Liberals and Guns: What’s the deal?

Attention Liberals! I am with you, I agree with you, we are for the same things. For the most part I think we completely own the high road here. You’re not the ones attempting to destroy the future of our civilization simply because you’re bitter about political losses, and you’re not the ones trying to cover our racism in a thin veil of indignation.

Why though, is intellectual dishonesty okay when it comes to guns? Do you not understand that your glib mockery makes you look completely inept and hardens the attitudes anyone who might be on the fence against you?

Number one: You know nothing. Stop using the words “machine gun” and “automatic weapon”. This causes anyone who knows anything to think you are stupid. Automatic weapons/machine-guns are illegal on a federal level, and nobody was carrying any of those. Please understand what you are talking about before you open your mouth, otherwise you’re really no better than the uninformed propaganda-spewing FOX hosts we do so enjoy making fun of.

Number two: Isn’t being open-minded sort of something we’re trying for? Isn’t not being arbitrarily hateful to an entire class of people sort of one of the platforms we’re attempting to stand on? I’m completely willing to agree with you that some of the people out there carrying assault rifles to meetings may just be crazy anarchist militia members, and I don’t much care for those people any more than you do. Is it that hard for you to allow for the possibility that not everyone carrying a gun IS a crazy anarchist militia member though? Owning and/or carrying a gun does not mean that someone wants to kill your dog. Let’s keep in mind the differences between causation and correlation here.

Number three: What’s so bad about guns anyway? There have been discussions on many interesting issues such as gun rights, health care, NASA funding, and making fun of FOX hosts, and I think it’s been enjoyable for everyone. Would it surprise and terrify you to learn that during many of those conversations there was a gun present? You really shouldn’t assume that just because someone is on your side that they’re as biased as you are. Admittedly it may not have been an assault rifle, and hopefully you never knew of it’s existence, but the point was that it was there. Does that change the validity or value of the conversations?

I know that one of the standard responses is “Concealed isn’t the same as visible”. I call bullshit. Carrying visible vs carry concealed should not make a difference to anything other than the tactical approach of the carrier. When you sit across a table in a restaurant from someone discussing your view on health care you have to allow for the possibility that they may in fact be carrying a gun. You must allow for this possibility. How does knowing that they’re carrying a gun make things any worse? If they’re the type of person who you fear might do you physical harm because they disagree with you, you shouldn’t probably be having dinner with them in either case!

For anyone still concerned with the very concept of someone carrying a gun, that is a different issue which we should discuss separately. (I would refer you to Dave Grossman’s “On Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves” as an entry point to this discussion.)

It’s also worth noting that I believe that a weapon is only a tool. A gun may be a more powerful tool, but in the end it’s no different than the difference between a spring rake and a shovel. Different tools, different jobs. Guns are not evil, people are evil. Go ahead and say “look at those crazy loonies!”, but reasoning that they are crazy loonies because they have guns is intellectually dishonest. An evil person will perform evil acts, by gun, by knife, or by fist, just as a good person will perform good acts using whatever tools they have available. A person is a weapon, when they so choose to apply themselves.

The point that I am trying to make here is that fanatically clinging to “guns are evil” completely ruins your credibility as an seeker of change and truth, and makes you appear to be as closed-minded as any racist. Yep, I’ll happily say it. Discrimination based on “you’re different than I am” is equally bad, no matter what that difference is.

I’m white, I’m tall, and I use and carry many variety of tools. Which of these do you think is okay to hate and deride me for?

6 Replies to “Liberals and Guns: What’s the deal?”

  1. Oh the number of times I’ve explained the difference between autoloading, semi automatic, automatic, machine gun, sub-machine gun, and hamster launcher. (the hamster launcher is a modified potato gun. it’s very wrong to make or use.)

    Seriously, though, you’re exactly right. I remember last summer, when a friend voiced the concern that on January 20th, W wouldn’t leave office, and I pointed out to him, that in the extreme case of something like that, that’s exactly what the second amendment was for. But in a more practical matter, when Texas passed the concealed carry law, gun crimes did not increase. Fucking TEXAS. If cockdamned Texans can behave themselves, I think the rest of us will be fine.

