I as a Liberal(-ish. My views vary from subject to subject), and while I don't speak on the behalf of all Liberals, I can explain my own personal philosophy.
~I believe that the government is put into place to provide order and structure, and laws should be implemented to protect the freedom of individuals as well as controlling the market.~
This (above) is a simplified version of what every liberal believes.
These personal freedoms include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the freedom to do as you please with your own body (get tattoos, smoke, drink alcohol), freedom to love (same-sex marriage), etc. As long as it does not directly harm another person, it should not be limited or banned (ex. You should be allowed to drink, but as soon as you harm another person or their property while driving drunk, you are sent to prison.)
I am also pro-choice, and while some Conservatives may think this is a contradiction, I don't see it that way. I cannot consider the fetus a "person" unless it has developed certain vital cognitive functions (this does not count for people that have some kind of disability because we know they weren't meant to develop that way) such as feeling pain, so abortion should be allowed in the first trimester. After that, it should be restricted to life-threatening cases in order to protect the natural right to life.
I am against the death penalty because no matter how horrible the criminal, we shouldn't violate their right to life. Criminals should only be killed if absolutely necessary (a crazed killer charging at a police officer, and the officer shooting in self defense).
I believe that the rich should pay higher taxes than the poor because there are basic services that should be provided by the government, and the funds come from the people. If someone is earning enough to where their paycheck can be slashed in half and they can still live a comfortable life (own a house, raise a family, go on vacation) then they should pay a 50% tax. This is not violating their rights because nothing is stopping them from earning more money, the government is simply taking a share for those that can't afford basic necessities.
Those are just a few of my beliefs.
EDIT:
As for your comment about the national anthem, I don't have to stand for it because it is my RIGHT TO DO SO. There is nothing illegal about refusing to stand for it.
(I only stand for it because I would be socially stigmatized if I didn't.)
What IS unconstitutional is the fact that our pledge was edited in 1954 to include god (the first amendment exists for a reason.) (Also yes, I know the anthem and pledge are different.) Once the government decides to obey it's own laws in the most basic form, then maybe I will feel a little patriotic.
The wall shouldn't become a thing.
We could use the money to fix our infrastructure, develop factory jobs in america (they dun took er jerbs!), develop a better healthcare system, or literally anything else that would help people.
Instead we want a monument to our stupidity that can be foiled by a ladder.
You don't want undocumented immigrants? Fine, but look for a solution that actually solves the problem.
(Target corporations that hire illegals, destigmatize those jobs, then hire American people for those jobs.)
Perception of injustice + no real direction or subtlety + Encouragement
A true recipe for disaster.
I'm not going to say that everything they complain about is wrong (police brutality is a real problem), but I can't agree with the way they treat these issues. Anything and everything is chalked up to sexism, racism and any other -ism you can think of. They lack any nuance and THAT is incredibly dangerous.
It would be one thing if they engaged in debates with Conservatives and tried their best to cooperate with the system, helping to develop laws that address their issues, but that isn't what they're doing. I could never join any of those movements simply because they aren't interesting in helping anyone; they aren't looking for solutions, they just want to be outraged.
They scream "kill all cops!" rather than "change the way cops are trained!"
They shout "there isn't enough women in STEM fields!" while they get their gender studies degree.
They cry "there isn't enough representation in x art form!" but never bother to make their own movie, tv show, video game, etc.
...
The point of forming movements is to inspire social and political change, but because they've missed that entire point, they are toxic and appear mentally unstable.
It would be impossible to prove one way or another. That is, unless a god came down from the heavens themselves and demonstrated their existence to the entire human race. Or if there was an actual way to test a god's existence. Or any solid proof at all.
My stance is don't assume something is true unless there is a compelling reason to.
-Most people being religious is not a compelling reason, but a fallacy. (See argument from popularity.)
-The existence of a holy book doesn't prove anything. If I claimed Harry Potter was a prophet you wouldn't believe me, now would you?
-Personal anecdotes mean nothing unless shown otherwise. If I claimed I saw a dragon it wouldn't mean anything unless I brought the dragon with me. (Most of those anecdotes can be explained anyways.)
If you are going to believe in a god, do so because of a logical reason.
