Why are Weapon Restriction Laws considered Liberal?

Question

Why are Weapon Restriction Laws, such as Gun Control Laws, considered liberal, while a lack of restrictions is considered conservative?

In most cases, it appears that laws and policies which grant personal freedoms and ease restrictions are seen as liberal, while the opposing viewpoint of asserting heavier restrictions for some intended good is conservative. This is the pattern for many topics, including: abortion, gay rights, immigration, doctor-assisted suicide, etc.

Yet, gun control politics (and other related issues of weapon ownership, self-defense, etc) are the opposite of this; liberal beliefs are about lowering the amount of weapons available to the individual and in overall society, while the conservative stance is about granting more freedom of ownership. Why do these stances not follow the same pattern?

Answer 1

Labels like "conservative" versus "liberal" or "left" versus "right" are often applied to larger-scale political movements, parties or ways of thinking, without every single detail being thrown into the mix. The labels mean different things in different environments anyway: what is called "right wing conservative capitalist" in some European countries might well be perceived as "left wing liberal communist" in the United states.

In the case at hand, the point of view on gun laws simply seems to roughly follow the political distinctions of "liberal" versus "conservative" in the way that "conservative" politicians tend to not want to change the existing (perceived by many, liberal) gun laws. Not wanting to change them is indeed conservative, even if the laws themselves may be considered liberal.

Of course, the distinction "liberal" versus "conservative" is a strange one. After all, a liberal idealist living in a liberal country would probably be conservative - meaning they don't want to change the status quo. It just goes to show how those labels get thrown at things, and once they stick, change their meaning.

Answer 2

This mostly had to do with (as usual, confusing) political terminology and branding.

• "Liberal" in USA has several meanings, mainly, either (1) "classical liberal" (which in USA is typically branded as "libertarianism" - although it's still called plain "liberalism" in Europe where the term originated); and, wholly independently, (2) "political liberal" - which is a self-made late 20th century^[1] rebrand of what used to be called "progressive" (and can be loosely branded "left wing" at times, but personally I absolutely abhore single-axis left/right positioning) position.

  This terminology confusion is the source of what you're wondering: weapon restriction is a progressive/left-wing/political-liberal position. NOT "rights based" classical liberal one.

• Additionally, your question seems very confused about what "conservative" means. "asserting heavier restrictions for some intended good is" has pretty much nothing to do with Conservatism, aside from some rare cases where said intended good was already restricted 200 years ago and therefore conservative position is to continue that (restricted pharmacology comes to mind - which of course happens to be one of the main differences in position between libertarians and conservatives).

  You give several examples where conservative position seems to be "in favor of restriction of good", but with one notable exception (gay marriage), none of those examples are a good fit - two of the prominent ones (pro-life and anti-euthiasia positions) for conservatives are about protection of life which takes precedence over any other freedoms, and are no more about restricting goods than a position that murder should be illegal is about restricting "freedom to commit crime". Immigration isn't about restricting freedom either; but about balancing different freedoms (freedom of people wishing to enter the country as expression of their freedom of association; vs. freedom of people already citizens of the country, as expression of their freedom of association AND freedom of property).

_{[1] - Ironically, many true liberals in classical liberalism sense are currently trying to re-brand things back, by reclaiming "liberal" label for their left-libertarian positions (one of the most notable examples is Dave Rubin), while branding former-progressives-now-called-"liberals" as "progressive" again, on the basis that current US progressive movement is claimed by many to be against many individual rights and the basis of classical liberalism}

Answer 3

At the start, your analogies don't work. You're errantly assigned the majority of the opposition to the liberal viewpoint to conservatives.

Abortion: While the liberal position is about extending the personal freedom of the woman involved, the conservative viewpoint is about protecting the freedoms of the unborn. In this argument, the liberal opinion discards the freedoms of the vulnerable in favor of the woman. Yes, the scientific question of when in gestation the lump of cells is a human. There are other viewpoints, mostly influenced by religious doctrine or individual morals, and while they may originate from the right, they don't represent a conservative opinion.

