Why do US conservatives assume that gun control is about a wholesale gun ban? Why can't they fathom that it could be just a ban of automatic weapons?
Could it be that a ban on automatic weapons has been in place since 1933? Could it be that the National Firearms Act of 1933 was the name of that ban? Could it be that this law caused SCOTUS to introduce the common use test in US v Miller? Could it be that the Gun Control Act of 1968 conflicts with the common use test of US v Miller; but SCOTUS has declined to clarify or resolve that conflict at any time in the last forty eight years? Could it be that some people are ignorant enough to be oblivious to all of the above, and the thousands of other gun control laws on the books already; but always want more? Could it be that the earliest gun control laws were a subset of the Jim Crow laws and made no attempt to disguise their racist, bigoted nature; but more recent gun control laws simply hide their bigotry better? Could it be that the poser of the question wishes to promulgate a false dichotomy amongst arbitrary groups of statists, or that the poser of the question is genuinely ignorant of the Liberty community as a whole, presuming that anyone opposed to having their self ownership, and attendant right to defensive tools, must be a “conservative” (I won’t get into why the terms “conservative” and “liberal” are both used in the exact opposite of their historical meanings)?The answer is because gun control can not be a call to ban automatic weapons, since such a law has been in force in the US since 1933. Since a call for a new law that alleges to be about enacting something that is already enacted into law must be fraudulent and actually about some other, concealed, purpose, it therefore follows that no one with any awareness of current law could possibly “fathom that it could be just a ban on automatic weapons” since such a fathoming would be false, fraudulent, and likely delusional.
Why are so many of Harvard’s student body and faculty liberal if this is not a requisite for hiring or admissions?
Thanks for the A2A.I believe that most people age 18–22 are liberal and Harvard’s student body is simply part of that larger trend.It’s probably a good idea to first try to define who is a liberal and who is a conservative. There are a variety of definitions, but I think we can all agree that, for better or worse, liberals prefer personal individual rights over societal order, and they are more open to new ideas versus upholding tradition and the status quo.Using that definition, I don’t think it is surprising to see that people who have been under the control of their parent for the first 18 years of their life tend to highly value personal freedom. Similarly, with less investment in the past (since they weren’t alive back then), it is also not surprising that people 18–22 years old are more open to new ideas and norms regardless of their actual validity.I am less certain about the true reason that faculty tend to be liberal, but here are some of my opinions. On a fundamental level, professors at top universitiesare foremost hired for being top researchers. That is to say, prior to being offered a position at Harvard, faculty members typically have already distinguished themselves in their field of study for exploring new avenues of research and furthering the boundaries of human knowledge. That requires a fair amount of openness to new ideas or at the very least using new techniques to support existing ideas. My intuition is that this not always compatible with being a conservative.On a more mundane level, Harvard is located in the Boston metro area. Large cities, particular those in the Northeast and West, tend to be liberal. As such I would think that conservative scholars are less interested in living there for at least 7–8 years (the length of a tenure track professor) and most often for decades at a time as tenured position are essentially jobs for life. Going back further, to even be considered for a faculty position… a person has to spend a few years as a professor at another university (which typically are also in large cities), and before they they needed to spend a few years as a PhD student. So you are talking about committing to living for a few decades in an area that has opposing viewpoints as you - not to mention that based on the idea of conservatism, I think conservatives in general tend to be less likely to move away the area that they grew up it.I hope this helps.
How do gun supporters justify not supporting gun control laws when the United States has almost six times more gun deaths than Canada, and sixteen times more gun deaths than Germany as well as more privately owned guns than any country in the world?
By actually thinking for ourselves and becoming knowledgable abou guns and history. Simple as that.While the US does have a lot of guns we aren't even in the top 10 of mass shooting when compared to Europe, which is mostly a “gun free zone" where guns are usually legally owned only by the militiary, the police or private security personnel.Number one is Norway with 1.89 mass shooting deaths per million people. France, a country often held up as an example of “gun control" and definitely an anti-gun country, is number 3 at .035 per million people. Switzerland, Finland, Belgium and the Czech Republic have vastly higher mass shooting casualty rates at between . 142 and .123 deaths annually per million people. The US is 11th at .089 , and barely above Austria. the Netherlands, Canadax UK and Germany. When you take out Suicide the US is ranked 35th in the world in gun deaths per hundred thousand people. Worldwide, the US is ranked 35th of 86 countries where reliable data is available.Surprisingly to some, according to research, guns are used to stop crime over 2 million times a year. Subtracting suicides, guns are used in homicides about 18,000 deaths per year in the US. Too many for sure, but it isn't the wild west out there like most of the media and smti-gun groups portray. That is about .0005% of the US population.Interesting enough it takes a lot of digging to find research and data from non-partisan groups. When googling the topic, it takes many pages to go through and dig it out. Very partisan anti-gun groups seem to miraculously appear at the top pages of results. Results from extremely liberal groups like Everytown for Gun Safety, Women against Gun Violence. Brady Campaign, Snopes, Huffington Post, the Washington Post, NY Times, CNN, etc. dominate the search results. Even information from the FBI and NRA are buried behind hundreds of search results. Funny how that works out isn't it? You would think that data from the FBI would be at the front of the result of such a search. But it isn't like Google would be censoring or making things way more difficult on purpose. They said they didn't to Congress and promised. They must be telling the whole truth without an agenda. Aren't they?
Does liberal ideology have a fundamental flaw?
I believe it does. I believe the need to be perceived as noble is the most influential variable of almost every liberal argument. If you look at every major issue, the liberal argument is always the most noble. Unfortunately, sometimes the the most noble answer is "not" the correct one. Only in a "Utopian Society" could liberal ideology successfully be applied. In the real world there are real people. I'm not saying people are evil, but they're not saints either. Legislators should make policy that reflect how people in society actually are, not how they wish they were. When dealing with evils abroad, a strong foreign policy is necessary, in some cases military intervention. Violent dictators, reeking havoc, and threatening stability throughout the world is a serious problem. Liberal ideology almost never includes military force, and is solely based on diplomacy. As if the power of persuasion alone can change the mind of ruthless dictators. But what is noble about killing people? Liberals are against a border fence, and want amnesty for illegal aliens. Every sovereign nation has borders that must be respected for obvious reasons. But what is noble about not allowing people to work and feed their family? Liberal ideology tells us to tax the rich to fund social programs for the poor . The entrepreneur is the most vital part of the economy. They are the job creatures. So common sense would tell you that raising their taxes would make it more difficult for them to expand, or create a business. But what is noble about making sure the rich stay rich? Point being that liberals, for whatever reason, value their own self image to the point where it effects their world views. It's easy to pull at peoples heart strings, and show them the horrors of war, or to compare the lives of the rich and the poor. Only when liberal ideology becomes public policy do you see how counter-productive and dangerous it really is.