A modest hypothesis

[TPaine7]

The evidence:

1) Opposition to concealed carry is focused on people without disqualifying convictions or mental issues--the people who aren't criminal or insane.
2) Places like DC, Chicago or New York that charge exorbitant fees and make it hard to have weapons in the home do so to keep sane and innocent people from having guns to protect themselves.
3) District attorneys, judges, and the legal system get apoplectic at the thought of a decent, non-criminal carrying a gun but shrug off a thug caught with a gun and plea bargain the gun possession away. Even if they don't, a little time in prison with his pals is more street cred to a gang-banger but would ruin an accountant's life. This amounts to disparate sentencing, like sentencing both a fish and a man to spend time underwater.
4) The politicians who resist the Constitution and refuse to allow the innocent to exercise their rights have the resources to know better. Most of them are easily intelligent enough to understand the issues (Sarah Palin is an anomaly.)
5) Nevertheless, politicians in big cities, like a certain thuggish former Chicago mayor, oppose the exercise of rights by the innocent.

What can account for all of these facts in one consistent, logical framework?

The hypothesis:

Politicians are legal crooks. While not--necessarily--breaking the law, they take advantage of the weak, the not-too-bright, and the unfortunate. They practice fraud on the voters. They hire muscle to protect themselves. Many of them flaunt the laws, knowing that their employees aren't in a position to arrest them. Many get away with whatever they can.

Street thugs do the same things, only illegally--or in ways that are more likely to lead to arrest. They too, prey on the weak, the stupid, the unfortunate. They practice fraud. The more successful ones hire muscle. They do whatever they can get away with--and occasionally more.

Many anti-gun politicians know, deep in their souls, that they are they same as the felons they legislate against, judge and campaign about getting tough on. They can't deny the kinship, the bond. Sure, they get called "Your Honor", Mr. Mayor, Senator, or Congressman, but they're just thugs with tittles.

They can't help feeling sorry for their less fortunate or gifted brethren. They know they can't legalize home invasion, rape, murder and armed robbery--that would negatively impact #1. But they can toss their brethren a bone--something to give them a safer working environment. And it has the side benefit of winning thanks from their constituents and increasing their personal political power. Win-win.

I once thought this was a cynical view and a little funny, but there should be holes in it... somewhere, shouldn't there? I'm no longer laughing.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. Occasionally...

...in the 1800's the fellow who got to be sheriff was whatever gunfighter came to town and killed the man who had murdered the last sheriff.
Background checks were somewhat rare for all but the largest towns.

The sheriff was sometimes in charge of tax collection.
If the sheriff actually stayed for awhile and didn't make too many enemies too fast, he'd run for mayor.


What's different today?
We have background checks and most mayors can't hit the broad side of a barn. Maybe sometimes not much else.

[rrneck]

2. Disaster capitalism at work.

For the right its gays, religion, and marriage. For the left it's guns. Whole industries exist for no other purpose but to generate ideology and apologetics to sell to people so they can convert it into chits, otherwise known as votes, to reward the greatest whores on earth. Politicians.

Pay other people to think for you and that's what you get.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. The pros:

They find their way into far too many areas.

Some of the worst problems a man can face can start with a drug dealer.
Addiction, death...

Some of the worst problems a man can face can start with a hooker.
Syphilis, HIV, death...

Some of the worst problems a man can face can start with a mercenary.
Injury, death...

Some of the worst problems a man can face can start with a politician.
Slavery, servitude, death...


...They are all professionals. They are all paid for their efforts, therefore they are not amateurs.

You can give up drugs and hookers but when your politicians start hiring mercs, it's going to be a bad day.

[gejohnston]

3. The onlything I disagree with is that

Sarah Palin is the an anomaly. An extreme example maybe, but I have seen pretty dim politicians. Scott Walker, Jan Brewer, and what's her face that ran against Harry Reid don't exactly strike me as being MENSA members (not that I would either). Then again, maybe they play dumb to keep everyone from noticing that they are being ripped off.

[lawodevolution]

5. The people who run gun control groups play stupid as well

[PavePusher]

7. Only... they're not playing... n/t

[TPaine7]

6. I really wish some of those who disagree enough to unrec

would take the time to reveal the holes in the hypothesis.

It would be nice to see it soundly refuted.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. As the Klingons said about humans:

"You humans only count heads, we Klingons also weigh them."

[TPaine7]

9. Would you break that down for me? n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. The breakdown:

If you're stupid, you still get to vote, but it doesn't mean quite as much.

[TPaine7]

17. Thanks

It being a Klingon saying, I couldn't get past the idea of literally weighing severed heads.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. Only if such voting was...

...by means of a Bat'Leth. ;)

[PavePusher]

24. I'm pretty sure that is one of the several levels of meaning of the "quote".

Klingons are, at heart, great appreciators of irony.