Gay Rights: While the liberal position wants to increase the recognition of the individual rights of LGBT folks, the conservative position is about protecting the individual rights of everyone. Further, strong conservative position wants to know why the government is involved in the recognition of 'marriages' to begin with; leave marriages to the individual and their chosen organization, and only focus on an orderly protection of the contracting/association rights between those individuals. Once again, it is the insertion of religious and moral doctrine that poisoned the well here; first by creating tax incentives to encourage marriage, followed by attempting to legislate religious codes of conduct by barring others from the benefits of marriage. This established a violation of the individuals right to equal protection by the law. The conservative view point is concerned about the violation of rights held by others, especially when the government monopoly on force is used as a cudgel. The Baker/Florist/Photographer/etc. should not be forced, under the threat of legal persecution, to service an event they'd rather not. This follows the foul legal precedent of public accommodation, which erases the right to associate, or enter into contracts, of the individual business operator. What others do in their own lives really doesn't affect me.

Immigration: The liberal position is about the notion of allowing the American Dream to all comers, while the conservative position favors those immigrating legally. There are nationalist viewpoints from the right that want to harden the borders, favoring those already here, with more extreme bents focused on the demographics of those coming in. For the conservative how ever, it is about enforcing the rule of law.

Doctor-Assisted Suicide: The liberal position is supportive of empowering the individual to make a quality of life choice, and to die with dignity. The conservative concern is the risk empowering the government to establish a mechanism that 'grant' an assisted suicide request, and the associate threat that poses to the others who lives could be bureaucratically devalued. The extraneous moral arguments are influenced by the morals of those making them.

On Gun Rights

The liberals, as the term is applied in these United States, put forth gun control as a treatment for the impacts of other societal ills. The conservative opposition is about the protecting the individuals rights, as codified in the Constitution.

Answer 4

Not just guns

In the United States, liberals believe in higher taxes and spending on social priorities. Conservatives want lower taxes and social spending.

In campaign finance in the US, liberals want restrictions to how much campaigns can raise from individuals. Conservatives are against restrictions.

Even in areas like gay rights, the freedom/restrictions dichotomy is not as clear as you make it out to be. Take the cake baking issue. You can view this as absolute freedom for people to buy cakes saying anything they want anywhere they want. Or you can view it as a removal of religious freedom and freedom of speech from those who disagree. How you view it probably depends on which freedoms you find more important: gay rights or religious rights.

Words changing meaning

The obvious definition of liberal (from Dictionary.com) is:

5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression

But note that that is the fifth definition. Contrast with

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

But those principles contradict each other. If the government guarantees individual rights and liberties, it has to restrict the freedom of the individual to do so.

Gun control

Gun control is an attempt by the government to guarantee the right of an individual not to be shot by a gun. But it operates by restricting individuals from owning and using guns. Where it is most successful it does so rather extremely.

For example, in Japan, just carrying a gun or a bullet is illegal without a special permit which is very difficult to get. And more importantly, in Japan, there is no exclusionary rule. Any successful search is a good search and can be used in evidence. So the police do not have to show probable cause. This makes finding illicit guns (or bullets) easier. Japan is so successful at this that not even the police carry guns.

Is Japan a police state? Many thinks so. Does that make it liberal or conservative in your book?

Party divisions

Democrats are liberal and left-wing. Republicans are conservative and right-wing. So we make the words match the actual ideologies as practiced rather than intellectual definitions.

In the US, Democrats are primarily an urban party while Republicans are a rural and suburban party. Republicans have next to no representation in urban areas. Democrats have better representation in rural and especially suburban areas.

In urban areas, there are large police forces and active police who are not far away. Firing a gun tends to be illegal because bullets can travel through walls and hit others. People are more worried about bullets that miss their target and hit someone uninvolved. Such people value gun free zones.

Rural areas tend to include hunters and people who are less worried about being attacked by guns and more worried about invasion of their home. Such people value easy access to guns.

