Gun Control - I'm Trying to Understand the Liberal POV

No one is trying to get rid of ALL guns. There is NO reason any private citizen should have automatic or semi-automatic guns. They are not used for hunting. What are they used for other than mowing people down??

About 90% of the people I shoot trap with use semi-auto shotguns. The notion, under the proposals that are out there for 'gun control' that simply by adding a pistol grip to my shotgun it is now a banned weapon is ludicrious.

Oh good god. I'm not even going to read through the rest of the responses, but NOBODY ever talked about removing every single gun. When you start off your question with an inflammatory FALSE statement, what kind of responses do you think you're going to get. If you want to have a REAL discussion, try starting out with some facts.

I really dislike politics on this site, but you've made comments that are factually incorrect. Private gun ownership will NOT cease. The administration is NOT advocating for that. And you have to understand where the "crimmals" [sic] get their guns. Do research on how those guns get into the black market -- ever wonder where they come from? Do research on what the NRA really advocates for and how it operates. Do research on the number of crimes that are stopped vs. the number of accidental, or even purposeful, shootings that happen with legally owned guns. And do a little research on what has happened in countries where guns WERE outlawed. And think about what the 2nd amendment says -- a "well regulated militia," not individual vigilantes hoarding ammo from Walmart.

The problem is you will not understand it because you aren't looking for "factoids," which is another way of saying "don't let the facts get in the way of my opinion." And none of the non-conservative moms on here will change your mind - that will only come with research and a genuine interest in learning.

This is an excellent question based on a faulty premise. It is not the "liberal point of view" to outlaw private gun ownership.

As for this liberal mom, my family doesn't own any guns. I don't feel unsafe in my home and I don't hunt or target shoot as a hobby. But others have different experiences and lifestyles and I don't care whether other people keep guns for home protection and/or sport.

I'd like to see good background checks before purchase, and some sort of regulation. Safe, secure storage, of course.

But guns with high-capacity magazines-- to what purpose? A person who is a competent shot should be able to accomplish their goal without spraying dozens of rounds in the process. And why does anybody need a huge, personal arsenal? Is there is some way to screen out some of those gun/ammo stockpilers who are paranoid or otherwise mentally ill, who might use their weapons for great harm? That's the type of gun control that I favor.

I'm also not too thrilled with the idea of concealed carry. It seems like tempers are too short nowadays for people to be armed during day to day interactions. jmo.

Lastly, I haven't spoken much to my kids about guns. Maybe I should have. But, as I said, we don't own any. My son did a bit of shooting in Boy Scouts, but didn't care for it. He prefers archery.

There is no need for semi-automatic weapons.

There is no reason not to have background checks and other regulations and restrictions, just as we do for getting a driver's license, for example.

I agree with MomtoOne's statement about starting out with REAL facts. "Remove every single gun..." Sheesh.

well, not sure i can offer you the 'liberal POV' as i'm sort of across the spectrum politically.
will you settle for 'non-hysterical'?
there are wack jobs on the far left who do indeed want to do away with gun ownership in america. the poor saps are desperately outnumbered by the wack jobs on the right who keep gibbering about obama coming for our guns.
the administration, as far as i can tell (and i've actually been listening to what they're saying, not what rush and friends are SAYING they're saying), is trying to implement some workable guidelines to gun ownership. like having actual enforceable laws (not just suggestions) as to who can buy them and how they're tracked.
law-abiding citizens shouldn't be so poinked about having a background check done. and gun dealers ought to be thrilled at having law enforcement have the funds and personnel to crack down on criminals who obtain their guns illegally.
the situation CAN be a win/win.
but the squawking and misinformation needs to die down first.
khairete
S.

I find it interesting that most of the comments saying you should get educated have no idea what a semi-automatic gun is. So perhaps if both sides get educated those of us in the middle wouldn't have to shake our heads so much.

A semi-automatic gun is a gun that after you shoot will load another round to the chamber. An example would be a revolver. I use a revolver as an example because perhaps it will illustrate to people exactly why people are saying they want to take our guns away. There are very few single shot guns out there, sans the shot guns most are kept for historical reasons.

So considering nearly every hand gun out there is semi-automatic do you guys now understand how they make the leap to you want to take our guns away?

