The Perception of Gun Owners
- Thread starter DaleA
- Start date
- Status
The problem is that reactionary legislation aimed at curbing complex problems with multiple and dynamic causes, laws based on misinformation and misunderstanding, aren't going to save any lives. They are going to infringe on or remove important rights (specifically the right to bear arms but also freedom of speech and the right to due process) and that may have very real consequences.
I agree though that legislation is imminent. Maybe not this year or next year but it's coming down the pike because the majority of the country is mostly ignorant and/or misinformed about firearms in general, ignorant and misinformed about why the second amendment was important 250 years ago, and ignorant and misinformed about why it is important today. This ignorance is prevalent nationwide, not just with one political party or group. Gun owners are no different. There's all kinds of gun owners. You’ve got Fudds and fundamentalists, recreational and competitive shooters, weekends warriors and collectors and everyone in between that all have different beliefs and political views. This is a diverse group.
It IS indeed a complicated problem and the answers are not clear cut or simple. Human violence is not exactly a new problem. Spinning specific acts of violence as a "new kind" is not totally accurate. Mew methods maybe, but we've always found "new methods" to hurt each. Google mass murder and see what other countries are doing. Read a comprehensive history of any civilization ever and see what they did, and what they had done to them.
So you must forgive some of us when we are skeptical that the suggestion of taking away or hindering our rights (slowly or all at once) is going to be the best way to make us safer.
**Labeling "thoughts and prayers," i.e. the sincere, heartfelt condolences and emotional investment in the lives of fellow countrymen as a catchphrase to portray people of opposing political ideologies as uncaring and ignorant, while assuming that same sentiment on the opposite side of the political spectrum is sincere and just is extremely disturbing to me. It's human nature of course and it's effective at riling the masses to use reactionary, bad faith slogans to minimize an opposing belief, but jeez. This one gets to me for some reason.
I think that there are several problems for the "RKBA" side:
1. Demographics are against us, as Frank E pointed out early in this thread. k An increasing number of people don't care about guns and don't personally think they would ever use one. Our wars are fought "over there" by a professional army and the police and FBI keep us warm and snuggly close to home.
2. An increasing number of politicians are elected by people mentioned by item 1. These politicians see banning more and more guns as:
a. keeping their voting blocs happy
b. keeping their voting blocs safer
3. High body count events burn into people's minds the association with all semi-auto rifles as "weapons of war." "It was like a war zone!" says survivor! This association is almost intuitive at that point. Group 1 will continue to grow as most everyone normal who doesn't feel the need to shoot groups of innocent people will think to themselves (and everyone in their echo chamber on Facebook) "Well, I don't need one of those. No one normal does!" People in group 1 are now the new "normal." People who imagine a scenario where they might need a weapon of war here (HERE? In this safe country??) are the fantasists who dream of killing. Not judging, just pointing out the logic.
4. There is often a fundamental disconnect between the roots of the issue and the proposed solutions. People in group 1 (quick recap: no gun experience, no gun experience wanted) will say "Something has to be done!" and elect more politicians from item 2 who promise to make the problem go away. And, honestly, who doesn't want to read about fewer of these incidents. This isn't wrong. But the floated solutions seldom have any bearing on the root causes of any of the incidents that create headlines. If one were to ask the enraged populace "Well, how would that new law (e.g. UBC) have kept THIS from happening as the pistol/rifle was bought legally?" one has just made themselves the pariah. There is a continual disconnect between finding a solution and actual DATA POINTS related to the problem incidents. For a supposedly "scientific" society, we are really, really crappy about making efficient or quick-changeable laws to effect real solutions. The end result is that one side sees more and more "draconian" laws being passed with no improvement of results and the other side sees the need for more and more draconian laws being required to get the desired results. We are at the point now where banning all semi-auto rifles makes sense.
5. Culture writ large. I have heard absolutely NO one (recently anyway) say "isn't it a lovely thing that so many americans have weapons and are willing to carry arms for the protection of the common good?" EVERYONE talks about 2a as a personal right. Protect myself and my family! I understand why some people want to divorce the idea of the right from the group as many states have pushed their mandate that only members of the state-authorized militia (nat'l guard, etc) can bear arms. I understand that this must also be understated nowadays for legal reasons. No one wants to be painted as "trigger happy vigilante" in a court of law.