Suburban areas are something of a compromise. They have fewer problems with crime in general. But they have higher density and more risk to firing guns. Many suburbs were formerly rural areas. Long time residents may think more rurally. Newer residents may have moved from urban areas to get more room and raise a family. For that matter, some suburbs are actually quite urban, only separated from adjacent cities by arbitrary borders.

Gun freedoms are more of a rural issue than an urban issue. Gun control is more of an urban concern than a rural concern. So the group that finds gun control important is the urban, liberal group. While the group that finds gun freedoms important is the rural, conservative group.

You can see the same pattern in gay rights. The urban, liberal group values the rights of gay people to do things more than they value the rights of religious people to not do things. Thus, they favor positively forcing people to write messages with which they disagree on cakes. The rural conservatives value their religious rights and freedoms more.

Ideology

The truth is that most people are not that ideological. Instead of constructing intellectual justifications, most people make political decisions emotionally. Urban people are more worried about being shot by criminals than losing the guns they mostly don't own. Rural people are more concerned about losing guns they do own than rare instances of crime committed with them.

Any ideological explanation tends to come after those decisions are made. First there is an emotional reaction. Then there is a rationalization.

Answer 5

For a whole host of reasons (reasons that are best suited being listed in an answer to a different question), conservatives congregate in suburban and rural settings. Liberals are in urban and metropolitan areas.

Princeton Historian Kevin Kruse, made this point succinctly:

"There are certain things in which the physical nature of a city, the fact the people are piled on top of each other, requires some notion of the public good," he said. “Conservative ideology works beautifully in the suburbs, because it makes sense spatially".

Now guns in cities and guns in the countryside represent very different things.

In the country if you have a gun you probably use it to feed your family, fill up your friends' second freezers with venison, and you might need it to deal with foxes invading your chicken coop. It may be quiet living, but dangers still exist. Having a gun in the house is the rural equivalent of 911. Sure you can go ahead and dial 911, but no one is going to get there in time to save you from the serial killer in clown face trying to break in your bathroom window.

On the other hand, in the city, guns are totally for blowing someone's head off. The first time you hear gunshots you'll think it's firecrackers until you realize, hey, I don't think those drug dealers are celebrating a successful sale with a fireworks display. Depending on the city, you might even get to watch a shootout between a nut job in body armor and a bunch of cops.

In other words, if you see a gun in the city, it means something bad is about to happen. [paraphrased]

Guns fit into the conservative lifestyle, so they have them and like them. Guns don't fit into the liberal lifestyle, so they dislike them and want to keep them far away. Ideology -- believing in restricting or creating more freedom -- doesn't create this divide. Simple practicality does.

Answer 6

I think the important factor here is self-reliance. Basically - and I admit this is simplistic, but I'm not into writing a political text this morning - liberals (in the contemporary US sense) are about communalism and having the government take care of everyone, while conservatives think the government should protect the country, and let individuals take care of themselves.

So liberals think that if someone is the victim of a crime, they should wait around for the police to show up. If they want to eat meat, they should buy it at the store instead of hunting. (That's of course excluding the fringe who think everyone should be vegetarian.) The attitude goes beyond guns: you'd get basically the same attitude if you defend yourself with improvised weapons or bare hands, or if you bow hunt.

It goes into other areas, too, for instance the liberal desire for government-funded health care, or other social programs, versus the conservative belief that the primary responsibility should rest with the individual.

Answer 7

In the US, the democrat party has lobbied for restrictions. The republican party tends to lobby for removal of restrictions. Right or wrong, the term 'liberal' is often used generically to refer to the democrats (just as 'conservative' is often used generically to refer to the republicans).

It's just a wedge issue that both parties have taken stances on.

It should be noted that not all democrats are for restrictions and, in fact, most southern democrats have to be against it given the NRA is a very strong lobbying group and does have sway with voters in certain regions.

And it should also be noted that not all republicans are against restrictions.

It's just, in general, the two parties have taken a particular side on this issue.

