I usually don't get involved in these discussions, but this one time

[DFW]

A friend who moved from Massachusetts to Florida published some idiotic letter to the editor saying that if we ban guns from public places to protect the masses, we should also ban spoons because they are used to scoop ice cream and make people fat.

Another guy I know, a self-proclaimed libertarian, chimed in, saying he preferred to live in a place where you can take any measure to protect yourself. That did it for me. I told him that if he was in such constant terror of being attacked, that instead of living in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan, he should move someplace more civilized. I said I had heard that many parts of North America were English-speaking, and might be to his liking (he lives in New Jersey). I can't wait for his response.

[rrneck]

1. I wish guns weren't such a potent totem

for people on both sides of the issue. It's like it's a fucking religion or something.

[DFW]

3. It does approach that level, I agree

I do, however, feel I have a better chance of surviving some religious whacko trying to hit me over the head with a bible than if some clown back home in Dallas decides to take me out in a restaurant because I look like a "libbrul," or something.

[rrneck]

4. It exists on both sides of the aisle.

The left views guns as an evil totem, which makes the right rally round them more. Hyperbole and bad legislation come from the left, which discredits us as much as the hyperbole from the right.

[DFW]

6. An evil totem?

I don't see that. I think the people opposed to unlimited wide-spread gun ownership see it as an effort to support an industry that sends money to the Republicans, and produces a product that, like cigarettes, when used as intended, kills. It's not guns per se, it's guns in the hand of everyone that wants one (or two or ten) that is scary. I used to own one when I lived in the States. I never used it for anything other than target shooting, and got rid of it when I got stationed over here because 1.) I'd never use it, and 2.) I couldn't be bothered to do all the paperwork necessary to apply for a permit. No one over here in NATO-land, with strict gun restrictions, sees them as hyperbole. Even the radical right movements here aren't running around bashing the left over more liberalized gun ownership. Immigration and taxes? Oh, yeah, they love those themes. But more guns? They are no more for that than their leftist opponents.

[Eleanors38]

7. IMO, the gun-control/ban outlook made the modern "pro-gun movement."

From the beginning of the modern ban/control effort, the "issue" was framed in terms of culture war; male inadequacies, drunken hunters, "gun nuts," etc. And these arguments weren't the internet graffiti we see now, but were the conclusions of "studies," editorials, political leaders and opinion-makers. It is no surprise that the NRA and others joined in kind, and began their scorched-earth campaigns against controllers.

It still surprises me when controller/banners don't see this history. (Some allude to it when they recount the "early history" of the NRA's marksmanship & hunting emphasis, but can't seem to figure out why the big change.) Now, sides have the same totem, but one side doesn't realize that the best philosophy for political liberals is to, well, liberalize.

[rrneck]

9. How do the people that are "opposed to unlimited wide-spread gun ownership" see themselves?

True believers measure all things against the strength of their convictions.

We have posters on this site who would ban and confiscate every gun in this country. Even if you control for the fact that it's the internet, we have elected officials who would do the same. Guns are a powerful motivating factor in the politics of the left and the right. If that weren't the case, there would be no gun control legislation at all. Sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes it's bad. Given the kind of legislation I've seen lately, it's almost all bad. That's because partisan passion and red meat have become more important than sound public policy.

The NRA is certainly a lobbying organization designed to send money to the Republicans, who are almost universally pro gun. That's good for gun manufacturers. The reason the NRA is so successful in promoting guns is that they have a better business model than the anti gun lobbyist groups like the astroturf Moms Demand Action. Of course that doesn't keep billionaires like Bloomberg from trying to squeeze a nickel out of it.

I've written something a bit more comprehensive about the issue here if you would like to check it out. I think, when you step back and look at it objectively, you'll see that partisan passions on both sides of the issue are off the scale and create a dandy little revenue stream for those that make a living off such things.

[gejohnston]

2. Is it constant fear, or realization that bad things happen

Improbable to any one person, but does happen.

Another guy I know, a self-proclaimed libertarian, chimed in, saying he preferred to live in a place where you can take any measure to protect yourself. That did it for me.

