Why do liberals hate guns?

If the real issue with "gun hate" is the death of innocent lives, then liberals should be way more concerned with cars than with guns, since cars cause more mass death every year than all mass-shootings in US history combined (not to mention, cars probably cause even more deaths thru air pollution):

http://www.worldcarfree.net/

Personally I think the main reason that a lot of far-leftists hate guns is the mere fact that conservatives "love them", so I think the entire "gun issue" is just a mere ploy to "(*)(*)(*)(*) off" conservatives than anything else. There are a lot more [i[logical[/i] basises for banning cars (which humans have lived without for 1000s of years, and could continue to live without even if they were banned) or reinstating the 1920s prohibition against alcohol (which causes far more deaths per year than any other drug) than banning guns, but the problem is the "ban guns" crowd aren't motivated by logic or facts - just by emotion.

So IMO they're not much different than groups like the "American Family Association" which wants to criminalize "gay sex" on the mere basis that they "think it's icky" - these radical liberals just think that "guns are icky" and base their entire bigotry on that, even when facts get in their way.

 

Deaths through car incident are unintentional so you cannot blame cars, which are not intended to kill people, but guns are made to do that. The fact that some people like guns is contradictory: how could you love something that brings death, intimidation and suffering? In my opinion one has to be a little sadistic to like guns or be they swords, bombs or any other weapon. Also, through time people have proved to be unreliable in their use of guns, see mass shootings and incidental kills ( like those who let their children wield a pistol and end up with an extra hole in their butt ). Gay sex on the other hand doesn't harm anyone, gays will not rape people and their children if that's the right wingers concern.

 

Doesn't matter- if a person is killed by a car instead of by a gun that doesn't somehow make them "less dead"

 

You just answered it for yourself. A lot of libs hate them just because their parents always told them "guns are evil, don't ever go near one they 'go off' by themselves" and their friends are no different (think of Pajama Boy)

Guns are needed tools, men are familiar with the operation of tools and their intended purpose. We respect the power of tools so we don't hurt ourselves or others while handling said tools.

 

See that's is where you are wrong because only a very select few actually see weapons as something that "brings death"

To me (and the majority of gun guys) they are a masterpiece example of craftsmanship that exists to keep evil at bay by leveling the playing field in my favor should the threat of death come knocking at MY door.

Guns in the hands of good men (the vast majority of whom are good) are the only things that stop bad guys with guns hell bent on causing death and chaos to the innocent.

An example question is: The POTUS lives in the White House, safe to say the most secure and safe residence in the world... Do you have any idea how many good guys with guns there are in there 24/7? Do you think if guns by themselves were as dangerous as the libs claim they are that they would be within an arms reach of the POTUS at all times?

I'll take it even further, the Secret Service carry Sig Saur P229's which have NO SAFETY (as most LE does the same) locked and loaded at all times. Meaning as soon as you draw it's ready to be fired. Isn't that "dangerous" and "reckless" according to the left?

A lot of things out there can be used to cause death, it's the reality of life. The most dangerous weapon is an evil persons brain, which is swiftly dealt with by a 5.56mm round

 

the useful idiot liberals, the propagandized ones, the ignorant masses, believe what they are told to believe and hate. but the liberals, the ones pulling the strings, the ones behind the curtain, the puppet masters, the ones who create the narrative and implements the agenda hate guns because they get in their way of ultimate control. you cant control someone who has the ability to fight back. they need a submissive population for their agenda to work

 

I think that if every Jew had been armed that the Holocaust wouldn't have happened

IIRC, the Third Reich specifically banned Jews from owning guns, and they did it for a reason

 

out side of war guns have saved more lives then they have taken

 

So, for example, which 'liberal' governments brought about gun control in Europe? My understanding is that they were pretty much all conservative-the rare conservatives with brains.

 

Not all liberals hate guns. There is a popular liberal gun forum where liberals trash conservatives but lament their own party's efforts to limit guns.

 

So why are cars still legal even though more people die in car wrecks every year than by guns? (Not to mention the indirect deaths that cars cause by contributing to GW).

Sure you'll use the argument that "guns don't have a practical purpose" but cars do, but if you're going by that then why haven't you banned exotic sports cars (Ferraris, Lambos, etc) - since it's not 'legal' on any roadway to go 200+ mph - meaning that sports cars serve no "practical purpose", right...?