Answer 8

First thing to realize is that in the United States the term "liberal" is applied differently than in other countries. In most countries, specifically, in Europe, "liberal" means a right-wing politician that stands for small government, low taxes and privatization, while in the US "liberal" usually means a left-wing politician that stands for bigger government.

That said, increased gun control is a left-wing measure that calls for greater government control and less private property rights.

So, in the US those who are advocating it, being more left-wing, would be called "liberals" while in Europe and the rest of the world, liberals would be those who calls for free civil gun possession.

Answer 9

First off, political labels like "conservative" and "liberal" are generalizations - not every person or every policy promoted by a "conservative"/"liberal" will necessarily fall neatly into a given box.

However, you can make broad generalizations about the labels, and their general philosophy. You've just misinterpreted what the key distinction between conservatives and liberals is. The main difference between the two isn't their approach to regulation and freedom (which is more the libertarian/authoritarian spectrum) - the core difference between conservative and liberal is their view of the status quo and their philosophy toward change.

Conservatives, like their name suggests, tend to favor the status quo. They like things how they are, and generally support measures which they believe will either preserve the status quo or will return society to a (real or imagined) "better time". Sweeping generalization, but conservatives view the past through rose colored glasses.

Liberals, on the other hand, along with the closely related "progressives", tend not to be so enamored of the past. They put their faith in the future (in progress). Historically this has been associated with liberalization of laws (granting people more freedom), but liberals aren't necessarily against introducing more restrictions, if they help in the goal of progress and making a (real or imagined) "better time" in the future. Sweeping generalization, but liberals view the future through rose colored glasses.

---

It's in that light you can view the various issues you bring up. Gun control is a liberal cause because liberals (in the US) imagine a better future where gun control will reduce gun deaths. Conservatives (in the US) oppose gun control because they favor the semi-historical viewpoint of rugged individualism of the Wild West, and they respect the traditions of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees the right to bear arms, and they want to maintain the status quo of not prohibiting/controlling gun ownership.

For abortion and doctor-assisted suicide, it's the same dichotomy. Conservatives oppose them because they're traditionally been illegal, and also go against "traditional values". Liberals imagine a better future where safe, legal, effective abortion/assisted suicide will alleviate suffering and reduce some of the horrors of the past associated with these practices when they were illegal. Similarly with gay rights. Liberals imagine a bright future where gays are no longer stigmatized, whereas conservatives fear that increasing gay rights will change things and erode "traditional family values".

If you look beneath the surface of a lot of these liberal/conservative differences, you'll often (but not always) see the conservative position rooted in fear of the future and longing for a return to a (real or imagined) better past, whereas the liberal position is rooted in a distain at an unjust past and a longing for a (real or imagined) better future.

Answer 10

The premise of the question is not entirely accurate. I have read the other answers as they try to explain that liberal and conservative have to do with the amount of freedoms or control. They do not. The spectrum, in America, has to do with how far away control is from a the perspective of the person. That is: Should governing of a certain aspect of a population lay in local or federal level of politics.

That is different from the ideologies of Liberal or Conservative. The confusion come from trying to fit those ideologies into the spectrum. Further confusion comes from the center of the spectrum changing depending on point of view and time.

Back to the question about why it seems Liberalism is in favor of gun control. It is because the ideology of Liberalism posits that the individual should be free to pursue their own happiness without undue burdens. This is the ideal behind single payer health care (No worries about which plan to buy and how to fund it), abortion right (no worries about making a mistake in procreation), free immigration (no worries about being excluded), etc. Lack of gun control oppresses this freedom because if some people can get guns, a person has to either also get a gun or will fear that he will be at a disavantage when confronted by another individual with a gun.

The common denominator of Liberalism is that all these ideals actually require giving more power to the government in order to ensure those ideals. The extra power is needed because most liberal ideals are not easy to implement. Take "fairness" in wages: the natural state is to pay wages based on a person's production and supply of skills. In other words, the lowest skill people are very common and produce the least. Therefore, laws need to be enacted that will guaranteed a living wage to anyone of that low skill. When laws are created then there needs to be a mechanism of enforcement and therefore penalties if the law is not carried out.

