The Perception of Gun Owners
- Thread starter DaleA
- Start date
- Status
m&p45acp10+1
New member
I know of 2 convicted felons that can legally own firearms. They had to have their 2nd Amendment rights restored. Both of them had to pay multiple thousands of dollars in legal expenses. Both also did not file until 10 years after their release. (Both did probation. Neither ever sat more than a day in jail ever.) Both had convictions for bad checks. Of the two the one that had is rights restored the quickest it took about 2 years. The other it took his case 3 years.
On the deal of the RFL's I am against most of them. There is too much leeway for later abuse, and misuse of the law to strip people of arms. They make a law that if you are a member of a hate group you have to give up your guns. (SPLC lists most Christian denominations as hate groups due to them not agreeing with them.) So later they classify all gun owners as hate group members, or determine that if you own a gun you have the potential to pose a threat. The list starts to grow, and they take more and more.
I do not want guns in the hands of mentally ill people. I am just at loss as to exactly how many of the killing sprees RFL's might have prevented. Jared Lougner (Shot Gabby Giffords, and several people outside of a store.) Had not been deemed to be mentally unfit. James Holmes that pulled off the Aurora theater shooting. No one had complained about him being mentally unstable. Nicholas Cruz again the family he stayed with did not see him as a threat to people. The Vegas shooter? No one ever saw him as threatening. The guy that killed the women in the Pittsburgh aerobics studio?
Also I know of at least 2 spree murders that happened due to the shooter being terminated from employment. So you loose your job, now the company calls to red flag you in fear you may come back with your guns, and start killing people. So would loss of employment give a reason for your guns to be confiscated?
I can think of quite a few others. Yes they all had mental problems. Normal people do not just decide to go on a killing spree. Even if angry. The thing is no red flag laws would have stopped them. If the Air Force had reported the way they should have then the gunman in the Texas church murder spree would not have been able to go into a gun store and purchase the weapon he used. It does not mean he would have not used other means to get a gun.
They always go off with the flawed line of "if it saves just one life." Well the number one cause of trauma death in the USA is automobile collisions. The vast majority of those deaths are caused by a driver under the influence alcohol. They are not pushing to ban automobiles. They are not pushing to ban alcohol. A reasonable restriction would be having to have a breath interlock device installed in every vehicle that drives on the road. Driving is not a right. It is considered to be a privilege not a right. Yet it does not make nation wide headlines if a person gets drunk. Drives, and crashes into another vehicle, and kills a whole family.
I still believe that in short no amount of making laws, or enacting bans is going to stop future murder sprees. Or reduce violent crimes.
On the deal of the RFL's I am against most of them. There is too much leeway for later abuse, and misuse of the law to strip people of arms. They make a law that if you are a member of a hate group you have to give up your guns. (SPLC lists most Christian denominations as hate groups due to them not agreeing with them.) So later they classify all gun owners as hate group members, or determine that if you own a gun you have the potential to pose a threat. The list starts to grow, and they take more and more.
I do not want guns in the hands of mentally ill people. I am just at loss as to exactly how many of the killing sprees RFL's might have prevented. Jared Lougner (Shot Gabby Giffords, and several people outside of a store.) Had not been deemed to be mentally unfit. James Holmes that pulled off the Aurora theater shooting. No one had complained about him being mentally unstable. Nicholas Cruz again the family he stayed with did not see him as a threat to people. The Vegas shooter? No one ever saw him as threatening. The guy that killed the women in the Pittsburgh aerobics studio?
Also I know of at least 2 spree murders that happened due to the shooter being terminated from employment. So you loose your job, now the company calls to red flag you in fear you may come back with your guns, and start killing people. So would loss of employment give a reason for your guns to be confiscated?
I can think of quite a few others. Yes they all had mental problems. Normal people do not just decide to go on a killing spree. Even if angry. The thing is no red flag laws would have stopped them. If the Air Force had reported the way they should have then the gunman in the Texas church murder spree would not have been able to go into a gun store and purchase the weapon he used. It does not mean he would have not used other means to get a gun.
