The problem with the gun rights crowd

Status
Not open for further replies.
He came into my office and said we needed a "no gun policy".
Click to expand...

In the late 1980's, we had a few workplace shootings that got quite a bit of publicity. Handgun Control Inc. and the Violence Policy Center capitalized on the phenomenon. They contacted the Human Resources departments of countless major companies and informed them that they could be next if they allowed guns in the workplace. That's when we started seeing a cascade of bans.

Throughout the following decade, they went further and distributed literature that warned companies about the dangers of having employees who owned guns at all.

Plain fact is, they were convincing, the effort was pervasive, and it's decades old. The propaganda is so ingrained at this point, most companies assume that not having a "no guns" policy is asking for catastrophe.
 
Yes DuBois, Pennsylvania. The HR guy presented his case like a zombie: "we need to do this, to have a safe workplace". I asked him if he ever owned a gun, and he stated a Model 88 Winchester, but he no longer hunts or otherwise shoots it. Ironically, his daughter lives in DC, and I questioned him if he ever worried about her safety, and he replied "why should I?".

A
 
Yes DuBois, Pennsylvania. The HR guy presented his case like a zombie: "we need to do this, to have a safe workplace". I asked him if he ever owned a gun, and he stated a Model 88 Winchester, but he no longer hunts or otherwise shoots it. Ironically, his daughter lives in DC, and I questioned him if he ever worried about her safety, and he replied "why should I?".
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? DC is one of the most crime ridden places in the USA.
 
I used to work for a company that was very 2A friendly. People would have ammo and CMP stuff delivered to the loading dock, everybody was armed, etc.

The company eventually got big enough it put out an HR manual on company policy that included a no guns at work clause. Since the CEO was the biggest gun guy in the office I asked him why that was in there and he said it was necessary to get better insurance rates and some of our customers wanted to see certain clauses in our HR policy when we bid stuff. Not many customers; but the ones that did were huge multinationals.

So they made no guns company policy in the HR manual and everybody just kept doing what they’d been doing.
 
A company I used to work for had a subcontractor do a "safety analysis" study. There was a big push at the time, to be safer at work, and in our personal lives (so we'd be better workers or something, I guess...)

There was a survey questionnaire, asked all kinds of things about the work, and the way we did it, planned it, etc. Also asked about personal life things, did we wear seatbelts, drive no more than 5mph over the speed limit regularly, that kind of thing. Included a question about had we, or a family member been in a fight within the last year. There was not one question that mentioned firearms at all in any way. NONE.

When their results came back, among the list of suggestions to improve safety was "avoid handguns".

I went to management about that. Not as a gun rights thing, but as a BUSINESS thing. My argument was found valid and it went up the chain, to the top, I heard. And they agreed with me. Making a recommendation about something they never asked about called ALL of their conclusions into question. That survey company did not get any other contracts from us, again.
 
I am a business owner and I have never had an insurance company ask about firearms policy. Maybe I am too small and they ask larger firms, but I wonder if insurance companies don't get more blame than they earn in this.
 
I have had my own business since 1989, and through the past 30 years have had, maybe, a half dozen different insurance carriers. I have never had a "safety analysis survey", for our business policies. We have also had multiple workers compensation carriers, and though each is active in helping us achieve a safe workplace, not once has one asked about a firearms policy.

I do have to add, that this past Wednesday was my yearly physical, and my doctor went through the "safety question" list, albeit very quickly, checking off responses pretty much before I gave them.
 
It probably doesn't happen much in the "real world". The company I was working for was working on contract for the FED, and they were the ones who required the "study".

A very similar study was done a couple years later, by a DIFFERENT study outfit, and unlike the first company, didn't seem to have an axe to grind about guns.
 
I have to add to my post #67, that my doc (30 something young lady) when questioning about firearms in my house, phrased the question to something like "if you own firearms, are they locked or inaccessible to be accidentally picked up?".

I'm going to be 67 this September, and in retrospect, I experienced many more things than I ever thought possible. In eight grade shop class, building a muzzleloader was an optional project. Many kids had guns in their vehicles for after school hunting. Many of us always had knives with us at all times. But then again, this was NW Pennsyltucky!

Also, back to my doc, my father didn't ever tell me a whole lot about life, but he did give me a great piece of advice: he said no one like going to the doctor, but he said it really helps to have a good looking woman doc, especially one with long slender fingers.
 
when questioning about firearms in my house, phrased the question to something like "if you own firearms, are they locked or inaccessible to be accidentally picked up?".
Click to expand...

That's a question I would answer with "N/A".

If they want to assume that means "not applicable" that's their problem. :D

for me, and that question, it means I'm "Not Answering" :rolleyes:

Years ago I worked with a fellow named Norm Anderson. A lot of the work involved checklists where the person doing the task had to initial a blank, indicating the task was done, and who did it.
Norm loved doing that, it drove auditors nuts.
 
I have been trying very hard to stay out of the fray.

A couple of comments and feeling on this subject and I'll shut up again.

As for the NRA I have to continue to ask, Who is the NRA? Sorry but the NRA is not the Leadership. It is each and every single member and contributor. Just as with Political Parties the members do not always agree with the leaders. And those that insist the NRA is a gun pushing organization are flat out LIERS. The NRA has not sold a single gun as far as I know. The NRA is a group of people no different than NAACP, SPCA, PETA or MADD.