I love Patricia's answer -- guns should be harder to obtain, more expensive, and gun show rules need to be changed radically. The harder and more expensive is, the less chance they will wind up in the hands of the criminals. I remember a stand-up comedian joked about bullets being $1000 each, crime would change. But I personally would love to see high capacity magazines genuinely unavailable to the private sector. No one needs them. They should be reserved for military like hand grenades and flame throwers. They are weapons of war, not protection or sport.

I don't want to remove every single gun in every single household, but I have a very hard time understand why the more high-capacity guns are considered covered under the 2nd Amendment. That seems to be the knee-jerk response to every discussion on gun control and exactly where my frustration starts. Trying for a second to get inside the minds of the founding fathers, and therefore interpret what they meant when they wrote the words they did, how can anyone think they meant every citizen has the right to a 100-round magazine on an automatic rifle? At the time when they wrote about guns, leaving aside the phrase Well Guarded Militia which brings a whole different side to their intention, they had single shot muskets. THAT'S what they meant. I am tired tired tired of the 2nd amendment defense and wish we had a real discussion about these guns and the destruction they can do. And I wish that it was the gun enthusiasts who would start the discussion instead of the knee-jerk Don't Take Our Guns fear. Someone below talked about not trusting anyone, I don't trust the NRA because to me the 2nd amendment defense is incredibly disingenuous, and rather than stepping up to say "we are willing to make public safety a real concern of our organization and lead the discussion on gun control" they get really defensive and paranoid that someone is going to confiscate their gun rack.

I teach my kids that guns are dangerous and should they come across one at a friend's house they should NOT touch it but tell an adult they found it. It hasn't been discussed in a long time, because they haven't gone to a new house where I don't know if there is a gun or not -- they play at the homes of good friends. My 10 yo son does play shooting video games and has Nerf guns which he loves, and he'd love nothing more than a BB gun. He saw one a friend's house way out in the country, and I remind him that that is the sort of place where it is safe. Here we live in a tight courtyard with very little backyard and wouldn't even have good space to set up targets. I tell him it's not safe in our current location.

My .45 would be considered a semi automatic. So again, be sure you understand the government's definition of semi automatic. I cannot hold down the trigger and bullets continue to fly out of the gun. Only one bullet per trigger pull is released. That is what you want in a gun. I don't have a machine gun which I think some people get confused with when talking about semi automatic guns. We purchased my .45 for protection.

I have three clips. They hold 15 bullets per clip. Why do I have 3? Well, I keep two loaded with target ammo and the other is my home defense ammo. The two with target ammo is because I don't want to sit and have to continue to reload over and over. The home defense ammo, well I want to be sure that if someone breaks into my house, I get the job done.

I think my feelings have gotten stronger with regards to owning a gun. I see government trying to impose its will more and more on the people and I don't agree with that.

Everyone has the choice to have a gun or not.

I don't believe the current administation is trying to do away with private gun ownership. In fact, I don't believe anyone is trying to do away with gun ownership. Where did you get this idea?

You need to verify your starting assumptions before you can understand an issue.

Edited to add: I am a proud "liberal" and we have a gun in our house. Again, you really need to check your assumptions.

I am a conservative gun owner in Texas, but I happen to agree with the well-thought-out, reasonable answers that liberals have posted here on this thread. This is one issue where I agree with the liberals, and they stated the reasons well, here. Thank you for that. Laurie A.'s answer (and others, too) are particularly well stated.

ETA: We have taught our boys (8 and 15) gun safety, and continue to discuss gun safety. We live on a farm, and the boys are around guns fairly often. We also take our oldest son to the gun range. I enjoy shooting as well.

The conservative media outlets have created a straw man "liberal" position of "remove every single gun in every single household in America" to rail against. That's not a part of the debate.

The debate is over realistic regulations that determine what weapons should and should not be in private hands. Nobody is trying to outlaw your 22, and nobody is trying to legalize grenade launchers. Somewhere in between we can hopefully come up with a sensible system of what's ok to have in private households and what's not.