They always go off with the flawed line of "if it saves just one life." Well the number one cause of trauma death in the USA is automobile collisions. The vast majority of those deaths are caused by a driver under the influence alcohol. They are not pushing to ban automobiles. They are not pushing to ban alcohol. A reasonable restriction would be having to have a breath interlock device installed in every vehicle that drives on the road. Driving is not a right. It is considered to be a privilege not a right. Yet it does not make nation wide headlines if a person gets drunk. Drives, and crashes into another vehicle, and kills a whole family.
I still believe that in short no amount of making laws, or enacting bans is going to stop future murder sprees. Or reduce violent crimes.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
I had a client, he grew up in a difficult household. His father was an alcoholic and by the reports of the father’s own spouse and children, abusive; but savvy on his police interactions. My client had multiple juvenile (and one adult) arrests for assault family violence because his father would call the police on him during family conflicts. Over about 3-4 years, my client had been arrested a dozen times... once for shoplifting and once for a fight with a sibling, every other arrest was a conflict between him and his father.
When I met him, he hadn’t had any interaction with law enforcement in 11 years and was a 30yr old man with a family and a job. He’s still a prohibited person though. All because he wouldn’t let his drunk Dad beat on him, his siblings, or Mom from about 14 on. God forbid people like that should own guns
When I met him, he hadn’t had any interaction with law enforcement in 11 years and was a 30yr old man with a family and a job. He’s still a prohibited person though. All because he wouldn’t let his drunk Dad beat on him, his siblings, or Mom from about 14 on. God forbid people like that should own guns
I always find it somewhat disturbing how the "sound byte" becomes the only thing remembered. Yes, he shot Gabby Giffords… ok, he shot and wounded a member of Congress, people remember that.
NO ONE seems to remember that at the same shooting he KILLED a Chief US District Court Judge, a 9 year old girl, and 4 other people, as well as wounding several others.
People, disturbed and "sane" say a lot of dumb crap, all the time. Ever been to a sporting event and heard the "death threats"?? (kill the ref!, etc) No body pays much attention UNTIL AFTER a shooting THEN they go back and point to every thing the shooter said, and say "see! see!, here it is, he was dangerous!! We should have stopped him!!" , and they may have said almost exactly the same kind of things themselves, about something, last week.
How about that guy in CA, who was reported as "disturbed", the cops went and did a "wellness check", talked with him at home, found him lucid, rational and no threat. The very NEXT DAY, that guy killed half a dozen people, or so. shot some, stabbed some, ran some over with his car, and all because he had trouble finding a girlfriend, (or so I remember hearing)
I'm told one of the Columbine killers had a web page full of peace, love, tolerance, and can't we all get along slogans.
No test, no examination, and no reading of tea leaves can accurately predict people's behavior 100% of the time. People LIE.
And, here's another complication, how any evaluator (medical or psych professional, or not) interprets things.
AFTER the shootings, we hear how so and so was thought "risky" or "unstable" or "potentially dangerous", but never enough to reach the point where evaluators didn't feel the need to cover their asses and turn them in.
If its right to hold the bartender responsible for a drunk driving, why don't we hold the shrinks responsible for the mass shootings???? IF we don't blame the liquor bottle, we shouldn't blame the gun. And "we" ABSOLUTELY should not blame the guns in the hands of millions of people who shot NO ONE!!
Why doesn't anyone simply blame the wackjobs pulling the triggers??
Too easy, I guess...
This is completely wrong. Urbanites are people who live in cities. Cities are full of guns and guns are most often used by young people in cities for offensive and defensive purposes. Young people in cities use them much more for real world purposes than likely almost everyone on this forum. If they can vote they will be the first to vote for more restrictions.
People who live in cities often deal with a much more concentrated violence. There is more of it, in a smaller area with a higher per capita incidence.
Living in a city does not actually make people anti-gun. Dealing with the fallout of gun violence often will. The problem is the confusion of cause and effect, often echoed and misled by the media.
You should find this statement ironic. If you don't, well I am not sure what that says. TFL is a huge echo chamber of it's own where dissenting opinions are shouted down. I don't mind because I happen to agree with most of the sentiment but I don't delude myself in to thinking that anyone else's opinion matters around here. When you start from that position than you are never going to change anyone's mind because you don't respect them from the start.
