What do you believe is the PRIMARY reason for the push to increase gun control?

[HetchHetchy]

The primary reason is already there - control of the people - something they can't fully implement with an armed populace. Everything else is just an excuse to bring it about.

Do you honestly believe that today's politicians care about something (disarming the populace) that would take generations (if ever) to implement?

I don't give politicians that much credit. I think they'll do whatever benefits them in the here and now.

The USA isn't Europe. There are more than 300M firearms here. Disarmament is a pipe-dream.

 

[Red Wind]

Take the largest 100 counties in the USA, population wise of the 3058, out of the equation, and America has one of the lowest homicide rates in the entire world.

As Charlton Heston wisely and bravely said in an interview 25 years ago, " It's all in the Demographics."

Even so, our 2015 homicide rate per 100,000 population, is at its lowest levels since 1958. About 4.4. We peaked in 1980 at 10.2.

 

[Ironicaintit]

of course they want to rule us, and weapons in our hands run counter to their designs.

 

[Red Wind]

100% True.

 

[Red Wind]

To add, we just have to face the difficult, unadulterated facts, that since the Democrats, LBJ, Great Society, of 1964/1965, the black community has been devastated.

Out of wedlock births rising from 25 to 73%, the fragmentation of the father figure, violient crime , primarily with guns, rising to the level that blacks, comprising 13.5% of the population, now commit 50% of America's homicides.

This is not a racial dialogue. We have to find a way to bring our black brother and sisters back to a normal level where we can all live with ourselves.

We can do it together. At least, I can pray. Getting rid of the Statist ethic is the enormous jump start we all, black, white, Asian, Native Americans, fervently need.

 

[Narwhal]

None of the above? It's "mass shootings".

Mentally Ill/malicioius people and/or terrorists are committing "mass shootings" a few times a year and people want to stop it. Politicians say that gun control is how to do it. This is because it's cheaper to implement than the real solution, more treatment for the mentally ill and/or tighter immigration control from countries prone to send us terrorists. When a mass shooting occurs, money flows into the anti-gun lobbying groups, and from there into the politicians.

So it's mass shootings. Stop those and gun control has no chance. If they continue, especially if they happen more frequently, we'll have gun control most likely. The public doesn't even care that much about normal every day gun crimes related to the drug trade.

 

[barnbwt]

"The politicos truly believe that controlling guns will violent reduce crime"
They often let slip that they don't believe this

"The politicos want to be able to show their supporters they are "doing something.""
Lots of ways to do this that aren't counterproductive or insidious

"Pressure from law enforcement organizations/unions."
The leadership, maybe, who are merely following orders

"International pressures from the UN, etc."
Previously no, but trans-national 'charity' orgs are becoming increasingly indistinguishable from domestic lobbhing efforts

"Gun control is an emotional wedge issue. It's a way to herd and corral voters and to get elected."
Gun control is the wedge issue to determine a person's view about government and their role in it. So fundamental, that it is actually uncontrollable and serves more to separate us into differently-minded political groups than manipulate us.

"The politicos want to disarm us so they can ultimately subjugate us."
Bingo. Closely related to the last one, there is a certain chunk of the populace that either craves the bootheel of tyranny, or desires to wear it (or both). This desire goes far beyond guns, and is the most powerful of large-scale human social dynamics, in my opinion. A true tiger-by-the-tail for those trying to direct it (or endure it)

"Many voters are ignorant and afraid of guns. They just want them gone."
Gun control blossomed when firearms were fairly commonplace, the fear/ignorance was a side effect of existing restrictions

"Like abortion, support for increased gun control has simply been institutionalized in some circles. "
For Hilary & the Dems right now this is the case, as this was the only issue she could get to the left of Bernie on. It frequently goes dormant for years, though

"Gun control is largely driven by non-profits out to turn a buck for themselves."
Thus is just a side effect. Now that corrupt lobbying by hypocritical thinktanks is the norm, you could say the same of every single decision made by government (or the media, as Wikileaks is showing)

"Voters view pro-2A groups as corrupt/old/male/white/fat/etc. and wish to oppose them."
We occaisionally hear people say "guns are racist," but it's not often since even they know it sounds stupid

"Voters equate guns to bad people and feel eliminating guns will eliminate the bad people."
While true that a lot of gun control is about racism ("bad people," ha!) the even more basic driver is authoritarianism

TCB

 

[Deanimator]

The history of gun control in North America has always been that of the subjugation of disfavored minorities, first Indians and Africans, then the Irish, Italians and Jews.