My point though, is that the group-related benefits of an armed milita (composed of individual actor-citizens) seems to have fallen from the public vision, even for the RKBA crowd to some degree. This is worrisome to me as the final check against a violent threat or even against governmental power, if it grows tyrannical, was supposed to be an armed citizenry. "We must all hang together" seems to have given way to "let's see if we all hang separately..." As a culture, we seem to be ceding both our willingness to bear this individual responsibility as well as our cohesion in mutual trust that the person next to us shares enough of our same ideas of common loves to stand up for us. This is indeed a cultural issue to large degree and it's not just about gun culture.
Gonna be a bumpy ride for some time, I think.
1. Demographics are against us, as Frank E pointed out early in this thread. k An increasing number of people don't care about guns and don't personally think they would ever use one. Our wars are fought "over there" by a professional army and the police and FBI keep us warm and snuggly close to home.
2. An increasing number of politicians are elected by people mentioned by item 1. These politicians see banning more and more guns as:
a. keeping their voting blocs happy
b. keeping their voting blocs safer
3. High body count events burn into people's minds the association with all semi-auto rifles as "weapons of war." "It was like a war zone!" says survivor! This association is almost intuitive at that point. Group 1 will continue to grow as most everyone normal who doesn't feel the need to shoot groups of innocent people will think to themselves (and everyone in their echo chamber on Facebook) "Well, I don't need one of those. No one normal does!" People in group 1 are now the new "normal." People who imagine a scenario where they might need a weapon of war here (HERE? In this safe country??) are the fantasists who dream of killing. Not judging, just pointing out the logic.
4. There is often a fundamental disconnect between the roots of the issue and the proposed solutions. People in group 1 (quick recap: no gun experience, no gun experience wanted) will say "Something has to be done!" and elect more politicians from item 2 who promise to make the problem go away. And, honestly, who doesn't want to read about fewer of these incidents. This isn't wrong. But the floated solutions seldom have any bearing on the root causes of any of the incidents that create headlines. If one were to ask the enraged populace "Well, how would that new law (e.g. UBC) have kept THIS from happening as the pistol/rifle was bought legally?" one has just made themselves the pariah. There is a continual disconnect between finding a solution and actual DATA POINTS related to the problem incidents. For a supposedly "scientific" society, we are really, really crappy about making efficient or quick-changeable laws to effect real solutions. The end result is that one side sees more and more "draconian" laws being passed with no improvement of results and the other side sees the need for more and more draconian laws being required to get the desired results. We are at the point now where banning all semi-auto rifles makes sense.
5. Culture writ large. I have heard absolutely NO one (recently anyway) say "isn't it a lovely thing that so many americans have weapons and are willing to carry arms for the protection of the common good?" EVERYONE talks about 2a as a personal right. Protect myself and my family! I understand why some people want to divorce the idea of the right from the group as many states have pushed their mandate that only members of the state-authorized militia (nat'l guard, etc) can bear arms. I understand that this must also be understated nowadays for legal reasons. No one wants to be painted as "trigger happy vigilante" in a court of law.
My point though, is that the group-related benefits of an armed milita (composed of individual actor-citizens) seems to have fallen from the public vision, even for the RKBA crowd to some degree. This is worrisome to me as the final check against a violent threat or even against governmental power, if it grows tyrannical, was supposed to be an armed citizenry. "We must all hang together" seems to have given way to "let's see if we all hang separately..." As a culture, we seem to be ceding both our willingness to bear this individual responsibility as well as our cohesion in mutual trust that the person next to us shares enough of our same ideas of common loves to stand up for us. This is indeed a cultural issue to large degree and it's not just about gun culture.
Gonna be a bumpy ride for some time, I think.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I assume the part you disagree with is where I wrote, "I don't think the NFA is constitutional and I do believe the 2A [supposedly] guarantees me a right to possess and carry and use any weapon I choose."Stephen426 said:
The fact that the various weapons and armaments you then go on the mention are dangerous doesn't mean that they don't fall under the protection of the Second Amendment. How much of the writings of the Founders have you read, specifically addressing the question of the right to keep and bear arms?