It isn't okay to punch anyone, especially unprovoked.
If you just happen to stumble across someone you know is a Nazi, either don't engage them or engage with them peacefully. Punching them is only going to reinforce their own perceptions (ex. If a non-white person punches a Nazi, that person will feel their racism is validated. After all, these people are so violent and mean, so they deserve it!)
Being violent only leads to more violence, and if that Nazi guy has friends you better hope they're not bold enough to defend him. This could lead you beat up and in jail for assaulting someone.
If the Nazi tries to get violent with you first, you have the right to punch them, but try to avoid it if possible.
It is a waste of money.
Regardless of your immigration views, the only thing you would need to get past that wall is a ladder. How could this be practically to control immigration? It isn't.
If you really want to stop illegal immigration, crack down on the corporations that keep hiring them for pennies. Then, and only then will you see the illegal immigration population diminish.
To all Conservatives: At least if you're going to pass a bunch of bs, please do it right.
Some people are far more inclined to believe these sorts of things, especially if they are taught at a young age.
I was raised to be Roman-Catholic, but my mom was never very strict about teaching me religion. In addition, I had the internet at my disposal and a love for questioning things. Over time I just fell off the religion wagon (mainly because I was upset god never spoke to me when I prayed. Later on I would realize there are better reasons to be an Atheist than that, at least.)
If the environment supports and encourages the adoption of religion (and praising it to no end) it is highly likely children raised there will be religious. If the environment is more relaxed like the one I was raised where there is room for skepticism, then you get "Atheistic heathens" such as myself.
One, the website you used was from a lobbying organization. Next time you site something please use a more reliable source.
Two, I'd like to see the statistics backing up this claim (preferably from a government website. Even better if it clearly shows a direct correlation.)
Clearly you are the epitome of wisdom and humility.
When I refer to god I mean "(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."
(http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/
Once again, stop acting cocky and actually prove your point. You are an egomaniac that assumes they don't have to prove anything because it is so obvious. It is not.
Any theist with a bit of sense realizes that this is a complicated issue, and therefore it needs to be discussed further. Please join them.
Maybe instead of acting so cocky you could actually try to use logic?
Atheists don't believe in god because there is a clear lack of proof, so they are not going to just assume that one exists.
(Personal anecdotes are incredibly weak evidence because it is dependent of the individual and there are people all around the world that have claimed to see a number of different gods/goddesses.)
Next time actually try to reach out to them, understand their reasoning and try to find a logical way to convince them. Then and only then will they actually care about the stuff you're spewing out of your mouth.
"Handguns are basically restricted from the general public, only allowing them to a select few who pass rigorous tests and regulations."
That is the point. I only want people that are able to handle a gun and are in the right state of mind to handle a gun.
How could you not prefer a responsible gun owner over any Joe Shmoe off the street?
There is also the false dichotomy that you continue to propagate that any regulation is "keeping guns out of the hands of civilians." Are drivers licences keeping cars out of the hands of citizens too? Is it preventing them from exercising their right to drive?
Tests and regulations are put in place for the safety of the people. I honestly think you overestimate the competence of human beings every time you say something like this.
Even if they only saw him as a danger to himself, don't ignore the fact that someone who clearly shouldn't have access to a gun was given it.
My point was that he should have never had that gun, but they gave it to him because of a stupid loophole in the system. Do not sidestep the fact that these gun laws are not doing enough to protect people (from themselves and others.)
Also, the Fort Hood shooting was at a military base. Some of his victims were armed security personnel.
Second Point:
Let me use abortion as an example of how my statement is not contradictory.
If you ban abortion clinics, abortions are still going to happen, however because you've removed a convenient way to do it they go underground. Women will still try to get abortions, but they will be less effective (especially self performed abortions.)
The same is with guns. People use them more often because they are efficient.
The thing I need you to grasp is that prioritizing health care is a must in order to prevent suicide, which won't happen considering the incompetence of American politicians (they never get to the heart of an issue.)
Please give a source that shows "people's access to guns will have little to no affect on suicide." I need information to work off of or I can't accept your claim.
