Why is it that when I see the video of the Santa Barbara mass murderer...

E

ezmiraldo

New member
I (and probably many of you) immediately think of getting a better CCW or getting more ammo or getting better training with our CCW to be able to protect against such violent nut-jobs, but when people outside of the gun community (and especially the gun control folks) see this video they probably immediately think about banning guns?

I don't think that gun folks and anti-gun folks are inherently different in how intelligent they are or in how much they care about their society or in how sincere they are. (Let's assume this for the sake of this discussion - I know many of you have a big problem assuming that - but let's try). So, what's driving this divergence in paths to completely different solutions for the same problem? Any thoughts? Let's try to keep it civil and give benefit of the doubt to the gun control crowd, just to have a thought-provoking and intellectual discussion.
 
This is worth what you paid for it.

First, there is an antipathy towards guns based on their being political totems. Ownership is a symbol of a political world view that many don't agree with. Thus, gun ownership is tarred with that brush and arguments for it are discarded as just the rantings of an unacceptable world view. Gun ownership is litmus test like climate change, abortion, gay rights, etc. You have to accept view A or B to fit into the polarized political groupings. Logic on each position is absent as you engage in selective information processing and confirmation bias demanded by your tribe.

Getting past that to the issue of violence. Most reasonable people want to see less violence and people protected. In fact, it is argued that we have tendency to want to avoid interpersonal violence. It has to be overcome in most of us to engage in such or it is engaged in folks who have no such inhibitions due to some kind of mental illness.

Given we want to reduce violence - do you do it by increasing the tools of violence or training to do such? Many folks cannot accept that and feel that violence can be reduced by removing the common tools of the most extreme violence. In our times that would be firearms. If we eliminate them - then we will be safer. Since one abhors violence, getting an instrument for violence and training for its use is unacceptable.

That is what drives many. I don't buy the argument that most antigunners want to control you, etc. Certainly, the progun world has a high correlation with folks who want to control all kinds of social interactions.

On the other, thinking gun folks have realized that while violence is apriori bad, preparing for its use is justified as it is needed to protect oneself and those you care about from evil and to protect against tyranny. One wishes that it wasn't necessary but it is. Such thinking folks will actually take the time to train and try to be conscientious proponents for gun rights.

Within each population, there are the emotional - many folks are driven by that as compared to reason. We see the short term and immediate hatred of gun rights as by that poor father who lost his kid in Santa Barbara. Or we see long term but emotional hatred by Feinstein or Bloomberg.

In the gun world - we see the foolish OC posturing at Chipolte - that is probably driven not by rational thought processes but posturing and immaturity. They view the gun as a super power to make them seem 'tough' or 'macho'. The emotional ranting against those who don't support such demonstrations as a test of RKBA purity is from that realm of the progun world. It's not rational.

Thus to summarize:

You have emotion - guns evil, I'm a tough guy.
You have rational - how do we deal with violence and tyranny? Preparing for more of it to suppress the evilly motivated violence or try to eliminate the tools of violence.

PS - I didn't discuss the sporting use of guns as I regard that as irrelevant to the modern gun rights debate and the Constitutional arguments.
 
Last edited:
Preparing for more of it to suppress the evilly motivated violence or try to eliminate the tools of violence.
Click to expand...
The problem is, the first one is difficult, and the second makes for easy politics.

They're already circling the wagons and blaming the NRA for this. We'll see more rhetoric and teeth-gnashing about banning guns, but we won't see that conversation about mental illness that keeps being deferred.

That said, many of us make the claim that if we'd been there, we could have done something. Given that people like Rodger choose soft targets, that's not always a valid argument.
 
The Librals motto never let a good disaster go to waste . In truth the shooter is to blame and as in most of these cases his family and others knew he would do something like this . When one of these crimes happen I have started getting my firearms out and cleaning them mabe go out to my shooting bench and shoot a while . Just like we can't let terrorist change the way we live in this Country we can't let criminals denie the rest of us our rights that our forfathers have fought fought for . U.S.A love it or leave it .
 
Just like we can't let terrorist change the way we live in this Country we can't let criminals denie the rest of us our rights that our forfathers have fought fought for . U.S.A love it or leave it .
Click to expand...

Terrorist have changed the way we live in this country.
 