I would also urge you to get the facts. No one is suggesting the end of private gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. The current debate is about what type of arms should be available to the general population and what should be restricted. My own pet peeve is the demonization of the word "liberal." At one point in this country's history, it was a "liberal" idea to end slavery, give women the vote, and end racial segregation. You can have liberal views on some issues and not others. There are many people with "liberal" views who own guns. Again, please check your facts before you start making blanket statements.

According to an author of several books on the the topic 'Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.' Here is the rest of the article from the Wall Street Journal. It does an excellent job of explaining why taking the guns won't help. I am in complete agreement with her. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732377720457...

We don't have guns in our house-just no interest. The only thing I really discuss with my kids about guns is that if they are at a friends and they take one out to get out of there b/c there is no safe gun because you don't know if it is loaded. I also make sure they know that the gun law proponents are just plain wrong.

Ultimately NO amount of gun control laws will stop a massacre. Its just not possible. The only thing that WILL stop is intervention to get help for those that exhibit all of the strikingly similar traits of the person who would commit a serial tragedy. In every single case there were opportunites to possibly prevent the outcomes yet the people who could have helped turned away.

1. You're not trying to understand the liberal point of view, you're just one more in a long line of government bashing and lack of self-education or you wouldn't have started your question with internet hype and misrepresentation of the facts. It's not just your fault..... it happens on both sides.
But lack of self-education and misrepresentation of the facts (from both sides) is MUCH MORE damaging to this country than anything EITHER party wants to accomplish.

2. Criminals will always have access to anything they want...... free society and all that. Trying to limit what criminals can do is like trying to catch sand with a strainer.

3. I talk a little bit with my daughter about guns... .mostly that we don't own one, if she ever wants to own one she needs to educate herself about how to use them and if she ever sees that her friends have one she needs to leave the area and tell and adult.... as she is 12 and most 12 year olds know squat about gun safety and there is a likelihood that someone is going to get hurt. She knows that guns aren't "bad" but that in the hands of the wrong people for the wrong reasons people can get hurt or die. That's about the gist of what she needs to know at 12.

I wish I could help you understand but to me it seems that the liberal POV is that the second amendment is old and outdated (yes that’s what Obama said in his inauguration speech). I guess extreme liberals feel "we the people" would never need to defend against a tyrannical government (either our own or an outside government) or that we shouldn’t have the ability to do so.

That is why the second amendment was written, to ensure that Americans have the freedom and ability to over throw tyrants in the government. At the time it was written the civilians and army's had the same weapons and the farmers had many rifles (they took so long to load back them you needed several to hunt).

The ones pushing these stricter laws live in cities where a semi-automatic rifle would be useless but for Americans that live in the country or very rural areas they are not useless.

They seem to want much stricter laws regarding guns overall but no matter what laws are in place criminals will always break the law by using and purchasing illegal guns and bringing them into places where there are signs that state “no gun zone”.

Non- Conservative Mom here.
Have had gun safety training as a teenager. Grew up in a home with hunting rifles (in Northern Minnesota).

I believe that people should be able to have hunting rifles, and handguns I guess (although I'd never have one).

Guns meant for killing people in mass amounts are not really something the average American needs to have access to IMO.

I believe in the current bill.

Imagine if the Mom of the shooter in Newtown had not had all those legal weapons in her home? What if that boy only had a handgun or rifle? Do you think he would have shot his way into the school and killed 26?

We do not have guns in our home... but as my kids grow up, they'll probably have access to gun safety training just as I did as a teenager.

I think a big part of the problem is the ultra-conservative vs extreme-liberal nonsense. There is a huge range of politics in-between there, and in most cases, labeling something as one or the other is insulting and often incorrect.

The secondary issue is that too large a portion of the US population chooses to believe things they hear, are told, or read without further investigation. That is easy to do when you identify with someone or share a particular political bent, and it is the path of least mental resistance.

I'm fairly centered and always have been, voting across party lines all the time. Politics is not religion, you don't have to pick just one. People should not take differing opinions as a personal affront.

Your questions, in order:
1 - No, that is not factual.
2 - No.
3 - Felons are already banned from having guns, but criminals don't obey laws.
4 - The saying is trite. It carries no weight in a debate.
5 - Nothing in particular at this time.
6 - In passing, or when it is in the news.