Also when you make statements like "gun control in Australia had no clearly positive effects on the country's suicide rate", please use statistics to back it up. Because of the way you wrote this it could be interpreted in a number of ways, so write clearly.
Please give a source for your claims, I can't stress that enough.
"...only allowing them to a select few who pass rigorous tests and regulations..."
Yes, that's the point. The only people that should have guns are the ones that know how to use them and are in the right state of mind to use them.
Also you don't seem to understand that guns shows make it very easy to get a gun without needing anything but cash and an ID, so you are being paranoid.
Finally, what doomsday scenario are you even setting this up for? If you're going the "government is going to take over" route, then not even guns can save you. How do you defend against a tank? You don't.
Guns would be useless to protect against the country with the largest military in the world.
I'd say most people would agree that equality of opportunity is fair.
Imagine if there was a class that had to take a test, and if they passed they would be given a reward. Each student has different levels of intelligence, ability to absorb information, etc.
However, the material they are given differed from person to person. Some students are given several textbooks, and some have private tutors. Others have very little information, and others have to teach themselves.
It would be near impossible to have everyone get the same score, and if you did it would be through a lot of unfair means. It wouldn't seem right to have people with varying degrees of worth ethic end up with the same result.
If the students were given access to the same resources, they may not get the same scores but at least now we know it was not due to factors out of their control. Even the student that was bad at memorizing could pass, so now the only problem is figuring out how to get the rest of them to pass as well.
Life, of course, is not so simple. Even so, we make sure that people earn their place in society. In order to do that in real life we need to weed out the corruption so that people can truly have equal opportunity.
It would be unfair to deny women the same opportunities that are given to men, that is just a fact.
You might argue that women are traditionally housewives, but we don't live in the past anymore. We live in a time where we don't need more people (there are BILLIONS OF US), so it isn't required for a woman to take on that role. In addition, women have already shown they can take on the same responsibilities as men, so what is the point of denying them their rights?
They are a part of the workforce, they are taxpayers, and (in case there is a war) they can fight for the country too.
They make up half the population, so why ignore the various benefits they bring to society?
As for gay people, the only thing that makes them different from a straight person is who they are attracted to. I'd like to refer to this video (1) which debunks the major arguments against gay marriage.
Gay people can also provide to society in the same ways I explained for women, so there isn't a point in repeating that.
Sources:
It thought it was clear, wasn't it?
Our global temperature is going up faster than it ever has before and we, in part, are contributing to it. Just because it snows doesn't mean the Earth overall isn't hot.
Keep in mind that 97% of climate scientists (the guys that study this for a living) agree that "Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." (1)
I don't know why some people feel the need to fight so aggressively against this. Even if global warming wasn't happening, what is wrong with taking care of the planet? What is wrong with recycling? What is wrong with using alternative energy?
None of this is harming anyone, and is actually helping a lot of people (animals and plants too.)
Sources:
You could do a great deal more with intelligence than you can with happiness, which includes improving the lives of other people. Of course you would need funding, but if you were a genius you could develop a product and sell that, then use the money for your other projects.
If you really wanted to, you could work with NASA and help explore the universe, which would also be pretty amazing.
A lot of successful people are miserable, but in the process they've improved the lives of other people and the state of their world. I think I'd want to be a part of that.
(Of course intelligence does not automatically mean success, but it paves the road to it. If you aren't already wealthy you would need intelligence and wit to take you there.)
Maybe when I was nine.
But seriously, people tend to grow out of these things when they realize that there is nothing to suggest the existence of a god aside from anecdotal evidence, which I believe is faulty in itself.
Anecdotal evidence is only useful in disputing an unfair generalization (ex. All Canadians are brunettes. "My friend is a blonde and she is Canadian." Done.)
This is a slippery slope argument.
Logical fallacies have no place in a debate, so unless you have solid evidence that this is even possible, why bother bringing it up?
In the U.S., we would literally need to make a new amendment to ban guns. "The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures." (1)
Unless every single Republican suddenly became anti-gun, this would be nearly impossible.
So to answer your question: the NRA and other gun rights lobbyists, the general public, almost every single Republican politician, and even the president.
Let me ask you: what could allow a gun ban to even take place?