Richard Henry Lee, 1788
Patrick Henry, 1788
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #29
Tench Coxe, 1788
The Founders very clearly intended that the People possess arms sufficient to resist criminals, invaders, and tyrants. "... every other terrible implement of the soldier." In other words, cannons, grenades, and whatever might be devised for military applications. You are free to disagree that it is appropriate for ordinary citizens to be allowed to possess military-grade ordinance in today's society, but the Second Amendment, read in the context of the discussions at the time it was written, was indeed intended to guarantee that right to each and every one of us. IMHO, the correct response if you don't think we should all be allowed to possess such things is not to proclaim that the Second Amendment doesn't say what it clearly says. If you really don't think we should be allowed such things, then you are saying the Second Amendment should be either revoked, or revised.
Money from where? Most of the small towns here in Maine are lucky to have a part-time deputy on patrol some of the time. And that patrol can cover up to several hundred square miles.
That's news to me.
Let's pretend that we can find the money and resources to protect every school and mall with the same level of security that we provide to major infastructure sectors. Is a government with that much power going to respect your rights forever?
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Awhile back, I started a database to track school and mass shootings, because I didn't trust the media to keep honest statistics. One of the things I try to track is whether or not an incident occurred in a gun-free zone. (And, obviously, if a shooting occurred, it clearly wasn't a gun-free zone, regardless of what the signs and policies claimed.) My numbers show 448 people killed by guns in "gun-free" zones, compared to 148 in non-gun-free zones. My numbers show 1,354 wounded by guns in gun-free zones compared with 174 wounded by guns in non-gun-free zones.stephen426 said:
Gun-free zones, obviously, are not gun-free. They are only free of armed victims who might otherwise have been able to shoot back if they weren't prevented from being armed when they enter those locations.
Several parents of victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting have banded together to form an anti-gun activist group. The media gives them a lot of publicity. Are you aware that other parents of Sandy Hook victims -- parents whose children are equally dead -- have founded a pro-RKBA organization that advocates for the 2A aand the RKBA? The media doesn't give them any publicity at all -- they don't fit the narrative.
of course no place can be completely secure but they can be secure enough to deter a would be event.
Some schools are more secure than others, my last child just recently graduated. I would go to his school to drop off a forgotten item, pick up for an appointment etc... and within seconds of getting out of my vehicle, security officers were there and asking my business. My house is secure, I will know someone is here long before I’m in danger... because I have money to do it. Someone posted a few weeks ago that they were stopped at a Disney shopping center because a dog detected his concealed firearms. We will protect money, but not kids.
Some schools are more secure than others, my last child just recently graduated. I would go to his school to drop off a forgotten item, pick up for an appointment etc... and within seconds of getting out of my vehicle, security officers were there and asking my business. My house is secure, I will know someone is here long before I’m in danger... because I have money to do it. Someone posted a few weeks ago that they were stopped at a Disney shopping center because a dog detected his concealed firearms. We will protect money, but not kids.
And lets look at the parts Aquila didn't focus on..
First, in this case, you are mis-using the term "cyclic rate". You are confusing it with "rate of fire" and they are NOT the same thing. The cyclic rate is the rate, expressed in rounds per minute that the action cycles. It is the amount of time between the firing of one cartridge and the firing of the next. It is the amount of time it takes the action to cycle (between firings) the time needed for the bolt mechanism to extract and eject the fired case and then load a new round into the chamber, ready to fire again.
Rate of fire, is the amount of rounds that can be physically fired, by an individual or gun crew in a given time period. This is ALWAYS less than the cyclic rate, and sometimes a lot less. Any magazine fed weapon will always have a rate of fire far less than the cyclic rate of the action.
And, for our purposes here, discussion of belt fed, crew served and vehicle mounted weapons, ALL of which have been under the NFA since 1934, is a red herring.