Nobody leading a lynch mob likes a lynching where nobody's sure who's going to end up swinging from the limb at the end of the day.

I've got 40+ years of direct experience of anti-gunners and their motivations, words and deeds. A plurality of them are indistinguishable in their racial attitudes from the Aryan Brotherhood.

 

[Red Wind]

To add, we just have to face the difficult, unadulterated facts, that since the Democrats, LBJ, Great Society, of 1964/1965, the black community has been devastated.

Out of wedlock births rising from 25 to 73%, the fragmentation of the father figure, violent crime , primarily with guns, rising to the level that blacks, comprising 13.5% of the population, now commit 50% of America's homicides.

This is not a racial dialogue. We have to find a way to bring our black brother and sisters back to a normal level where we can all live with ourselves.

We can do it together. At least, I can pray. Getting rid of the Statist ethic is the enormous jump start we all, black, white, Asian, Native Americans, fervently need.

I will just repeat myself again. THIS is what we all need to do. Can any of you deny this?
This is the grist of Americas crime problem. We ignore it at our everlasting peril.

 

[RX-79G]

there is a certain chunk of the populace that either craves the bootheel of tyranny

Please be specific exactly who these people are and quote where they express this desire.

 

[barnbwt]

Originally Posted by barnbwt
there is a certain chunk of the populace that either craves the bootheel of tyranny

Please be specific exactly who these people are and quote where they express this desire.

Are you trying to get me to say something inflammatory so as to get me a warning, RX? Leading question is a lame troll.

Oh look, and it isn't the first time I've noticed you trolling this way, either...

Believe it or not, mankind has always had a tendency toward authoritarian rule, and the *acceptance* of it. "Freedom" as we know it, was a higher state of evolution, that is still in competition for resources with its crude, brutal ancestors. A loyal party member or serf has a clear place in the world, a clear job to do, knows who his friends & enemies are, and never has to question his existence. A blissful life of servitude free of independent thought or responsibility.

For those of a Hobbesian persuasion, the bootheel of tyranny is necessary, or rather *fundamental* to all peace & happiness in mankind. Evil free men will destroy all good things unless the Leviathan keeps their necks pressed into the mud along with the rest of us. Tyranny is peace, freedom is slavery & death.

And of course, there's those ambitious souls who see themselves in the Leviathan (which is naturally the immediately obvious flaw in the whole concept of a benevolent god-like impartial government) and enjoy the thought of exercising its power through themselves --for the good of all others, naturally, or so they'll bother to say at first. They see potential for Utopia and personal glory in the bootheel of tyranny, thinking they have the strength and stature to wield it.

Interestingly, it is entirely possible to hold both views simultaneously, since they are both compatible with the same sort of childish myopic narcissism; that all mankind is so flawed that it need be cowed, and that I am uniquely suited to identify and contradict the most vile elements to protect us all.

As to specific examples;
-That politician crowing about how we can't afford due process in banning RKBA to suspected terrorists on a list
-Any fool in the city who feels they are safer by gun control

Satisfied? Or is that not the answer you were leading for?

TCB

 

[RX-79G]

Are you trying to get me to say something inflammatory so as to get me a warning, RX? Leading question is a lame troll.

Oh look, and it isn't the first time I've noticed you trolling this way, either...

Believe it or not, mankind has always had a tendency toward authoritarian rule, and the *acceptance* of it. "Freedom" as we know it, was a higher state of evolution, that is still in competition for resources with its crude, brutal ancestors. A loyal party member or serf has a clear place in the world, a clear job to do, knows who his friends & enemies are, and never has to question his existence. A blissful life of servitude free of independent thought or responsibility.

For those of a Hobbesian persuasion, the bootheel of tyranny is necessary, or rather *fundamental* to all peace & happiness in mankind. Evil free men will destroy all good things unless the Leviathan keeps their necks pressed into the mud along with the rest of us. Tyranny is peace, freedom is slavery & death.

And of course, there's those ambitious souls who see themselves in the Leviathan (which is naturally the immediately obvious flaw in the whole concept of a benevolent god-like impartial government) and enjoy the thought of exercising its power through themselves --for the good of all others, naturally, or so they'll bother to say at first. They see potential for Utopia and personal glory in the bootheel of tyranny, thinking they have the strength and stature to wield it.