RickyRick said:
I dispute that this is a motive for political support for legal firearm restrictions. That sort of incident might also be a very good reason for a number of other policies, many of them contrary.
During WWII, hundreds of thousands of families lost someone in just a few short years, yet there wasn't a rush to ban legal possession of the arms used. There was no movement to get gewehr 98s "off our streets" or PDs testifying before Congress that they were outgunned because people had brought back MG42s.
I believe there is something more complex happening about how people think and speak about public policy. People seek to demonstrate conviction with bold language that lacks any appropriate subtlety. Sherrod Brown was on NPR this morning telling me about the need to "stand up to the gun lobby". Did he mean the police? Of course not. His reference was to the people who believe in 2d Am. rights and who express themselves to their elected representatives.
I would attribute the idea to the author if I could recall his name, but the idea is that what a politician says about a matter says less about his opinion on the subject than his opinion about his audience.
If a speaker has concluded that he speaks to hotheaded imbeciles, are we sure he is wrong?
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
When and where?rickyrick said:
Being aware that politicians use such tragedies to advance their anti-gun agendas in no way trivializes the suffering of the victims or their families. If anything, it's the anti-gun zealots who voraciously pounce on every "mass shooting" (whether or not it's really a mass shooting) to promote their agenda who trivialize the suffering.
How? We often lead the thoughts and prayers. We are also the ones that pull out data over emotion. Look at the anti-gun arguments.
Pass these bills we introduced to clog the federal government up in February that had no chance of passage, but now we demand you victims & families go to work with your tears and do the job that the data can’t do. GET THESE AIMLESS SYSTEM CLOGGING BILLS PASSED.
Then go away!
But we gun owners who want to continue to help you with data based solutions, training, gun clubs, etc. We’re the bad guys??<sarcasm >
One of the (many) things that bothers me about the issue is the double (triple? Quadruple? Double-Double??? ) standards applied by one side, and the generally successful use of those double standards among the under-informed, and uncommitted general population.
The constant focus on the gun as the primary cause of violence is disturbing to me, simply because of the obvious disconnect from reality.
If the gun is such an irredeemable tool of evil, how is it the police are considered "immune"? (some of the anti's want guns taken from the police, as well, and while I don't agree, I do applaud their consistency)
Does a uniform, a badge, and some training negate the "powerful, irresistible, siren call of these weapons of war to do mass murder on our streets"????
Considering the sheer numbers of police packing semiautomatic assault rifles or (gasp!
) the select fire versions, which are MACHINE GUNS!, I'd tend to say it seems the police are somehow resistant.
But, then consider how a trained, licensed, "vetted" armed security guard, who worked for one of the largest private security firms in the world, went to the Pulse nightclub and murdered 49 people.
So, seems to me that, clearly something else is at work here...
Ted Bundy confessed to 30 homicides. How many he actually killed above that is unknown. He didn't use any guns.
A handful of terrorists killed a couple THOUSAND PEOPLE on 9/11/01 and didn't use ANY guns.
The US government will put an actual machinegun in the hands of an 18 year old and as long as they're in uniform, its ok....
Personally, I wonder if demonic possession might not be a cause. Of course, that can't be a real thing, in the 21st century, can it?
Numerous studies over the last century or so have found that most species of mammals have individuals (mostly males) that run "amok". Some species, when crowding (overpopulation) reaches a certain point, generalized "mass insanity" often results.
Put too many rats in a cage, they eat their young. Lemmings run until they run out of land...other species show other traits, what differs is how much they can take before going "crazy".
Individuality matters, as well. Certain individuals have lower tolerances than others. Could that be what we see with society's violence today?
I'm sure there is no single cause, nothing we can fix with another law or three. I just dislike the idea of blaming people who DIDN'T shoot anyone for the acts of the people who do.
It's not right, its not fair, and its not honest.
) standards applied by one side, and the generally successful use of those double standards among the under-informed, and uncommitted general population. The constant focus on the gun as the primary cause of violence is disturbing to me, simply because of the obvious disconnect from reality.
If the gun is such an irredeemable tool of evil, how is it the police are considered "immune"? (some of the anti's want guns taken from the police, as well, and while I don't agree, I do applaud their consistency)
Does a uniform, a badge, and some training negate the "powerful, irresistible, siren call of these weapons of war to do mass murder on our streets"????
