Of course it isn’t. Nobody here is saying that the mere fact of possessing a gun is automatically fetishistic.
But I think “fetishism” is a reasonable word for the kind of blindly aggressive belief in the (wholly imaginary) crucial importance of private gun ownership as a bulwark against government tyranny that has been increasingly promoted in the last few decades.
There are gun owners, and then there are gun owners who maintain that the mere fact of their owning a gun makes them some kind of patriotic protector of everybody’s fundamental rights. So we should all be unconditionally willing to sacrifice massive amounts of public safety to uphold that patriot’s sacred mission to defend our freedoms from the jackbooted thugs.
This is all complete bullshit. (Well, not the potential for government tyranny or abuse by jackbooted thugs, of course. That has always been a hazard of any system of government, and is arguably a growing hazard at the current moment. What’s bullshit is the notion that civilian gun owners in a 21st-century developed nation with its massive standing army and ubiquitous militarized police are in any practical way a defense against that hazard.) But it’s bullshit that a fanatical subset of gun owners over the past few decades have become more and more passionate about believing.
Making it your whole identity is. If people in the 1960s saw the fat fucks in their tactical gear trolling the streets they’d have had them all imprisoned. Congress would be having all night sessions to outlaw that shit. You’re worried about the wrong breakdown in the social contract here.
If a big part isn’t the guns, then why aren’t we seeing mass killings using all those methods constantly brought up also? If it is just as easy to kill large numbers of people with cars, knives, rocks, bananas etc. why are guns the weapon of choice almost all the time?
That’s such a nonsense statement to make. Basic social skills should be part of social studies. Kids should be taught how to be a good person.
You can legislate guns out of existence and it won’t change violent behavior. It will only change the methodology.
I’m a gun owner and I couldn’t be more serious about this. Nothing anyone has proposed would affect the outcome of the violence we’re seeing today with the exception of raising the age limit. There’s probably an age correlation to be made.
Because it’s become an iconic method of killing. And the AR-15 is the king of icons despite other rifles that are more powerful. There are far easier and cheaper ways to kill people yet mass murderers spend a lot of money on AR-15’s to strike out against society.
I disagree. Who cares why he wants to carry a gun or what his personal fears and wants and needs are? It’s legal for him to own firearms so that’s up to him. None of that shit matters.
The important part is he is a gunowner who is willing to discuss some sensible ideas for lowering the amount of gun violence. I just can’t see how that makes him a villain.
So, is it fair to say that someone in Group 5 who doesn’t support - at the very least - increased mental health care funding, simply doesn’t care about these dead kids and other victims of mass shootings? Or, they feel that their personal right to own whatever guns they want without greater regulation is more important than this kids’ lives?
Just trying to figure out if there is any way strong 2d Amendment supporters can legitimately claim to care about shooting victims.
Methodology matters. We don’t give unhinged people access to large quantities of high explosives, because it multiplies the power of their violent tendencies. So too with guns, they amplify a person’s capacity for violence.
If vehicles become the mass murder weapon of choice, we can defend against that with things as simple as large rocks or bollards. Knives? Knives are dangerous but nothing like a handgun or rifle. Non-gun weapons are at least somewhat manageable.
But there are already no end of restrictions on what kind of weapons one can own and use, so we’re really not talking about either end of the spectrum.
You cannot own an RPG or a small tactical nuclear weapon or a bouncing betty or a cluster bomb for personal security and we really aren’t talking about banning pens and pencils because somebody could stab you in the neck with either and render you dead.
So the question is … what give … what possible actions could we take in the one hundred yards between end zones that might constitute a sweet spot between maximally reducing gun violence and minimally infringing on ‘liberties.’
I’m not happy with some of the current restrictions, and I won’t budge one nanometer on new restrictions. From my POV, you’ll have to look elsewhere to address the issue.
I love the fact that you “care” about the thousands of people killed every year but are telling others to find a way to fix it.
Your side has had decades to fix this problem, the closest they have ever come to trying is to make the US the most incarcerated country in the world, which hasn’t fixed the problem.
Thanks for taking the time to respond thoughtfully. I don’t know how to use the cool kids’ nested quotes function but I’m trying my best.
But interestingly, you didn’t suggest an assault weapons ban in your original post. I’m actually not a big supporter of an assault weapons ban because the first one was so completely ineffective, it calcified the gun rights movement to give no quarter ever, and when it lapsed, people got so excited about buying the forbidden fruit that it drove a couple of decades worth of stockpiling AR-15s.
That’s not the only risk and it’s not exactly reliable evidence. I have also fired tens of thousands of rounds without a negligent discharge (an admission that might surprise a few in this thread). Doesn’t mean there aren’t many potential dangers to gun ownership.