Gun control laws are very similar. There is a government agency that will enforce gun control, various regulations such as background checks and waiting periods require even more government to do the checks and enforce the regulations. The freedom from dealing with gun owners require a lot of government.

Answer 11

It is a mistake to believe "liberal" and "conservative" have a meaning in relation to how they're used to designate individuals as members of a particular political party.

The modern day Republican party is an amalgam of several groups - at least, today - with pretty different views on many things. Fiscal conservatives (who want lower taxes and lower government spending) are the face of the party, to some extent, but the Christian Conservatives are a significant block (the former Southern Democrats); they were added in the late 1960s through the 1980s slowly over time as the Democratic Party shed some of its ties to the area in favor of stronger ties to the urban centers. The semirural and rural industrial workers and farmers also make up a significant part of the coalition, with some overlap but really a very different set of core interests.

Gun control, abortion, and gay marriage are three areas that the latter two groups agree on. The fiscal conservatives - who largely make up the party leadership, but probably would prefer not to support those positions - are aware that this is the price they pay for the coalition, and don't mind too terribly much giving in on these positions. Were they to give up gun control, you'd likely see some of the rural and semirural industrial workers and farmers leave the party for third parties and/or simply stop being involved in the political system.

They're also very easy to defend; positions against abortion and gay marriage have largely been found to be unconstitutional, at least so far, but gun control is a topic that is very clearly defensible in the constitution (regardless of your opinion on the specific meaning of the amendment, it's far more defensible than the other two positions). Thus it's an easy "win" to show their constituencies. That makes it a very effective "glue" for the coalition - a winnable topic that many voters in the coalition consider their single most important issue.

Answer 12

Your comparison examples are all quite dissimilar to your main example.

Liberals tend to believe that people have the right to do what they want, where the impact is only on the person taking the action, and consenting adults.

Marriage Equality is an example of something Liberals support. It is a thing that two people can do, which has a very large impact on themselves, a more modest impact on everyone else at the wedding, and no impact on anyone else. Everyone involved is either consenting (people getting married and adult guests), or there is no harm more significant than mild boredom (child guests).

Doctor assisted suicide is in a similar vein. The person making the decision is the one directly impacted. (Virtually) all supporters endorse safeguards, to allow this option only to adults of sound mind, who are capable of consenting.

Liberals do not consider gun ownership to be something that only impacts consenting adults. I could refer to any number of incidents of; children acquiring guns and shooting themselves or another child, a parent shooting their child, or gun massacres where the gun is used outside the home, amongst people who had no choice to consent or not to the gun's existence.

It's not unique to guns. For example, you see a similar thing with free speech. In Australia recently, the conservative side of politics attempted to remove protections against people insulting, offending or humiliating people based on race, colour or national or ethnic origin. Liberals tend to believe in limitations on free speech, because they believe people's right not to be abused takes precedence over people's right to free speech.

Answer 13

I tend to think that gun control advocates tend to be more left wing than liberal, but this is quibbling over semantics.

One possibility is that the left wing tends to be stronger in heavily urban areas, whereas the right wing tends to be stronger in rural areas. This likely results from the living conditions - in urban areas, cooperative living is the rule due to population density. Both governments and other people play a major role in an urban dweller's life.

Rural areas have a more solitary lifestyle, less affected by or dependent upon governments or other people, because neither the government nor other people tend to play as large a role in a rural resident's life. Fewer people means fewer rules for behavior.

In heavily urban areas, owning a firearm is not really practical - no place to shoot it, no hunting, no farm varmits to keep under control. Certainly in the US, the restrictions on firearm ownership in major cities tend to discourage ownership, if not preventing it outright.

In rural areas, firearms are considered a tool for farms, a sport, or a source of food, and restrictions above what the federal government requires are usually nonexistent.

So it may well be that the living conditions of the various political groups define their agenda on this subject.