Sources:
1.https://www.archives.gov/
First Point
"the Virginia Tech gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, cleared background checks in early 2007 to buy the two semiautomatic pistols he used in the massacre despite having been found by a judge to be a danger to himself in December 2005." (1)
Yes, they did detect that he was a danger to himself and others. How could he still get a gun then? There was a loophole in the system.
Technically, he would've been placed under a list of mentally unstable people banned from receiving a gun, however, since he underwent outpatient treatment he was not put on that list (2). That is how he was able to get a gun.
"Current federal law only bars people who have been involuntarily committed to inpatient mental health treatment or officially adjudicated mentally ill by a court from owning a firearm and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reports veterans to the background check system if they’ve been deemed mentally incompetent." (3) (This was from 2014, which means the law was around for the Fort Shooting as well.)
It wasn't about being able to detect anything, it was about them being able to legally buy a gun despite the danger that they presented.
There are blatant loopholes in our gun laws that make it incredibly easy to buy a gun. Even if you were underage you could legally buy a gun through a gun show, where they don't ask for ID or anything.
Second Point
Again, correlation not causation. I can't say gun control will stop suicide because the two do not have a direct relationship. People can still die despite the laws, but other methods can give a window of opportunity for those that want to help the person. Those two statements are not contradictory.
"Hanging oneself takes only 5-10 seconds for the person to lose consciousness before they die." They lose consciousness, yes, but there is a two minute window there before they get any brain damage, and the actual death is 4-6 minutes (depending on who you ask.)
Not a huge window, but a window nonetheless. What matters is that someone is able to intervene before the person dies. You can't exactly do that with a gunshot to the head (not unless you're really lucky).
"Really, restricting a depressed person's access to a specific deadly weapon won't prevent them from killing themselves..." Which is why I said gun control will NOT stop suicide. Clarifying statements are important.
"Even if they are saved, what is to stop them from attempting suicide a second time?"
Nothing really, unless we reform our mental health system.
Sources:
1.http://www.politifact.com/virginia/
2.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/us/
3.https://thinkprogress.org/
To the first point you made
Pretty much all of my statistics come from the U.S., which is where I live. I can't speak for Australia but I know for certain that the U.S. has more than enough guns (too much, actually.)
For now let me explain the chart you just provided for me. For any ban or regulation, the use of the banned item almost always goes up immediately after. Take note of the fact that by 2010 the rates went back down to what they were before the ban.
There are always going to be consequences, no one is disputing that. On the flip side, Australia was able to lower those armed robbery rates to what they were before, this time without guns in everyone's house.
If the rates would just go back to 5,000~ regardless of whether or not there were guns, then why are they so desperately needed?
Don't just look at half the chart, look at the overall picture.
Second point
"I believe that a citizen with a concealed carry license has prepared themselves for this type of situation." You believe it to be true, but that doesn't mean it is.
A concealed carry license does not mean the person is any more prepared to handle a weapon. I don't know about Australia, but there are plenty of people in the U.S. that run around with guns without understanding how to safely handle one (hell, even some police officers don't know.)
As for more guns=less violent crime, I have point to the U.S. again. (Since we're separated into states it is a lot easier to compare these sorts of things.)
If you look at the states with the highest gun violence rates, many tend to be relaxed with their gun laws (or they border states that are lenient). These states also have high poverty rates and overall high murder rates.
Having guns around does not make these people any more safe. I'd say that decreasing poverty would make them more safe than guns ever could. If you want people to be safe, you need to get to the heart of the issue, and it isn't guns. (Poverty, mental health, health care, job availability, etc. These are what cause people to commit crimes.)
Third point
No one is getting rid of bathtubs because we actually need those to some extent. Unless a gun can be used in everyday life it really isn't necessary to have (unless it is locked in a safe.) In addition, people can take precautions (and have) for bathing their children.
Parents have to watch their children at all times to make sure they don't drown. On the contrary, people can't even be bothered to put their guns in safe places so children can't get to them. I'd hardly say they are similar, even in the context of your comparison.
Guns would save much more lives than they took if we as a society treated them as they are: weapons. All I ask it a bit of restraint on acting so careless; safety exists to stop those accidental/unintentional deaths.
