What could have saved more lives, federal gun control or not going to Iraq

[DJcairo]

To you deanites, I pose this question. While Dean's stand on the war is hailed as a moral stand that had nothing to do with politics, his stance on guns is considered smart for its political expediency.

So is the guy George McGovern or Bill Clinton?
Is he the conscience of America or the political triangulator?

You criticize John Kerry for being a politician with IWR and ignore his moral stands on real issues like the environment and guns - both things which effect American life far more than a distant war. Then you turn around, and praise Dean for his politically expediant stance on two of the same issues.

If this isn't blind hypocrisy I don't know what is. But I believe Kerry is clear on the issues of real importance in this election. 04' is not going to be about whether or not we should have gone into Iraq, it's going to be about what to do now, in Iraq AND in America.

[killbotfactory]

1. I don't believe his stance on guns is for political expedience

I think he just doesn't believe that we need much more gun control, and focusing on efforts to strengthen families and enforcement of current laws will help more than anything to reduce gun violence.

[dsc]

2. Given the fact

that there is no way, as in not goona happen, that we are going to get more gun control than that which Dean supports (assult weapons ban, Brady, closing the gun show loophole) the answer is clear. Not going to Iraq.

[sasquatch]

3. WHat causes gun violence in this country is fear mongering in the media

and by politicians. Look I would like some gun laws in place that would make it almost impossible for a felon to purchase a handgun or assualt rifle. I've owned guns since I was 9 years old and think all people should be trained in how to safely use firearms. I don't own handguns because I have no need for them and I HATE people that keep loaded handguns in thier house. Now I think we should not be in Iraq but how I feel about guns is another thing.

[lastliberalintexas]

4. Well

first of all, it depends on what you mean by gun control. We already have significant gun control laws on the books, and I am not sure what more laws, in and of themselves, would do to curb violence in America. Our problems go much deeper than that, and unfortunately most of the candidates aren't talking about what can be done to correct the systemic problems in our society which lead to violence.

I just posted in a different thread also started by you that gun control is not the panacea gun control advocates think it is. Gun control does nothing to eradicate the abject poverty, lack of jobs, and war on drug issues related to gun violence. Until we deal with those issues, it's pointless to worry about the weapon of choice for the crime.

I also find it rather ironic that so many of the people, especially women, involved in the gun control movement are middle class whites who live in relatively safe suburban areas. Some of whom are former, and even CURRENT, republicans. And the only answer that these people can see to curbing violence is More Gun Control. Is that because they don't see that these problems are related?