Again, already covered by various Federal and state laws. However in point of fact, anyone who didn't sleep through high school chemistry DOES have unlimited access to the raw materials. I'd be willing to bet you have enough in your house at this very moment. Are you aware that there are, literally, millions of detonators in the hands of private citizens coast to coast at this very moment?? The materials are everywhere, what isn't, fortunately, is the knowledge and the will to use them as weapons.
You can legally own tanks and fighter jets. If you have the $. The tank cannon's ammo is regulated, the machine guns are regulated, the fighter jet's cannon and missiles are regulated. The vehicles themselves are only regulated as the class of vehicles they are.
I've met private citizens who own tanks, APCs and even fighter jet aircraft. No law prohibits this.
Ok, now the ultimate absurdity, nukes. I actually do believe that a law abiding citizen should have access to nukes, under the law. (ALL the terrible implements of the soldier), as a part of our fundamental rights. However, while the theory is valid, there is no practical way to legally possess one in the United States. I firmly believe you, as a law abiding citizen should be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon, IF YOU CAN BUILD IT ENTIRELY YOURSELF. If you can't there are already a plethora of laws covering purchase and ownership of the various components needed to build the bomb, and its way more than just the fissile material. Even if you could build it all yourself (and I mean from refining raw ore that you own into weapons grade material all the way to fabricating the mechanism needed for detonation) actually assembling it would be covered under the NFA as an explosive device, so building it would be a crime, if you didn't get government approval PRIOR to construction.
again, its a red herring.
Why? it seems to have worked in the past.
When you get it figured out, do let the rest of us know, ok?
Is there a way to do it without trampling our rights? I would think there ought to be, but to date, none of the "usual suspects" is proposing anything that wouldn't trample at least some of our rights.
personally I don't feel it is my responsibility to find the solution to the problem, just as I don't feel I am responsible in any way when people I don't know, have never met and have no influence with commit evil, with, or without a firearm.
It is my responsibility to do what I can to see than any proposed solutions don't infringe on ANY of our rights.
If I ever see one that doesn't, and has even a tiny possibility of actually working, I'll support it.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Good point.44 AMP said:
Let's not ever forget that the worst mass murder in the history of the United States was committed with airliners, not firearms.
What was the worst school massacre in the history of the United States? Quick ... anybody know?
No, it wasn't Sandy Hook. Go back to 1927. Bath Township, Michigan. 44 people killed, 58 injured. Weapon of choice: dynamite. The only reason the casualty count wasn't twice that is that the killer mined both wings of the school with dynamite, but the charges under one wing failed to detonate.
The weapon of choice at Columbine High School was propane bombs. They failed to detonate. If those bombs had gone off, the casualty count would likely have been in the hundreds. The guns were Plan B.
There was a school attack in West Germany several years ago in which the attacker used a home-made flame thrower.
Red herring? Here's the red herring: Guns. The anti-gunners are so fixated on trying to eliminate "gun violence" that they lose sight of the objective. (Or maybe they don't.) The problem with gun violence or any other kind of violence isn't the guns or the other devices -- the problem is the violence. The issue we face is how to redirect the conversation away from banning inanimate objects and get people to address the psychological and sociological issues that promote violence, of any kind.
I see your point. I do think more security measures could be implemented at schools.
And that’s only schools, which can be more secure; they basically have the same people there.
Places like Walmart, bars and outdoor venues couldn’t really be protected from mass shootings.
It’s a complex problem, the underlying causes are many which will require a multi pronged approach. Mental illness is the main factor in my opinion...takes someone really disturbed in the head to massacre groups of innocents.
I’d get rid of all my guns now if these events would never happen again.
Not every crisis calls for a "solution". People are sometimes going to do bad things and even taking away freedom doesn't stop them. People still get killed in prison where all weapons are banned and the inmates have virtually no freedom.
The idea that anytime something goes wrong, we have to find a solution is flawed. It is certainly true that SOMETIMES a crisis calls for a solution, but not always.
Sometimes you look at the situation, realize that any "solution" that would be likely to have a constructive effect on future similar incidents would result in unacceptable consequences (prohibitive cost, unacceptable limitations on rights and freedoms) and you just move on.