Considering the sheer numbers of police packing semiautomatic assault rifles or (gasp!
) the select fire versions, which are MACHINE GUNS!, I'd tend to say it seems the police are somehow resistant.But, then consider how a trained, licensed, "vetted" armed security guard, who worked for one of the largest private security firms in the world, went to the Pulse nightclub and murdered 49 people.
So, seems to me that, clearly something else is at work here...
Ted Bundy confessed to 30 homicides. How many he actually killed above that is unknown. He didn't use any guns.
A handful of terrorists killed a couple THOUSAND PEOPLE on 9/11/01 and didn't use ANY guns.
The US government will put an actual machinegun in the hands of an 18 year old and as long as they're in uniform, its ok....
Personally, I wonder if demonic possession might not be a cause. Of course, that can't be a real thing, in the 21st century, can it?
Numerous studies over the last century or so have found that most species of mammals have individuals (mostly males) that run "amok". Some species, when crowding (overpopulation) reaches a certain point, generalized "mass insanity" often results.
Put too many rats in a cage, they eat their young. Lemmings run until they run out of land...other species show other traits, what differs is how much they can take before going "crazy".
Individuality matters, as well. Certain individuals have lower tolerances than others. Could that be what we see with society's violence today?
I'm sure there is no single cause, nothing we can fix with another law or three. I just dislike the idea of blaming people who DIDN'T shoot anyone for the acts of the people who do.
It's not right, its not fair, and its not honest.
I agree. I didn't grow up around guns, my real association with them came when two friends and one family member used guns in suicides and then when a buddy was shot to death for no reason. That's the reality in a society where guns are becoming less popular.
Calm and reasoned research into the facts changed my mind. Not getting yelled at.
I don't agree with that as a universal statement. However I will say that there is too much cross-over between the current gun rights movement and guys like Alex Jones who try to capitalize on murder.
Furthermore the pro-gun movement has been led for too long by a guy who accused political opponents of being naive because they live in gated communities, while he was trying to get gun rights supporters to pay for his house in a gated community.
Public perception of gun owners ? Define "public". After the 1994 elections NPR sent a reporter on a LONG journey through flyover country/the heartland/red states/whatever, he admitted that it's a different country, said that attacking the NRA was like attacking the Baptist church, the PTA, the American Legion.
If you are looking for markers drug use and mental illness are the two most consistent ones. Practically every killer be it a mass killer or otherwise used marijuana and various psychotropic drugs regularly. In fact it is easier now to say which killers did not use these drugs. Use of these drugs often presents as mental illness which is why doctors routinely check for drugs before even trying to treat apparently mentally ill patients.
Like it or not, public perception of gun owners is pretty low ATM, no one says other's perception has to be founded on the same logic or beliefs as gun owners.
What the public sees or perceives is just that. They see the conspiracy theories and claims of false flags. They see gun owners grumble on about civil war, “come and take it”, “out side has all the bullets” and all the other cliches regurgitated on social media. Gun owners are perceived as adults throwing tantrums over the prospect of loosing their toys.
What the public sees or perceives is just that. They see the conspiracy theories and claims of false flags. They see gun owners grumble on about civil war, “come and take it”, “out side has all the bullets” and all the other cliches regurgitated on social media. Gun owners are perceived as adults throwing tantrums over the prospect of loosing their toys.
Indeed, because we are a basket of deplorables, clinging to our guns and our religion.
Or so we have been called by the political elite of one of the two major parties.
The other party pretty much takes us for granted, simply because "where else are you going to go?"
Realpoiitik, but no less real for all that.
Ok, but also true is, practically every killer be it a mass killer or otherwise ate bread or a bread product regularly.
It's just not that simple. I'd also be willing to bet all the killers also wore shoes regularly. The fact that one can co-relate things does not mean A causes B 100% of the time, or even, that A causes B, at all.
EVERY case is an individual, and general tendencies don't mean much, if anything, useful. Look at the millions of people who use marijuana or any other drugs, legal or not, and who kill NO ONE.
And always remember that "more likely" does NOT mean "will happen".
- Status