement is actually concerned about gun safety.

 

The gun control movement has produced a number of PSA's based on gun safety, ideas such as keeping guns unloaded and locked up until needed and ammunition should be locked up, somewhere else.

They seem to not really care about safety when reality is included.

 

That has more to do making sure that guns are not ready for use when needed in an emergency.