- - - Updated - - -

That's a good point, but it's obviously it's primarily individuals on the left who are anti-gun - I'm sure somewhere there's some conservatives that are anti-gun. Either way the stance is based more on emotion and a mentality that "guns are scary" than it is on raw facts

 

Because cars are not designed to kill, perhaps? This argument is entirely spurious. Most cars-even your most basic family saloon-can do well over 100mph even if the speed limit says 55. Sorry, that's just weak.

- - - Updated - - -

Remind us what other function a gun performs other than putting holes in things.

 

Another one of those posts that assumes we liberals hate guns. This is just divisive nonsense. We have guns. We hunt. We target shoot and we know how to use them responsibly. What we also favor is laws that try to make sure that other people with guns are capable of acting responsibly. What part of responsible gun ownership don't you understand?

And don't start that nonsense about the slippery slope that any gun control is just the first step to disarming the entire population so we can't oppose a tyrannical government.

 

Ok but you are talking about professional guards and secret service. I mean, they are paid, and well paid to do a professional service to the state, so the last thing they want to do is to be reckless. But common people with guns could well be reckless, and they proved to be so many times as far as i know. If we were to make a count of the victims, i bet there are more deaths by gun incidents and irresponsible behaviour of people than by armed robbers.

 

Fair, decent good sense expressed above.

Amen!!

 

Intentions DO make a difference. Do you NOT understand why that is AND how it affects the society we live in as a whole?

I mean, that might be a discussion we need to have ALONG WITH the mechanics of death and dying; I'm pretty sure that we need to consider these things.

 

Nope if a person's dead they're dead - if they were killed by a car instead of a gun they're not less "dead"

 

Really. I think you are stereotyping to the nth degree. (Talking nonsense.)

My parents were liberal in some ways and nearly hyper-conservative in others. And we had guns in the home; we were taught that they were not toys or hobbies... but tools to get certain things done. I admit that I had some fascination with the POWER they displayed... but my parents were smart, they regarded HUMAN (not liberal, conservative) NATURE. In that, they instilled the values (to our cores) that compelled us to respect life, death and safety.

Personally, I despise this culture where people collect guns and exude no more seriousness about the same, than one would a collection of matchbox cars. All the enthusiasm in the world... but little that is truly serious about the potential represented there. That is, when it comes to driving a vehicle or even participating in certain sports... a seriousness for what is being endeavored tracks STRONGLY with the activity. But with guns in American culture overall) all you hear/feel about it is how is everyone's damned 'right' to have one; almost as if people are AFRAID to mention the possible or probable negatives involved; we won't mitigate ANY damned problems with guns overall, unless we firmly and diligently communicate more seriousness about them overall.

Guns/ammo are made to accomplish something specific; from what I see, we (Americans) are neither honest nor serious enough about firearms.

We need to change.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope... your commentary is both specious and simplistic.

 

I'm a liberal.

I don't hate at all and certainly don't hate inanimate objects.

I own guns.

I use guns.

Blew your premise out of the water.

 

The last thing I want to do is be reckless as well. I have just as much to lose as any paid "professional" with a gun. People that play stupid games (with guns) win stupid prizes.

You are assuming that I (or any other lawful gun owner) am going to do something reckless/dangerous simply by having a mere inanimate object in the house. You are in essence presuming guilt before anything has been done. Another word for that is "stereotyping"


***I btw did not mean to label all liberals as anti gun people, I realize there are some out there who are actually pro 2A. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

Why is a restriction on guns equal to "hate of guns". Im liberal and I only want to restrict guns. I dont hate guns. I own two.........a rifle for hunting and a pistol for entertainment(target shooting) and protection.
So if restriction of guns means "hate of guns", then what about restricting a human to only being able to vote at the age of 18? Certainly anyone that supports "restricting" voting to this age and above "hates voting"...........if your logic is correct.

Your logic doesn't make sense when carried over to other issues..........where a "restriction" applies. Every single right you have has a restriction. This restriction on guns does not equal hate of guns or complete removal of guns.

 

The problem is.. who assures me that you won't do anything reckless? Because in the case of professional guards and secret service, it is their job to not mess things up, but a private citizen?... anyway, for every responsible gun owner there is at least an irresponsible one, so you both take away guns from everyone or at least restrict their use.

 

You are propagating BS. Thinking people won't buy that nonsense.

 

Why do liberals hate guns?

Because conservatives, in an attempt to defend themselves, are shooting Democrat thugz.

 

In an attempt to communicate, you've expressed something that is STUPID. (Sad.)