Interestingly, it is entirely possible to hold both views simultaneously, since they are both compatible with the same sort of childish myopic narcissism; that all mankind is so flawed that it need be cowed, and that I am uniquely suited to identify and contradict the most vile elements to protect us all.

As to specific examples;
-That politician crowing about how we can't afford due process in banning RKBA to suspected terrorists on a list
-Any fool in the city who feels they are safer by gun control

Satisfied? Or is that not the answer you were leading for?

TCB

I was neither "leading" nor "trolling". I wasn't able to tell who you were talking about.

But it is clear from your responses that you don't know who you are talking about, either.


The desire for gun control = desire for loss of freedom is YOUR belief, not the belief of any people that you can identify. Theoretical people in philosophy books are no more real than elves.

If you can help yourself, try answering the question about who would say they wanted tyranny for themselves.

 

[HetchHetchy]

None of the above? It's "mass shootings".

Mentally Ill/malicioius people and/or terrorists are committing "mass shootings" a few times a year and people want to stop it. Politicians say that gun control is how to do it. This is because it's cheaper to implement than the real solution, more treatment for the mentally ill and/or tighter immigration control from countries prone to send us terrorists. When a mass shooting occurs, money flows into the anti-gun lobbying groups, and from there into the politicians.

So it's mass shootings. Stop those and gun control has no chance. If they continue, especially if they happen more frequently, we'll have gun control most likely. The public doesn't even care that much about normal every day gun crimes related to the drug trade.

Read option #2...

 

[HetchHetchy]

"The politicos truly believe that controlling guns will violent reduce crime"
They often let slip that they don't believe this

"The politicos want to be able to show their supporters they are "doing something.""
Lots of ways to do this that aren't counterproductive or insidious

"Pressure from law enforcement organizations/unions."
The leadership, maybe, who are merely following orders

"International pressures from the UN, etc."
Previously no, but trans-national 'charity' orgs are becoming increasingly indistinguishable from domestic lobbhing efforts

"Gun control is an emotional wedge issue. It's a way to herd and corral voters and to get elected."
Gun control is the wedge issue to determine a person's view about government and their role in it. So fundamental, that it is actually uncontrollable and serves more to separate us into differently-minded political groups than manipulate us.

"The politicos want to disarm us so they can ultimately subjugate us."
Bingo. Closely related to the last one, there is a certain chunk of the populace that either craves the bootheel of tyranny, or desires to wear it (or both). This desire goes far beyond guns, and is the most powerful of large-scale human social dynamics, in my opinion. A true tiger-by-the-tail for those trying to direct it (or endure it)

"Many voters are ignorant and afraid of guns. They just want them gone."
Gun control blossomed when firearms were fairly commonplace, the fear/ignorance was a side effect of existing restrictions

"Like abortion, support for increased gun control has simply been institutionalized in some circles. "
For Hilary & the Dems right now this is the case, as this was the only issue she could get to the left of Bernie on. It frequently goes dormant for years, though

"Gun control is largely driven by non-profits out to turn a buck for themselves."
Thus is just a side effect. Now that corrupt lobbying by hypocritical thinktanks is the norm, you could say the same of every single decision made by government (or the media, as Wikileaks is showing)

"Voters view pro-2A groups as corrupt/old/male/white/fat/etc. and wish to oppose them."
We occaisionally hear people say "guns are racist," but it's not often since even they know it sounds stupid

"Voters equate guns to bad people and feel eliminating guns will eliminate the bad people."
While true that a lot of gun control is about racism ("bad people," ha!) the even more basic driver is authoritarianism

TCB

Nope. Gun control no longer "determines" a person's political view. It forms it one way or the other. To suggest the gun control matter is "uncontrollable" and that it cannot be used to manipulate simply isn't true.

 

[Narwhal]

Read option #2...

Except I don't think it's the politicos that WANT to do it, there are unfortunately a lot of actual citizens who want it done, and just like the way the NRA works, if these people organize and get the ears/wallets of politicians, the politicians will do as they say. As someone who lives in a liberal city there are lots and lots of "ordinary" people that want gun control, and they want it most right after a mass shooting. If a mass shooting doesn't happen for awhile, it will kind of fade into their subconsciousness until another one does, then they cry for it again. I think most politicians strongly desire to avoid the issue unless their hands are forced, with some exceptions of course.

 

[HetchHetchy]

The history of gun control in North America has always been that of the subjugation of disfavored minorities, first Indians and Africans, then the Irish, Italians and Jews.

Nobody leading a lynch mob likes a lynching where nobody's sure who's going to end up swinging from the limb at the end of the day.