Especially if it is buried in an enemy...

[geckosfeet]

10. Jeez. Where to start. I don't want to waste a lot of time so I will use a format you seem

comfortable with.

The evidence:

1) Opposition to concealed carry is diverse. People have their own reasons. Politicians play to peoples fears - the mentally handicapped, felons, juveniles, physically disabled, people that are different in some way - in order to get votes.
2) Places like DC, Chicago or New York charge exorbitant fees to generate revenue. My guess is that some of the money it is used for election campaigns.
3) District attorneys, judges, and the legal system have their hands tied by the second amendment. They can only oppose so far.
4) The politicians who resist the Constitution and refuse to allow the innocent to exercise their rights are doing what they do in order to protect constituents - and votes.
5) Nevertheless, politicians in big cities, like a certain thuggish former Chicago mayor who try to protect their citizens sometimes go about it in the wrong way.

To suggest that politicians and legal apparatus oppose firearm free-for-alls in their cities in order to protect criminals (because they are criminals?) is absurd.

I believe that politicians do what they think will get them elected. Sometimes that means they oppose pro-firearms legislation and pander to the anti-gun community. Sometimes they support pro-firearms legislation and pander to the pro-gun community. They go with the odds. As long as they get enough votes to be elected they are happy. That means a lot of people are on the short end of the stick.

I don't think it's as incestuous or ominous as you make it out to be. Lighten. Up. Go to the range.

[TPaine7]

12. Hmmm...

1) Opposition to concealed carry is diverse. People have their own reasons. Politicians play to peoples fears - the mentally handicapped, felons, juveniles, physically disabled, people that are different in some way - in order to get votes.

Politicians pander and their constituents have diverse reasons for opposing rights. I can't argue with you there. I can only say that the hysteria that some politicians exhibit goes beyond garden variety pandering. What about when hizzoner Mayor Daley threatened to shove a gun up a reporter's ass for asking about how gun control was working in Chicago to stop shootings? (The reporter was even a true believer in gun control!) Simple pandering won't explain that.

2) Places like DC, Chicago or New York charge exorbitant fees to generate revenue. My guess is that some of the money it is used for election campaigns.

DC officials sly responses when asked if they were trying to make it diffucult to own a gun and statements by Daley about being "tough" say something different. Greed is apparently a secondary motive, and that's saying something.

3) District attorneys, judges, and the legal system have their hands tied by the second amendment. They can only oppose so far.

There's nothing in the Constitution mandating treating accountants with perfect criminal records more harshly than gang-bangers for the same "crime." At least not that I can find.

4) The politicians who resist the Constitution and refuse to allow the innocent to exercise their rights are doing what they do in order to protect constituents - and votes.

There is no evidence that resisting the Constitution actually protects their constituents. The CDC and Department of Justice have basically said as much. Neither incompetence or stupidity are truly defenses, as neither can justify defying the Constituion they took an oath to uphold.

5) Nevertheless, politicians in big cities, like a certain thuggish former Chicago mayor who try to protect their citizens sometimes go about it in the wrong way.

You actually believe that Daley cares about "his citizens"?

To suggest that politicians oppose firearm free-for-alls in their cities in order to protect criminals is absurd.

Cities with shall issue CCW are not firearms free-for-alls. Certain areas of Chicago definitely are. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Insanity alone explains the belief of a Chicago mayor that strict gun control will make things better or that allowing honest citizens to carry will make the place a firearms free for all.

[geckosfeet]

15. And we could go back and forth untill the cows come home. But I have a couple comments.

Consider two extremes. First, no gun control (gun free-for-all). Second, extreme gun control (no guns legally available).

IMO neither will suppress criminal gun related activity. Criminals will obtain and use guns no matter what.

More guns means more accidents, more gun theft, more gun abuse. A complete absence of guns would logically yield fewer gun accidents, fewer gun thefts, less gun abuse.

In reality neither is going to happen.

BTW - WTF is a "perfect criminal record"? Is that the same as no criminal record?

By resisting the constitution, I presume you mean advocating gun control. I do not see an equivalency there.

Have a good one.

[TPaine7]

16. I guess we could.

BTW - WTF is a "perfect criminal record"? Is that the same as no criminal record?

No disqualifying convictions.

By resisting the constitution, I presume you mean advocating gun control. I do not see an equivalency there.

Legislating against, for example, carrying under the influence is legitimate; requiring people to get a permit to carry concealed that can be rejected at a sherrif's whim and forbidding the open carry of loaded weapons (or totally forbidding the carry of arms) is resisting the Constitution.

Have a good one.

