Scott Adams on gun control

[Angel Eyes]

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146307088451/why-gun-control-cant-be-solved-in-the-usa

On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.

On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.
...
So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats.

Flippant remarks aside, he makes some good points about differing risk profiles. 

My favorite quote:

If we had a real government – the kind that works – we would acknowledge that gun violence is not one big problem with one big solution. It is millions of people with different risk profiles voting their self-interest as they see it.

However, I disagree with his final paragraph, for obvious reasons:

So stop acting like one side is stupid. Both sides of the gun issue are scared, and both have legitimate reasons to be that way. Neither side is “right.”

[Ron]

His point is neither side is right in that they/we "feel" the way they/we do based upon their/our presuppositions or world view.

Not to mention he is a an atheist who believes we are nothing more than soft robots. He is not the guy to go to for ethical or moral guidance.

While I don't subscribe to his view of (ultimate) reality his writing is interesting due to his observations about human nature (we're sheep). I've been reading his blog pretty regularly and also grabbed his latest book.

[dm1333]

But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”

At least he admits his team has a lot to be blamed for.

[230RN]

At least he admits his team has a lot to be blamed for.

Yes, yes.  I perceive this as an example of the general slow and gradual shift towards the right generally in this country, including WRT "gun control."

I suspect, but cannot prove, that he's actually gradually shifting his viewpoint without unconsciously upsetting his leftist socialist Californian outlook too much.

Or, he's really rightist at root anyhow and gradually modifying his presentation that way so as to not upset a large proportion of his readership too quickly.  Like ~half.

Personally, I think blogs are dangerous things, to be handled by the user with the same care as a half pound of nitrogen iodide.

Meaning, not at all.

Just noodling around.

Terry

[cordex]

[AJ Dual]

He's coy about his political leanings, but from what he has said, he's really "Libertarian-Right without the crazy stuff".

All the "I'm a Democrat" talking points is a long-running joke that he's a Democrat and endorses Hillary for his personal safety, noting with tongue in cheek pragmatism all his death threats have come from Bernie and Hillary supporters, and none from Republican or Trump ones.

His only real failing or conceit is that he keeps hammering on the notion "If only both sides could be realistic and "do what works" as defined by some objective standard." etc.

Not really ever grasping that "the process" works in a kinda-sorta way (or, depending on your view "at least fails more slowly" than others) due to the opposition and obstructionism both sides throw in each other's face.

People who would govern in such a rational manner either aren't attracted to politics in the first place, or they often don't progress to higher office past the local level.

[MechAg94]

Gun Control isn't a problem in the first place so of course it can't be solved.  The confusion with gun control is doing what works involves essentially doing nothing.  Many people can't handle doing nothing.  The issue is freedom.  If there is no overriding reason to limit something, it shouldn't be restricted and people should be able to do what they want. 


Of course, the people pushing this stuff know good and well it won't help.  They want it for other reasons.

[MechAg94]

It is interesting that he starts out by saying Republicans use guns for sport and self defense while Democrats use guns to shoot Republicans (and each other actually).  Then at the end he says that neither side is right.  Might be too subtle for the gun control crowd.