My feelings aren’t more important than yours. But your guns, and the guns or millions of others like you, contribute to my feeling less safe. The same is true for you. You carry a gun in the back country to protect against the three or four people you might run into – because you rightly are concerned they may have guns. Guns are causing the problem you think they are solving.
It is illegal but it’s almost unenforceable. But gun owners insist that we need hunters to manage the herds of wild pigs. In truth, if we didn’t let hunters shoot them, they would stop releasing them into the wild. It seems to suggest that hunters are the problem, not the solution, to wild pigs.
I’m sorry you see my posts as a major problem in the discussion. I am trying to engage with you in good faith. You have suggested some good measures that could help to reduce gun violence. I hope when it comes time to vote, you will vote for people who support those policies instead of people who oppose them.
You are also describing why you have guns but not of your reasons are very logical. They don’t make you safer. The policies that allow you to keep and use those guns, which you do support, contribute to greater danger for everyone. You are rationalizing your desire to keep firearms by saying things like they make you safer and they will allow you to protect against marauders but there is no evidence that, over the run of gun owners, these things offset the the risk that your spouse will decide in a fit of anger to shoot you in the head with your gun when you aren’t expecting it or that you will impulsively kill yourself when you get some bad medical news.
No. I survived with some minor injuries, some insult to my pride, and some fear. Perhaps if I’d been carrying a gun, I could have killed my attackers. I wouldn’t feel good about that after. As it was, everyone left the encounters with nothing they couldn’t recover from. Fewer guns in that situation made things better.
And thank you @Northern_Piper, for your perspective on Canadian law. Would that it were a model for the U.S.
@Tride is my kind of guy or gal. Willing to make a real personal sacrifice for the greater good.
@DorkVader, I understand that it’s “not all hunters” and many hunters do work diligently on critical conservation issues. I guess I’m just grumpy.
No, he couldn’t because he crashed his truck and it was undriveable. Guns makes it much easier than a car to kill a schoolful of children and so that is the tool he used. When we make it harder to do things, people do it less often. I think that’s a desirable goal for the category of “killing children.”
This is absolutely true. The legislators arguing against gun control but for better mental health are the same people who voted against expanded Medicaid and opposed the Affordable Care Act that would have provided mental health services for their constituents.
He certainly isn’t a villain and he is probably roughly the median position in America. Unfortunately, polarization in America means this median position is too far left for the GOP nomination process and too far right for the Dems. There isn’t a place for even incremental improvements.
Strident respect for gun rights infringes on liberties every day. 20 kids in one classroom in Uvalde TX have no liberties at all, right now, because of another’s gun rights. Maybe we need to trade some liberties to have meaningful protections of others. None of our “liberties” are unfettered.
I think we’re spending more time talking about who is / isn’t part of the problem / solution than we are at addressing the OP, so I’ll just copy/paste most of my recent specific thought in the slightly more controlled thread on min-maxing gun laws that has been repeatedly mentioned in thread.
What does this mean in your mind? How do you express your “caring”?
I often find that I “care” about more than one thing that conflict and cannot be readily reconciled. In such cases, I have to prioritize my “caring.” I either acknowledge that there are limitations on how I express my caring for each separate issue, or I acknowledge that I care more for one than the other, so the one that is less important to me has to lose. Your position appears to me as though you are saying you care about BOTH gun rights and school kids, but you care MORE about guns, such that you are willing to accept dead schoolkids as acceptable casualties. If I am wrong in my interpretation, please identify my error and educate me.
As an example for myself, I hate Nazis and everything they stand for. But, as an ardent supporter of free speech, I supported their right to march in the Jewish suburb of Skokie. Or, I’m an ardent supporter of women’ right to choose, and I detest picketers who assail passers-by with posters showing aborted fetuses. But I force myself to recognize that their behavior - which I find so offensive - bolsters my belief in the power of speech.
So, are there any “infringements” upon your second amendment rights that you are willing to expect to reflect your “caring” for the victims?
Even the suggestions by the OP didn’t stop the idiot Rittenhouse from getting an AR-15 (IIRC) and taking it to a rally in Wisconsin where he shot a couple of people. He just had someone else buy the gun for him. Or the idiot in Michigan whose parents bought him a gun, which he then brought to school. But do you support even the OP’s proposed “infringements”?
If not, your claim that you care strikes me as entirely hollow.
Yep, on my side, I can’t understand what is extreme about desiring a life without fear of gun violence. I don’t understand why owning tools that are for killing human beings is a right. I am completely and wholly in favor of repealing the second amendment, and confiscating every single hand gun, every single war weapon, in private hands.
Now, I know very well that there is no possibility of this country ever agreeing to do everything possible or even much of anything at all to stop gun suicides, murders, and mass murders, any more than we’ll become a country which doesn’t contain millions of violent bigots who hate and fear everyone who isn’t exactly them. I think “responsible gun owner” is a contradiction in terms, unless none of your guns is capable of killing anything.