Thanks. You too!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

11. Any specific example of politicians you have in mind?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Euromutt]

19. I think there's a more "innocent" explanation

Just over week ago, in the thread DanTex (who has since gone remarkably quiet) started about Cory Booker, I remarked:

Big cities are more likely to have high levels of crime, simply because that's where the highest concentration of victims/customers is. But the tendency of mayors to favor tighter gun control isn't because gun control is an effective means of crime control--it's not--but because gun control measures are one of the few things city governments are capable of effecting. They can't pass ordinances that are guaranteed to improve the local economy or raise tax revenue, but absent a state pre-emption law, they can restrict gun ownership. And when those (invariably) fail to work, the city governments can blame the rest of the state, or the next state over, or some other part of the country; wherever the gun laws are more lax.

Regarding your point 3), that's simply a case of the drunk looking for his house keys under the street light (even though the keys aren't there, but the light is better): it's easier to extract compliance with the law from those who have something to lose if caught breaking it. It's like how the TSA's way of handling things has evolved not towards actually providing security, but to extract compliance; if you "opt out" of the full-body scanners, for example, the way you're subsequently searched is (unconsciously) designed to to detect contraband items, but to make you think reluctant to opt out again.

I think local governments behave the way they do because it's easier to accept being effective at a pointless job than being ineffectual trying to do something useful.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. A law problem.

Politicians are not generally smarter than anyone else. They are not social scientists but they do sometimes play at that a bit. They do tend to be lawyers. As I see it knowing the law gets you credibility among your peers as a law-maker.

Once elected, I think there exists, sometimes an unconscious but mostly, a very deliberate predisposition toward good press that will get you re-elected. (Que the gun-control legislation.) It is a bit of a no lose topic. Many are in favor in a big way. Even those mostly against are in favor of some laws. This seems to encourage the gradual evolving legislative "stew-pot" we have today. Some places have laws that date back decades, which may not be very relevant, and then experience "knee-jerk" events. (More laws of questionable utility that are decidedly unconstitutional show up.)

I believe lots of politicians wrongly view their role as being to look for societal issues and problems with the plan of writing new laws to address them. As legislators, they are in the position of the carpenter who has only a hammer and everything is starting to look like a nail.

[TPaine7]

21. Thanks, Euromutt

It appears that you have accounted for all of the facts, and that the human flaws you used in your accounting--taking apparently strong action where they can and making a big deal out of trifling threats to impress the weak minded--are easier to accept than even unconscious identification with other, less successful crooks.

I'm not convinced that my hypothesis is totally false, but yours probably accounts for the bulk of the evidence.

Sometimes it's good to be wrong.

[spin]

22. Laws which are merely words on paper are cheap ...

and it's fairly easy to pass laws that restrict gun ownership for honest people who will obey them. If you are a politician, you may be able to gain reelection because many voters will believe that you are serious about reducing crime.

The real solution to the problem may well be better and more proactive policing and a judicial system that treats violent crime or the illegal carrying of firearms to be serious violations of the law. Unfortunately such approaches require the expenditure of tax money for more police and more prisons. Increasing the taxes can derail your chances for reelection.

The problem is that when all your efforts prove fruitless in reducing crime your voters may insist on a more effective approach. Many states across our nation have adopted "shall issue" concealed carry and such laws as castle doctrine, "take you gun to work", and "stand your ground". While it's hard to prove statistically that these laws actually reduce violent crime, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that they often save lives.

Of course, if you are a very liberal politician in an area with draconian gun laws most people have little understanding of firearms and associate them with the crime they see in their neighborhoods. They simply fear people with firearms and are unable to understand that an honest person who has a firearm for home protection or has passed the requirements to get a concealed carry permit is rarely a problem. Your voters believe guns are bad and people with guns are evil. This is a simplistic idea but to people who have rarely known anyone who legally owned a firearm it it understandable. If the media was more honest people would understand the issue of gun control and be able to form more rational opinions. Unfortunately much of the media is very liberal and all too often believes that it would be far better if we preserved the First Amendment but do away with the Second Amendment. They are willing to distort the facts and often lie because they honestly believe that an unarmed society would be a safer society.

To be fair to liberal politicians, they are elected to represent those who voted for them and if the voters oppose firearm ownership they should reflect the views of their voters.

Times are changing. Perhaps as many as 10 million people now have concealed carry permits and while a very few are involved in tragic incidents or misuse their weapons in a criminal manner, this has proven to be extremely rare. Many people now personally know a person who has a carry permit and unlike the stereotype gun owner often portrayed by the media they find the people with carry permits they know to be entirely rational and nonthreatening. As they talk to gun owners they find that much of the information that they have learned from the media is totally false. Americans resent being lied to. That's probably why the influence of organizations such as the Brady Campaign has diminished significantly in recent years.

[Howzit]

23. In summary; any politician who doesn't trust the people who voted them into office enough...

In summary; any politician who doesn't trust the people who voted them into office enough to be OK with said people owning guns, is not worthy of the Peoples' trust!