    To paraphrase Penn Jillette on this subject, “If the pro-gun advocates, and the pro-drug advocates, and the pro prostitution advocates all sat down, and let each other have their freedom, the world would be a much better place.” I couldn’t agree with him more.

  2. Oh yeah, and the criminals, the people who do bad things with guns the most? Yeah, they already have guns. A lot of them. People are generally good, the more people with guns, the more good people with guns. Never been a shooting spree at a gun show.

  3. “I call bullshit. Carrying visible vs carry concealed should not make a difference to anything other than the tactical approach of the carrier.”

    Visible is much more dangerous in the city. There’s a reason police departments have moved to level 3 holsters and it’s not draw speed.

  4. @nordsieck

    As I said “should not make a difference to anything other than the tactical approach of the carrier”.

    Personally, I would not open-carry in most circumstances because, yes, you run the very real risk of someone attempting to take your weapon from you. However, it can be done, and it can be done safely if you choose to and are VERY alert about it.
    Tactically, Level-1 concealed is better than Level-3 visible pretty much every day of the week, but that’s not the issue at hand. (Besides, the people talking about this aren’t even aware of what those terms mean, so clearly their complaint is not with the tactical situation..)

    Assume a competent, alert, and aware armed citizen. I still call bullshit on the typical “OMG GUN!” knee-jerk reaction. The point is that the person standing next to you while you’re gaping and pointing at the guy with the pistol, may also have one of their own that you just can’t see.
    Anything less than a full acknowledgement of this fact is just lying to yourself and is intellectually dishonest.

  5. Now, I’m not entirely sure what event involving guns and liberal outrage you’re particularly annoyed about, or if you’re merely fed up with ignorance in general. Myself being a liberal with little to no knowledge of guns, maybe I can help in this discussion.

    I’m going to assume that this blog in the most part stems from the reaction that liberal, and sometimes “center,” media has had to the recent displays of firearms at the town hall meetings going on around the country during the August recess. I also have some concerns about this recent, or what appears to be recent, phenomena. My take on this is the context of the appearance. I very much doubt that the majority of the armed attendees, or maybe even none of them, carry their weapons in such a manner on a regular basis. Taking into account the events that they’re attending, such as the New Hampshire town hall that the president himself was hosting, this can be construed as a passive or even overt threat of violence towards the president. Why, if we’re having something that may even be in the most remote and obscure definition of a peaceful protest or rational discussion, do we have a tool of violence present? A statement. A statement that is being heard and given national attention, although in my opinion, a statement steeped in ignorance.

    Maybe I’m getting to specific, though. I’d imagine that I could get some bit agreement on my explanation above, but this might be about something more general; the apparent liberal fear and misunderstanding of guns. The second amendment exists, and that’s not changing any time soon, or ever. For whatever reason that is researched, assumed, construed, or whatever for it’s existence and origin, Americans have the right to bear arms, and it’s not going away. The popular belief concerning the amendment is that it exists for the purpose of allowing an armed populace to rise up and resist an oppressive government, should we ever somehow allow it to take place. Here’s where things get sticky.

    As I’ve heard explained before, and I believe to be the case to a large extent, the major departure of philosophies between conservative and liberal is that conservatives see government as bad and want to “reduce it to the size that I can drown it in my bathtub,” while the liberals believe that government is a good thing; not to the point that it’s everywhere, though. The belief is that “We The People” means that *everyone* is the government, not just the politicians, and if *everyone* is participating in it, things will be all right (Disclaimer: no one in their right mind really believes that extreme socialism will work in a community larger than about 150. I just want to be clear on that). From here, we can see where the philosophies on guns emerge on both sides of the fence. If one believes that the government is bad, then one will insist on keeping whatever weapons needed available to overthrow the inevitable oppressive socialist tyrant that is coming. On the other side, the liberal who feels that government is a good thing most likely wouldn’t see a reason to be armed against a government that he believes in. Both sides are ignorant to various degrees, and should, as is that case most of the time, meet somewhere in the middle.