[MTT TL]

I was just reading the (recently locked) thread

Should have been a clue...

Why is it that opinion about right to carry issues splits so starkly down political lines?

There are some issues like taxes, welfare and abortion that are intuitively predictable by what we might consider the definitions of conservatism and liberalism, but to my mind gun control isn't really one of them.

That is because modern liberalism has little to do with civil rights and much to do with socialism. Classic liberalism, tends to draw pro 2A supporters.

Liberalism is typically associated with civil rights, (if you don't agree that this is true in practice, hopefully you will agree that it's true at least in intention and self-identification; you would hardly accuse the ACLU of being a conservative organization) and yet on this one issue which I think most on this board would agree that RKBA is one of the most important civil rights we have. (I don't mean to imply that this is contrary to the ACLU's position.)

Again, the ACLU is not about classic liberalism. This is why they have adopted their anti-freedom position.They don't restrict this to gun control either.

Also, I know it's my first post but don't think this is a hit and run; I've been lurking for a quite a while and I plan on sticking around. .

Don't worry about it, DU guys do the hit and run from time to time, it is amusing.

We're all familiar here with the pro-gun stance

Based on your post I am not so sure.

what the other half are thinking on this issue.

First of all, I think there is a cultural difference in perception and exposure to firearms among liberals that might be difficult to understand if you've been around guns your whole life. Since liberals tend not to own guns (lets take this as a given for the moment),

See, when you start an argument on a false premise, you have no where to go but down.

pretty much the only exposure to firearms comes from the news and entertainment media (movies/tv).

And the police, pro gun people, the military... but continue...

...news reports involving guns mostly break down into a) Military conflict, both involving the U.S. and not, and b) violence, i.e. armed robbery, gang violence etc., c) accidents. There are occasional reports of guns used in defense, although fairly rare.

Hmm, I would not call many times a day rare. Certainly it is more common than people being killed.

This causes the inevitable perception that the use of a gun is inevitably bad news. In some sense I don't think this is entirely wrong.

and that is where your problem begins... because you are about to blame the gun, not the actor.... just watch you will do it....

Whenever anyone gets shot it tends to be a tragic event; and even in a justifiable self defense shooting it's still an unfortunate situation. I think this perception is heavily tied to the Harm/Care issue mentioned above: When firearms are the cause of pain/injury/death,

This is the heart of the problem. The gun did it. The person that did it is not at fault. And this is why the liberals will never be able to reconcile:

Lack of personal accountability.

we tend not to like them very much. I think there are probably some on the right that at least would agree that this argument works in principle: no guns means no shootings.

Lack of guns means lack of shooting by guns. All else equal people are still equally determined and well able to kill each other and themselves.

Before we're quick too quick to contend with the obvious, and mostly true cliche, "guns don't kill people, people do,"

Too late!

I the idea that guns cause violence, rather than merely facilitating it, has a kernel of truth to it. Hear me out.

The first issue is that of escalation. The contention is that what might end as a fistfight in the absence of guns can easily become a shootout in their presence of them. We know it's not that simple

It isn't. So why bother?

but I don't think the scenario is totally impossible either. The "only outlaws will have guns" argument is subject to a similar refutation—the rapidity with which a law-abiding citizen can become a murderer is frighteningly quick. It may not happen often, but we do see the occasional case of a CC permit holder acting illegally, and sometimes even murderously. The majority of these cases do in fact seem to be cases of elevation.

Really? Based on what? Your feelings?

Wether road rage, a power trip, crimes of passion, etc., The presence of a firearm certainly has the potential to make a bad situation worse,

Or better, as was pointed out.

Related to the cultural differences in exposure and perception of guns is that of association of the right with the military. It's both stereotype and fact that conservative people and families tend to be more closely associated with the military, and I think that this agrees quite well with the above Loyalty and Authority dimensions discussed.

I can see you don't know much about the military then or understand much about the "right". When the government does it is not a "right". There are just as many liberals in the military as there are conservatives. True there are not many liberals as trigger pullers, but in the support areas there are tons of them.