The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Let's start with a few facts about guns and shootings and deaths.

Lately, there have been far too many shootings of innocent people by crazy people. We can go back to Virginia Tech or Tucson, Ariz., or look just recently to Aurora, Colo., and to Wisconsin and the Sikh Temple.

Too many crazy, homicidal people have lethal weapons. And you might say there should be very strict gun control - and for crazy people, there should be.

On the other hand, you might look at this little set of facts.

In Sandpoint, North Idaho, where I live for most of the summer, it's extremely easy to buy a gun. You can buy them at stores and at gun shows, or just at yard sales. Yet there are almost no gun deaths in Bonner County, Idaho.

The last ones of note in North Idaho were done by the FBI at Ruby Ridge, and that's a different story.

On the other hand, in my beloved Los Angeles, where I live most of the year, there's extremely strict gun control. It's a real project to buy a gun. ~ Ben Stein

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57 ... shootings/

Taken in isolation, his editorial is within the realm of the reasonable. (Saying this does not mean that I have no objection to some of his statements in this specific editorial.)

The problem though is that if you listen to his other editorials, you quickly realize that Ben Stein opposes those policies which would manage society so as to decrease crime and favors those which would increase crime.

Correlation does not equal causality.

Population density and poverty levels may have more to do with it.

Correlation you mean

Ben Stein is only slightly not crazy, btw.

Inquisitor wrote:Correlation you mean

Ben Stein is only slightly not crazy, btw.

Yes I was more concerned about the spelling of causality, that I goofed.

Talk about the proverbial broken clock moment...

lemur wrote:...Ben Stein opposes those policies which would manage society so as to decrease crime and favors those which would increase crime.

Such as? Forgive me, I don't watch much Ben Stein, I do not own a TV anymore.

Thanks, TK

troutkiller wrote:

lemur wrote:...Ben Stein opposes those policies which would manage society so as to decrease crime and favors those which would increase crime.

Such as? Forgive me, I don't watch much Ben Stein, I do not own a TV anymore.

My wife likes to watch that CBS Sunday Morning show so I get to get a dose of Ben Stein every now and then. I have not kept notes or a scorecard of his various positions. What I do know is that I usually cringe at his editorials because he expresses policy opinions that would weaken the social fabric. But heck, fair is fair. I got a few surprises from the Internet. He expresses the opinion that the rich should be taxed, which is surprising as I've heard him rant in no uncertain terms against Obama letting a tax cut for the rich expire. Here's evidence that he favors taxing the rich:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestof ... es-mpg.cnn

And he's expressed opinions in favor of universal health care, again a surprise:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ben-stein-on ... t-economy/

But apparently health care is a hoax to gain control of society (so is climate change):

http://www.politicususa.com/Ben-Stein.html

Maybe his opinion on health care changed from 2009 to 2012. Maybe he says some things on CBS and other things elsewhere because that helps drum up controversy (and ratings). This hypothesis of mine is not novel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein

Business commentator Henry Blodget wrote a piece for Business Insider in January 2008 entitled "Ben Stein is an Idiot," stating that Stein's criticism of those with bearish views and positions on the market was either "delusional," or a deliberate and "shrewd" attempt to create false controversy and drive up web traffic.

But there are some positions I remember him expressing for which I have no evidence that he changed his mind, or that he's playing the audience:

- Anti-legal abortion. Yep, force a woman to raise a child, even when she can't even take care of herself (e.g. drug addict). Assuming the child survives, a life of crime is the likely outcome.

- Climate change denier. Consequently, there's no reason to avert global warming. Ah, yes because when the shit truly hits the fan resource-wise, we're all going to hold hands and distribute whatever is available equitably. More likely, some people will use force to get what they want.

Ben Stein also claimed that george w bush is the smartest man he ever met. He needs to widen his circle of acquaintances.

eelj wrote:Ben Stein also claimed that george w bush is the smartest man he ever met. He needs to widen his circle of acquaintances.

True, and he's a creationist. There's plenty to object to.

I was trying to focus on the opinions of his that have a fairly direct social policy component to them.

Yeah, Ben Stein is not someone I would hold up as a champion of well, logic. As Lemur pointed out, he has held multiple positions on the same issue, within a time frame that would suggest that he is either crazy (possible), or seeking attention and fame (likely).

His conclusion may be correct (although that is just my opinion) but his methodology for drawing that conclusion is ridiculous. It is along the same line of argument as when people say that the US should be compared to Switzerland in relation to guns per capita and gun crimes. The point is that Los Angeles is as different from Sandpoint, Idaho as the US is from Switzerland. The demographics and relationship to guns is completely different.

My hypothesis is that more and stricter gun laws may in fact make a difference in reducing gun violence, but that anything short of significantly, and I mean extremely limiting the number of existing guns. That would mean some kind of confiscation which would mean a great deal of resistance and a breakdown of trust and respect for government authority. attempting to trim away at the edges or set up registration and licensing schemes will do little to nothing to stem any violence.

Instead, the change has to be with our relationship to each other and to guns. This means attempting to alleviate factors that contribute to the decision to use violence as a means of expression or obtaining some desired result. That means education about guns and realistic depiction of what they do and how to use them properly. The above is a transformational and complex process, but again, short of a massive confiscation of existing firearms and a complete reduction in new firearms, it is what will work to decrease violence.

Caliman73 wrote:Instead, the change has to be with our relationship to each other and to guns. This means attempting to alleviate factors that contribute to the decision to use violence as a means of expression or obtaining some desired result. That means education about guns and realistic depiction of what they do and how to use them properly. The above is a transformational and complex process, but again, short of a massive confiscation of existing firearms and a complete reduction in new firearms, it is what will work to decrease violence.

This will take generations but can work. There needs to be societal benefits for gun owners to seek training as well as making that training as easy to get to as possible. This is where membership based organizations can be a huge asset. Using force of law requirements will produce 'meets the bare minimum' results. Ideally there would be a network set up where ammo and accessories could be discounted after someone attends training supplied with their firearms purchase and successful completion of the class. This is something that I am contemplating if I get around to getting my FFL/01 and setting up a shop.