A.,

Isn't it funny how some people are so defensive in their answers? Sheeesh! Maybe someday people will learn how to have rational conversations about guns. The truth is, there are people on the left who will not rest until private gun ownership ceases to exist. You don't have to watch FoxNews to know that. Watch ANY news outlet and you will see many, many far-left extremists who are proud to say that they want all guns banned. The problem for mainstream liberals is that the extremists are very vocal about their POV. I suppose many of the reponses you received just don't want to admit that, but it's the truth. Notice I did not say ALL liberals, but yes there are some on the extreme left that believe that way. I understand that your question was just trying to understand that POV. Some here just got their panties in a wad and couldn't think straight to answer your question. I am not what you would call an extreme liberal so I can't answer your question.

What I can answer is your question about what we teach our kids about guns. We are gun owners. We have locked cabinets in our home where our guns stay. Nothing is loaded and ammo is kept in a separate cabinet. We teach our kids to be afraid of guns... yes, I said AFRAID. All people, no matter what your age, need a healthy level of respect for guns and what they can do. My husband is certified to teach firearms safety and will teach our children when the time is right.

This is a very complicated issue. We've got the Feinstein bill that was introduced yesterday, but no one can even come up with an accurate description of what an assualt weapon even is. The most deadly weapon we own isn't on her list. Anyone who knows anything about guns is laughing at this bill. While there are some good anspects of the bill, it bans certain guns, but lets people keep some that are 10x more deadly than the ones banned. Did anyone even attempt to fact-search before they proposed this bill? That would be a big, fat NO. Seems the members of congress are no different than people on this site - no one wants to have a rational conversation or talk about solutions that make sense.

The framers of the constitution knew what they were doing. It's as simple as that. They were protecting our citizens from the rise of tyrannical government. If you don't believe it could happen, try having that conversation with a german or a jew, or a japanese american that was incarcerated during WWII. Why people don't get that I will never understand.

So, at the end of the day, you still have this issue of mass-killings. That is what this is all really about, right? Call me crazy, but I dream of a world where we can someday have a conversation about WHY these people do these things and looking for holistic answers, rather than trying to stick band-aids on a situation because they make us "feel" better. Until we do that, we will always have these issues.

I'd like to know too.

I am totally against gun control. I have a gun in my home, and I wouldn't feel safe without it. It's up high where my daughter can't reach, but she has seen it and I have talked to her about it. I plan to teach her how to use it when she's old enough, so that she knows how to handle it safely in case she ever needs it... or just in case she finds it and doesn't realize the danger of handling it incorrectly. I've been to a conceal carry class, and as a single parent, with an abusive narcissistic father, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on without my gun. Him knowing that I have it is the only thing keeping him out of my house, and out of a way to bully me. He hates it. Guess what? he's ALL about gun control now.

Oh... and there are people who believe everything they're told, on both sides, and then there are people who follow their instincts. I personally don't trust anyone, and I have learned to trust my instincts. So, when my government tells me that they have no intentions on taking my guns away, I don't believe them. I don't believe them because I've researched how this has gone historically, and I have to wonder why martial law was implemented in our country. I've also researched brain washing--it's all about baby steps--and I see baby steps being taken.

I was a proud and passionate liberal, until this past year... and I just don't feel like being tricked and schmoozed any longer, by anyone.

A., this is a very thought provoking question. I haven't read through the list of responses, but as a supporter of stricter controls, my desire is not to see ALL guns removed from homes. It is to see that weapons that can be used for mass destruction are not easily accessible. The thought that criminals will not have access is not even the point. Unfortunately, the atrocities that we have witnessed of late have not been by criminals, mob leaders, etc. It is people who may have been stopped from doing what they did if easy access to these weapons hadn't been an option. I am shocked to hear the fear and propaganda pushed by the opposition in order to avoid working toward a solution as if "Obama" (one individual) is trying to take away their rights and only have the government with weapons. That is ludicrous!

Being from Michigan, I can tell you that Ted Nugent is a heavy metal singer who was big in the 1970s or 80s with the hit "Cat Scratch Fever." Sigh. It is amazing the stuff we remember.

Now Ted is vocal about being pro-gun. He hunts and gets the media to show him donating his deer meat to the needy.

He continues to be vocal regarding the issue, and will make the news every once in a while.