1/18/2013

Speculating about why politicians push more more gun control

Allysia Finley has this interesting take on why politicians push more gun control.

Labels:

posted by John Lott at 8:12 PM

3 Comments:

Blogger Robert L. said...

John Lott -- I suppose here is as good a place as any to post a comment, bringing to your attention that the e-book version of "More Guns, Less Crime" does not have links activated to the footnotes. This really detracts from the experience of reading your book, as your research greatly amplifies your arguments. I hope you can please bring this to the attention of the publisher and have it changed? Thanks. Keep up the great work.
--R.

1/19/2013 6:10 PM  
Blogger Inspector Clouseau said...

What I find fascinating about the whole gun control / right to bear arms debate is that it seems to me that virtually all of the positions taken, and arguments pro and con, essentially boil down to the following: how relatively close one perceives evil to be in their midst. \

Depending on one's geographical location, population density, experience, age and size of family, prior threats, availability of law enforcement assistance, etc., I can understand reasonable people having differences on the continuum with respect to their position. What I fail to comprehend is how members of one party can take one generally agreed upon position, and members of the other party can take one generally agreed upon opposite position.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Not only is that illogical; it can't even be explained by emotion or passion. Lining up on one side of that issue or the other seems to me ought to be an individual, personal position, not a party position.

1/19/2013 9:30 PM  
Blogger Suburban said...

Inspector Clouseau,

I really don't see it that way. Most of the Democrats seem to be hard-line against gun owners on the subject of civilian gun ownership. The Republicans, as of the last 20 years or so, have been waffling. Even on budgets, and spending, the Republicans often give in to the demands of Democrats.

Look at the spending of the George W. Bush administration. Not exactly what most would call " fiscal conservative."

The 2012 "Fiscal Cliff" compromise resulted in increased taxes, and very little in reduced spending.

This is the whole reason for the Tea Party. People were seeing that no matter which of the two major parties won the election, they still wouldn't get what they wanted; what they thought was needed in this country. Some Tea Party people were elected to congress as Republicans, but I think that as time goes by, we might see more breaks from the 2-party system that we've had. At least, I kind of hope so, because I really don't want to have to chose between a soft right-of-center Republican, and another hard-left Democrat in 2016.

1/20/2013 9:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home