What do you mean "self proclaimed" libertarian? Are you saying he doesn't understand important libertarian tenets like the nonaggression principle? As a liberal, I totally agree with him. Self defense is a natural and human right. Stricter gun laws do not reduce crime or raise crime or anything else. The 1 percenters who oppose liberal carry laws have guns and armed guards.

I said I had heard that many parts of North America were English-speaking, and might be to his liking (he lives in New Jersey). I can't wait for his response.

After looking up the comparative gun laws/violent crime rates, I predict he will be looking either Vermont or Wyoming who not only have the most liberal gun laws, but among the lowest violent crime rates.

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html

[DFW]

5. Vermont and Wyoming also have low population density

Better chances all around. Although here in western Europe (where I am stationed) there is huge population density and still virtually no firearm violence. German cops fired something like 86 rounds in the line of duty last year. Miami cops fired more than four times that just to take out those two guys trapped in a car wreck.

The guy picks and chooses his libertarian talking points. A purist he isn't. He doesn't walk around with a gun himself. He expects law enforcement to protect him, and he doesn't expect to pay for them, through taxes or anything else. Stricter gun laws DO reduce the number of deaths and injuries by guns. The statistics for Germany, where I am stationed, and points north and west, bear that out. The number of gun deaths per capita in places like the Netherlands, where ownership by private citizens is extremely rare, is also, well, extremely rare. Kids there (and here) do not injure or kill other members of the family with guns carelessly left around the house because people there do not have guns to leave around the house.

Finally, stricter gun laws by themselves do not reduce or raise crime on their own, I agree. Strict enforcement of those laws probably would, seeing as how it works here, but the old principle of Republican foreign policy mantra would get in the way of wide-spread enforcement in the USA: "shoot at anything that moves--unless they shoot back." If Cheney had let an accurate assessment of Iraq be passed around in 2002, there would never have been an invasion in 2003. Republicans prefer attacking places like Panama and Grenada. Go get 'em!! (unless it looks like they'll shoot back--then try diplomacy).

[gejohnston]

8. I was mostly stationed in Asia

That said, there are more legal guns in Germany and Netherlands than there are in DC and Chicago. European gun ownership rates are higher than you think. France's gun ownership rate is about the same as Florida's. Europe is also big on safe storage laws, mostly to prevent theft. You really can't compare the US with Germany because not only do we have different cultures, but are crime problems are different. Besides, their murder rates were the same or lower before they instituted stricter laws in the 1970s.

Stricter gun laws do lessen accidents and suicides with firearms, but don't eliminate suicides. In the US, that would mean 20K fewer gun deaths, but 20K more rope deaths. I don't call that progress.
Same with murders. Mexico is a prime example. Their gun laws are stricter than anywhere in Europe, and yes guns are used in a minority of their murders, but look at their murder rate. Add that to a corrupt government, with cops paid of by the cartels, having the monopoly on violence.

There are an infinitely number of reasons why our murder rate is higher than theirs, the point about Wyoming and Vermont isn't about sparse population, it is because they don't have other problems that places like DC, NOLA, and Chicago have.
These include:
Extreme poverty
they are not hubs on drug trade routes, most of our murders are criminals killing each other.
political corruption Let's face it, Chicago is Tammany Hall on steroids, the gangs and city hall are in each others pockets
rural cultures that value individualism Individualists are don't join groups, including gangs.
How the schools are funded. Most places it is tied to local property taxes. That is why a public school in a poor part of a city is falling apart while a public school in the same city three miles away is wonderful. In Wyoming, we don't do that. In Wyoming, schools are funded on the state level. Like Alaska, we tax the shit out of Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Trona. We used to tax Uranium too, but the mine closed. Unlike Alaska, we don't pay you to live here. The money is spread evenly to the counties and school districts for schools and roads. My county has an extra penny sales tax for the school district, is voted on every four years. Being against the tax is about as popular as legalizing horse meat and gun bans.
Some day, When fossil fuels leave, we have to get off the gravy train and pay own bills. We will deal with it when that comes. If it means sprawl stopping or even receding, it is worth it to me.