In case you needed additional proof that news media is anti gun

This psycho kills people using guns and knives, maims people using his car, and fantasizes about torturing them using boiling water and by skinning them, and media call him "shooter"! Huh!? Why single out shooting? Why not accurately describe him as a mentally unstable man who went on a murder spree? If that's too long, how about just "serial killer"?

Here's the evidence: Headlines from some of the most popular news organizations (copied Sunday evening - when it was already well established and publicized that gun was not the only weapon used by this piece of scum).

  • CNN : "Police visited gunman's house before"
  • CNN: "Opinion: U.S. gun violence sickness"
  • LA Times: "Frantic parents of shooting suspect raced to Isla Vista during rampage"
  • Washington Post: "Sheriff: Calif. shooter flew ‘under the radar’"
  • Washington Post"Students' reactions to shootings"
  • New York Times: "California Gunman Flew Under Radar, Sheriff Says"
  • FoxNews: "VIDEO: Police investigating mental history of shooter"
  • FoxNews: "Shooting rampage called 'premeditated mass murder'"

If this is not "clear and convincing" proof "beyond any reasonable doubt" of media's anti-gun bias (intentional or unintentional), I don't know what is...

Wow! Just wow!
 
Last edited:
Also the recent stabbing rampages, the one at a school near Pittsburgh, the murder rampage in Canada, have thrown the anti-gun crowd on the defensive. They need another mass shooting to get their campaign back on track.
 
Also the recent stabbing rampages, the one at a school near Pittsburgh, the murder rampage in Canada, have thrown the anti-gun crowd on the defensive.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? I haven't really noticed them on the defensive about anything lately.
 
Tom Servo said:
They're already circling the wagons and blaming the NRA for this.
Click to expand...
Yes ... despite the reality that his three housemates were killed by stabbing, and I believe some of the other assaults were automotive run-downs.

Which means that, in addition to guns, we now need to ban knives and assault BMWs, as well as castigate the AAA.
 
....

I think people look to support a solution they are familiar with.

I believe the vast majority (not everyone, just most) of the people in this country today are not familiar with very much outside their narrow field of expertise (if they have one) ..... and are largely ignorant of pretty much everything else- be it plumbing, electricity, automechanics, carpentry, IT issues, or in this case, personal security ...... whatever. If they have an issue, they call on someone whose JOB IT IS to solve such an issue. Pipe leaks? Call a plumber. Fan making a strange noise? Call an electrician........

They are an Accountant, Sales Rep, Loan Officer, Sanitaiton Engineer, or whatever ..... they pay huge portions of their income to have Government take care of their Security issues ..... Government will take care of them, because that's what we pay them for, right? ...... and like any Organization, Government does not like competition ...... you taking care of your own security undermines the percieved need for their services ...... of course they want a Monopoly of Force.



I don't think I have that kind of faith in Government ..... I am an individual and trust myself (known quantity) more than someone some else hired (unknown quantity).
 
Last edited:
Gun control and shootings are the hot topic. Stabbing deaths and vehicular homicide are not the rage these days so they get little attention. Everyone thinks they should be able to use a knife in some way and be able to drive a car so there is no anti-knife / anti-vehicle agenda so we don't need to publicize that aspect of the tragedy.
 
Gun control and shootings are the hot topic. Stabbing deaths and vehicular homicide are not the rage these days so they get little attention. Everyone thinks they should be able to use a knife in some way and be able to drive a car so there is no anti-knife / anti-vehicle agenda so we don't need to publicize that aspect of the tragedy.
Click to expand...

The answer to this is simple: take people shooting. Dispell the ignorance. Make gun ownership and self reliance the norm, instead of the exception.
 
A lot of people do not realize that the police are too busy to protect all of them so they feel that there is no reason to have a gun. The police will protect me and there are markets to feed me so there is no reason for me to own any gun.

However more and more police administrators are advising to have a means to protect yourselves as they can't do it. (excluding NYC & Chicago) There are even Supreme Court decisions saying the police have no duty to protect you or come to your aid.
 
The media wants a big controversy framed in a simple narrative. It is easier for them to exploit the sentiments of both pro, and anti-gun people than look for answers beyond restricting firearm ownership. I think that's why we always read and hear guns described as the problem and always in the hands of "a troubled young man."

No, he was a pathetic loser. There are plenty of young men who struggle with mental illness and rejection without resorting to violence. I wish the media was as willing to describe a person as a pathetic loser as they are to describe a gun as an assault weapon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top