THIS IS WHAT GETS ME INTO TROUBLE.

Gun forums and many of their reaction and treatment of discussions on gun issues when it bleeds over into the political. Sorry but yes Gun issues get very political and as a community deeply involved in the gun realm just Where is it that we are to hold these discussions on All gun issues? Including the Political ones? I understand that the Administrators and Moderators do not want the arguing and bickering that comes from these discussions, and it's not just here, it's found on about all the gun forums. But w/o and open and fair exchange of ideas how are we to organize and fight back? I can have different ideas, feelings or opinions and still stay friendly and not get combative.

Lastly on a few forums that allow general discussions I frequently see stories posted on recent events that may involve shootings. I feel horrible when I hear these stories and then the way they are reported. My opinion is that no matter what the circumstance anytime there is a shooting and someone is hurt it does not reflect well on any of us gun owners. The anti's will always view it as another senseless shooting and another example why guns need to be outlawed.
 
The answer about our content is very simple. This is a gun forum and the primary focus is on gun technical issues. Given that sometimes laws and civil rights issues impact ownership, we allow discussion of issues, sometimes wandering into the political, that are relevant.

Pure politics is not the goal of the forum. It was shut down once because of the ranting and bickering of pure politics. The same goes for religion and sexuality. Those topics led to extreme views, hatred, bigotry, insults, etc.

Thus, it is a free market place, if you want a forum that discusses gun politics as well as general politics, they exist.

Moderators do this as volunteers. We get nothing except the feeling that we are helping folks with gun issues. If someone wants to discuss Chik-fil-a, atheism, you are a socialist/nazi dog - we don't want to have to moderate that and you can go elsewhere for that.
 
Glenn I understand the reasoning behind the rules and accept them w/o hesitation. Not trying to stir the pot or anger anyone. Not trying to bash any forum either, though maybe some members that take the debate to personally or get to riled and cannot converse civilly. I certainly do not want this to be a pure political gun debate site either. That would get old and serve little purpose and could see that turning into a which reloading press debate.

So far you guys are doing a very good job of finding a level balance and I applauded you all for that. Agreed that the religious or sexuality discussions are irrelevant unless it can be linked to maybe a self defense situation were that may be an underlying factor.

I do believe though that gun law discussions are relevant to gun community forums and that as adults these discussions should remain civil and on topic and the Moderators or Administrators shouldn't have to step in to break things up or restore order. That we should be able to maintain a decorum and not act like children. That we should be able to disagree w/o turning into idiots.
 
PhotonGuy said:
All too often I will see members in gun forums argue over stuff. We should treat each other with courtesy and respect if we want to win the war on gun rights.
Click to expand...

Thing is, those arguments never change the mind of pro gun folks against gun rights. No harm, no foul. But sometimes our attitudes, aggressive mindset and heavily over used memes turn off folks neutral to gun control/rights. These are the folks that pose the most risk and/or, may give us the support we need to keep our rights. Gun owners and anti-gunners are both minorities. It takes those folks neutral to guns to make either of us a majority. Most chest pounding pro-gun folks forget that.
 
They’re neutral because they don’t care about gun rights. It isn’t important to them. You treating them respectfully and lovingly isn’t going to make it important to them. At best, all it will do is remind them that stereotypes of gun owners presented by the other side are inaccurate.

If you want them to care about gun rights, you have to get them personally invested in it. That will make people pro-gun faster than anything because then they are forced to wrap their heads around the arbitrary and confusing laws surrounding people who like to shoot.

This is what antis try to delicately sidestep. Gunowners would line up to register themselves and their weapons too. They’d volunteer for psyche evals and pay extra fees. All you have to do is offer them a carrot instead of a stick (see also concealed carry licenses). Of course, that would mean that antis would have to give up on abolishing firearms ownership and accept “reasonable gun control” designed to keep firearms out of the wrong hands. When is the last time you saw a carrot offered?
 
The wife and I argue over cake all the time, She likes Angle Food and I like Devils Food but we don't get hostile or insulting about it! Some people just go through life with blinder on.

If you like AR's but not AK's well that's alright too!
 
How about “there are plenty of grey areas, plenty of things we agree about, all us Americans are Americans and when times get tough we forget our differences and all pull together”?

Among our crowd there are folks that feel the NFA is an infringement of their rights. They can make some valid points.

The thing is, in any diverse population, pulling out half just creates a new diverse population.

Instead of thinking of people with different opinions as “enemy” we could try to think of them as “people like me but with a different opinion.”

It doesn’t make very good drama when people stop fighting and start working together.
 
As of right now, two big gun control advocates, Eric Swalwell and Cory Booker, are fighting against each other as to who is the better gun control advocate. This is good news for us and exactly what we need, the gun control crowd to fight among each other, because that way they will fall. A house that's united stands, a house that's divided falls. At the same time we should not be like that and fight among each other. If we are to win we need to stay united. As such we should respect each other and get along and work with each other, not against each other.
 
Instead of thinking of people with different opinions as “enemy” we could try to think of them as “people like me but with a different opinion.”
Click to expand...

Its the difference of opinion (and what they do about it) that make them the enemy, or not.

40 years after the war, one fighter pilot said, "we were all the same, we just flew from different airports". In that context, he's right. But those same guys would have happily shot each other to death on sight, 40 years earlier, over their "differences of opinion" at the time. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top