As a society, we already do that in the face of tens of thousands of deaths each year due to mistakes by medical professionals. We do that in the face of tens of thousands of deaths due to automotive accidents. We do that in the face of tens of thousands of deaths due to alcohol and tobacco.
The idea that anytime something goes wrong, we have to find a solution is flawed. It is certainly true that SOMETIMES a crisis calls for a solution, but not always.
Sometimes you look at the situation, realize that any "solution" that would be likely to have a constructive effect on future similar incidents would result in unacceptable consequences (prohibitive cost, unacceptable limitations on rights and freedoms) and you just move on.
As a society, we already do that in the face of tens of thousands of deaths each year due to mistakes by medical professionals. We do that in the face of tens of thousands of deaths due to automotive accidents. We do that in the face of tens of thousands of deaths due to alcohol and tobacco.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I'll go one step farther, and suggest that not every time something bad happens is a crisis. Certainly not a national crisis.JohnKSa said:
Others have already commented on the murder counts in cities such as Chicago and Baltimore. But many of those are deaths by firearm, so the anti-gun activists will include them in their hysterics about "gun violence."
What about automobile accidents? What about deaths caused by drunk drivers? For 2015 the United States saw 35,485 motor vehicle deaths. 2016 it was 37,806 and for 2017 it was 37,133. 2018 was 36,750, but the 2018 number is not final. Those numbers are from Wikipedia; another source said the number was greater than 40,000 fatalities for both 2016 and 2017.
Those numbers are orders of magnitude greater than the number of people killed by firearms in those years. Why aren't motor vehicle fatalities a national crisis?
The government -- the NHTSA -- says almost thirty people are killed in drunk driver crashes every day. That's almost 11,000 fatalities per year. Why isn't drunk driving a national crisis?
I was talking about this the other day with someone . I think the difference is banning guns effects very few in the grand of things but banning or highly restricting those other things would effect virtually everybody . I've said it many MANY times when talking with others . If it was really about saving lives alcohol should be the first thing to be banned . How many are killed in mass shooting each year ? Not many really , couple hundred ?? They/we can save 10,000+ lives every year and avoid truly countless injuries by banning alcohol . It's not nor ever been about saving lives or they'd be shouting from the roof tops BAN ALCOHOL !! . I mean if simply banning something is going to save lives , well lets start banning stuff then .
Its a tough sell, because banning inanimate objects is EASY. They don't fight back, they don't argue and they don't have rights. Their OWNERS do, but that's different, after all, its merely property, go find some other, more socially acceptable hobby!
Not all that long ago, there came a new "energy drink". I forget the name, now, but it was hugely powerful, and covered with warnings about not taking too much, or with alcohol, etc., all the needed legal warnings.
Some HIGH SCHOOL KIDS went to a FRAT PARTY, and illegally drank alcohol and some of those "energy drinks". Several got dangerously ill, and at least one died. The state's response was to ban the energy drink!!
The concept that things can be evil, is an old one, going back to at least the Dark Ages, probably before. After all, if the thing is evil, is possessed, is in the service of the Devil, then the poor peasants must be protected, something the Church and the ruling classes found very useful.
It wasn't right then, and its even less right, now.
We tried that, once. Prohibition. Turned out to not be as good a thing as people were told it would be...
Aguila Blanca
Staff
We already tried that in 1919, with the 18th Amendment.Metal god said:
The 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933.
That's always been my description of their approach. They're treating a software problem like it's a hardware problem. And why not? It's far easier than having to address the thornier issues that lie at the root of this problem, and they've learned to package and sell their agenda.
Exactly right and very well stated.
If you disagree, then you are a racist, white supremacist, nazi, fascist, because facts are the enemy and emotional storytelling rules the day.
Some facts:
Murders in the US:
https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/n...54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/
Mass public Shootings:
https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/
If my community wanted to pool the citizen's resources to purchase an armored vehicle, howitzer or mortars why should the government interfere? Or the government could simply surplus these items and give them to communities that wanted them. Para-military police come to mind, though not for use among the general population.
When the 2nd was written didn't villages on the frontier have cannons? Shipping corporations armed their schooners to protect their cargo and passengers.
Last edited:
- Status