I've got 40+ years of direct experience of anti-gunners and their motivations, words and deeds. A plurality of them are indistinguishable in their racial attitudes from the Aryan Brotherhood.

I suspect that's true and that it also extend to a plurality of pro-gunners as well.

 

[Kendal Black]

Again, the long-term result differs from the short-term motivation. Some people love big government: The are the prototypes of those who later love Big Brother. It seems a natural enough choice to them to love being given things. One may also note their rapt fascination with keeping the rules so as to get the things--the words you need to say, the actions you cannot do, and the ones you must. They are not bothered at being told what to do.

If they do not, themselves, benefit from expanding social largess they at least delight in voting to confer it, because it is progress, they feel, against the ills of human life. It is scantly considered that each such gain bears with it a risk to choices and freedom. You might google the question of guns being allowed or not among those who occupy public housing. That one was battled for years and might not be over yet.

Now, I do think we should have a robust social safety net. I think it should be stronger in some areas of life: particularly as touching upon the mentally ill. But what I am talking about is the mindset that inheres in some who see the sunny upside and not the darker downside of government monitoring your life in the process of doing you good--with the best of intentions, of course.

A litmus test is how someone reacts to "We're from the government and we're here to help you." Some think that's just great.

 

[PBR Streetgang]

Did you ever read George Orwells "1984" when you were in school?

 

[HetchHetchy]

Except I don't think it's the politicos that WANT to do it, there are unfortunately a lot of actual citizens who want it done, and just like the way the NRA works, if these people organize and get the ears/wallets of politicians, the politicians will do as they say. As someone who lives in a liberal city there are lots and lots of "ordinary" people that want gun control, and they want it most right after a mass shooting. If a mass shooting doesn't happen for awhile, it will kind of fade into their subconsciousness until another one does, then they cry for it again. I think most politicians strongly desire to avoid the issue unless their hands are forced, with some exceptions of course.

I don't think the politicians intrinsically want to do it either -- but there is little more than can do to salve the screaming emotions of those who have lost someone or who simply want to stir the pot.

FWIW, watch when the frequency of "mass shootings" becomes too high. The outrage lessons a great deal. The cry to ban guns dies down.

 

[Ironicaintit]

I think there are lots of people who naively believe, from a good heart, that total disarmament would solve society's ills.

 

[RX-79G]

I think there are lots of people who naively believe, from a good heart, that total disarmament would solve society's ills.

How many, do you think? 2%? 15%? Everyone who votes against Trump this year?

 

[Ironicaintit]

How many, do you think? 2%? 15%? Everyone who votes against Trump this year?

I have no idea. It doesn't matter, really. Some people will call for gun control, honestly believing it will be better for all. And those useful idio....pawns, will be plied by those top tier groups who play "the long game", and understand exactly where civil disarmament leads.
So the motivations of the "good hearted" people who see disarmament as the goal don't matter. They play into the hands of those who see disarmament as a means to an end, regardless.

And it all sounds nuts, so it's a tough point to argue out in the real world.

 

[mokin]

Nice poll

I think you did a nice job of dissecting the push but I think the PRIMARY reason in simply power and control and thus a combination of at least three of the reasons listed.

Gun control is an emotional wedge issue. It's a way to herd and corral voters and to get elected.
The choice I went with - divide and conquer.

Voters view pro-2A groups as corrupt/old/male/white/fat/etc. and wish to oppose them.
One group that can be divided out.

Many voters are ignorant and afraid of guns. They just want them gone.
and
The politicos want to be able to show their supporters they are "doing something."
It's low hanging fruit for some politicians.

Like abortion, support for increased gun control has simply been institutionalized in some circles.
See above for said politicians.

 

[Kendal Black]

Did you ever read George Orwells "1984" when you were in school?

Me? I mostly skipped school.

 

[RX-79G]

I have no idea. It doesn't matter, really. Some people will call for gun control, honestly believing it will be better for all. And those useful idio....pawns, will be plied by those top tier groups who play "the long game", and understand exactly where civil disarmament leads.
So the motivations of the "good hearted" people who see disarmament as the goal don't matter. They play into the hands of those who see disarmament as a means to an end, regardless.

And it all sounds nuts, so it's a tough point to argue out in the real world.

Some people believe in astrology, but we normally don't worry about them.

Your comment just makes me think about the way pro-gun people (mis)categorize their opponents, and mistake the fringe for the majority.