Political Issues Axis Discussion Thread: Gun Control

[Zyphlin]

To keep the other thread focused on allowing people to post their own views, this thread will be used for actually discussing things. Want to ask someone a question about one of their statements, state your agreement or disagreement, or comment on how your mind may be shifting as you read other peoples? This is the place to do it.

 

[Zyphlin]

Spoiler

SELF IDENTIFY AS: Far left/Socialist

FAR LEFT VIEW: Firearms are a tool for the oppressed to resist oppression and tyranny. The state and the police should not have a monopoly on violence. There should be few restrictions to prevent those restrictions from being weaponized to disproportionately disarm minorities.

SOLIDLY LEFT VIEW: Firearms are a net harm to society. On average the proliferation of guns in society only leads to preventable excess deaths. Guns should be banned outside of possibly and if they are allowed they cannot be stored in the home.

MODERATE VIEW: Individuals have a right to have the tools to defend themselves and their family, but that doesn't use out "common sense" gun laws. Something needs to be done to reduce mass shootings, like raising the age to purchase a rifle to 21, red flag laws, and universal background checks.

SOLIDLY RIGHT VIEW: Every American is guaranteed the right to own a firearm by the constitution. Many of our current gun laws, like magazine size limits, our unconstitutional and should be overturned. An armed populace is needed to keep the federal government in check. As they say, the 2nd amendment protects the 1st.

FAR RIGHT VIEW: Our country is being ruined by immigrants and gang violence. We need to crack down on illegal firearm purchases and make sure our country's law abiding business and home owners have the means to protect their property from the criminal aliens and gangs. We need stricter restrictions and more vetting to make sure the only the right people are able to own firearms.

Very interesting post Nomad. I take it you're a proponent of the horseshoe theory of political ideology? Your far left and right portions somewhat Converge, albeit for very different reasons. I've always found the horseshoe theory interesting, though not necessarily applicable to every issue

 

[Redress]

Spoiler

SELF IDENTIFY AS: Far left/Socialist

FAR LEFT VIEW: Firearms are a tool for the oppressed to resist oppression and tyranny. The state and the police should not have a monopoly on violence. There should be few restrictions to prevent those restrictions from being weaponized to disproportionately disarm minorities.

SOLIDLY LEFT VIEW: Firearms are a net harm to society. On average the proliferation of guns in society only leads to preventable excess deaths. Guns should be banned outside of possibly and if they are allowed they cannot be stored in the home.

MODERATE VIEW: Individuals have a right to have the tools to defend themselves and their family, but that doesn't rule out "common sense" gun laws. Something needs to be done to reduce mass shootings, like raising the age to purchase a rifle to 21, red flag laws, and universal background checks.

SOLIDLY RIGHT VIEW: Every American is guaranteed the right to own a firearm by the constitution. Many of our current gun laws, like magazine size limits, are unconstitutional and should be overturned. An armed populace is needed to keep the federal government in check. As they say, the 2nd amendment protects the 1st.

FAR RIGHT VIEW: Our country is being ruined by immigrants and gang violence. We need to crack down on illegal firearm purchases and make sure our country's law abiding business and home owners have the means to protect their property from the criminal aliens and gangs. We need stricter restrictions and more vetting to make sure the only the right people are able to own firearms.

Interesting. I suspect not alot of those on the far left in the US agree with what you label the far left view, but that is not a way I usually think of the gun control issue and kinda an eye opener kinda thing.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Very interesting post Nomad. I take it you're a proponent of the horseshoe theory of political ideology? Your far left and right portions somewhat Converge, albeit for very different reasons. I've always found the horseshoe theory interesting, though not necessarily applicable to every issue

Thanks.

I’d actually say I’m a strong opponent of the horseshoe theory. I think it’s one of the most reductive and damaging popular political ideas.

The only reason it seems plausible is when you draw issues into a single demential left/right. For example I took far right to be fascist here, but I just as easily could have taken far right to be anarchist capitalist types that believe we should have virtually no government outside of like…a military.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Interesting. I suspect not alot of those on the far left in the US agree with what you label the far left view, but that is not a way I usually think of the gun control issue and kinda an eye opener kinda thing.

Depends what you think of as the far left.

But that’s definitely the either ultra progressive or socialist view. Basically think like, The Black Panthers.

Or a modern group would be something like the Pink Pistols or SRA.

 

[Redress]

Depends what you think of as the far left.

But that’s definitely the either ultra progressive or socialist view. Basically think like, The Black Panthers.

Or a modern group would be something like the Pink Pistols or SRA.

I see where you are coming from, I just never thought of it from that point of view, and as such it was kinda an eye opener. I always just kinda put the revolutionary types at both ends of the spectrum into their own class kinda thing.

 

[Redress]

Very interesting post Nomad. I take it you're a proponent of the horseshoe theory of political ideology? Your far left and right portions somewhat Converge, albeit for very different reasons. I've always found the horseshoe theory interesting, though not necessarily applicable to every issue

I am not a fan of the Horseshoe theory, as it kinda conflates ideology with position on issues, which is nor really accurate. Two people with the same ideology can reach different stances on issues kinda thing. Ideology is the basic philosophy that guides the logic you use to reach your position on issues, if that makes sense.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Thanks.

I’d actually say I’m a strong opponent of the horseshoe theory. I think it’s one of the most reductive and damaging popular political ideas.

The only reason it seems plausible is when you draw issues into a single demential left/right. For example I took far right to be fascist here, but I just as easily could have taken far right to be anarchist capitalist types that believe we should have virtually no government outside of like…a military.

Perhaps a better spectrum would be liberal - authoritarian.

My personal favorite political line is 0 - 1 for your tolerance of injustice.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Two people with the same ideology can reach different stances on issues kinda thing.

While this is true, what is more common is reaching the same political position but for very different reasons. This isn't horseshoe theory, as that assumes a similarity the further "right" and "left" you go (which is alone an arbitrary spectrum and simplification). This has nothing to do with being radical.

For example, a conservative might support aid to Ukraine because they believe it is in America's best geopolitical interests and helps protect our other European allies from a similar invasion. A liberal might support aid to Ukraine because they are a young democratic nation being invaded in an offensive war of conquest by a authoritarian neighbor, and aiding them is the moral thing to do.

Perhaps a better spectrum would be liberal - authoritarian.

There is no perfect one dimensional spectrum. There are conservative and progressive authoritarians. Capitalist and socialist authoritarians. I'm a libertarian socialist. I know we have conservative capitalist libertarians on this forum too.

Something my economics professor liked to say has stuck with me, "all models are wrong, some models are useful." The only "correct" model would be one with infinite axis that is infinitely complex; but that would be a useless model as a model is supposed to simplify and help us conceptualize or analyze an idea.

One dimensional political models can be very useful and generally categorizing people and getting a quick idea of where they probably stand on most issues on that axis. But only if you keep the limitations of model in mind.

 

[tshade]

Biden's newest regulations on background checks are spot on. It is time that background checks are UNIVERSAL.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

It is time that background checks are UNIVERSAL.

Tie it to CCW reciprocity and I'll withhold my objections.