That at least would be an honest proposition. The whole point of amending the Constitution is to reflect fundamental changes in how the majority think society ought to be organized. But ever since the 1930s the honest road has been abandoned in favor of reinterpreting the Constitution, often torturously. The reason it hasn’t been proposed is that the support simply isn’t there. A lot of people are not afraid of guns, and don’t think they should be banned. The squishy compromise is that gun control advocates are constantly pushing for any possible limitation, restriction, or illegitimazation of firearms they can.
Which is why I started the Old-time gun massacres thread in General Questions. The point I was making was that these killings have happened throughout the twentieth century, yet they never resulted in a mass call for banning firearms. (Although people acquiesced to strong restrictions on automatic weapons after the image of the gangster with his Tommy Gun became widespread). Why weren’t people calling for the abolition of guns in the 1920s, '30s, '40s or 50s? I can only suppose that the only thing that changed after the 1960s was the mindset of a portion of the American populace. That and as one poster in that thread mentioned, that television has allowed (virtually requires) the sensationalizing on a national scale of what were once considered local tragedies.
It’s all they ever talk about, so yeah, pretty much. Guns and porn is about all they have.
It’s the ones who HAVE the guns that are afraid. I’m not the one who’s too ascared too go to the SuperAmerica without a a gat in my pants. Why is it that the gun nuts always want to call the people who have the guts to go around unarmed the “cowards?”
Irony. People who obsess solely on guns and never shut up about it have “perspective?”
Try to realize that people who go on shooting rampages make gun owners look like people who go on shooting rampages.
Actually it’s guns that make idiots and uneducated children dangerous. And we’ll always have idiots.
And I can’t describe how much I hate guns for making it so easy for guys like this to go out and kill people. And before you bring out the old “…only outlaws will have guns” argument, do you honestly think this guy - or that Alabama shooter - is a well-connected and resourceful criminals who would know where to get illegal guns?
You’re probably right. Except I think it’s a pretty large portion of the American populace, or at least a large enough majority of TV viewers so that anti-gun sentiment on the news do not hurt their ratings.
And frankly, I think the anti-gunners on this thread are arguing dishonestly. People who don’t hate guns are “obsessed” with guns? I defy you to find more than 3 threads I have EVER posted in where I argued for guns. I defy you to find any long-time user of this message board who defends guns who doesn’t have a myriad of posts on other subjects. To blithely define us as “obsessed with guns” apparently just because we’re posting in this thread is dishonesty and blatherskite of the highest order.
Diogenes, if you’re at all familiar with my posting history, you would find that in about 95% of subjects, I’m right there behind you. We agree far, far more than we disagree. Are you actually telling me you’re willing to claim that I’m obsessive on guns because I defend the 2nd Amendment very occasionally? If I’m crazy, then what am I all those times I agree with you?
Well yes, they were underage and did obtain guns illegally. But that was only possible because guns are so loosely regulated - IIRC, all they had to do is have an 18-year old friend go out and buy guns for them.
What I meant was that if gun laws are made much stricter (e.g. comparable to the UK) then most criminals - including someone like the Columbine teenagers - would not manage to obtain guns.
I wasn’t talking about you, I was talking about gun nuts, and I basically define gun nuts as the single-issue cranks who never shut up about it. You’re not in that group, but you did push one of my buttons on the issue which is painting all critics of an easy access gun culture (which I personally am not, particularly, but it’s dishonest to say there is no price to pay for it) as being “cowards.”
My point is that guns are tools (and also weapons) that, without human intervention, are essentially harmless. Just like almost everything else, including beer (or alcohol in general), which, at least in an indirect manner kills as many people as guns if not more.
The problem I have in a nutshell is the broad brush that the media and the more liberal leaning folks tend to use when painting gun owners and the easy way in which they do it. I personally have multiple guns and for each gun I have multiple rounds. All are stowed safely, protected from theft or accidental discharge. Despite that, if you or anyone else took my “arsenal” out and put it on display, you would needlessly raise the fear and concern of the ‘public’ which means those ignorant of all of the measures I took to secure those weapons and all the hard work I did to earn the money to buy those weapons because that is my hobby and I enjoy it. All they would see is a table full of guns and bins full of ammunition which would look to the unitiated/ignorant as if I had ill intent toward everyone and anyone, which I do not. Because of that staging, anti-gunners feel free to point, and yell LOOK AT THE GUN NUT, HE WANTS TO KILL US ALL!!! * I’m sick to death of the pervasive ignorance shown by the media and by the hypocritical politicians who want to ostensibly ‘ban’ guns yet are surrounded by heavily armed men. All we need is to educate, not potential gun owners or even current ones, but the general public about guns, their purpose and role in the American lexicon in a way that makes the tools and thier uses make sense. That’s what the NRA was supposed to do but they use the same brand of wild-eyed fear that the anti’s use to achieve a different end.
*(A perfect example is the Spurlock documentary 30 Days where a woman from the east coast (CT, I believe) went to one of the flat states (NE, maybe?) to spend 30 days in the ‘gun culture’ when she was vehemently anti-gun. As part of the experiment, she was to fire a weapon for the first time in her life since a friend of hers was killed by gunfire. Upon hearing the firing of the weapon the woman broke into heaving sobs and essentially refused until she was coaxed into it (likely by the show’s producers/directors). The reaction this woman had was likely not because of guns but because she hadn’t properly dealt with the loss of her friend and blamed an object instead of a person for the death. )
It is irrational to hate and simply less rational to fear a chunk of metal and plastic and gunpowder that if left in an open field with no human interaction would simply rust into a non-functioning state. It’s no different from having a phobia about kitchen knives. Sure, they can hurt you, but only if they’re used improperly.
The facts are that there are ALREADY significant restrictions on the purchase, ownership and sale of firearms in most states. Despite that, bad things still happen. Those bad things cannot be prevented by legislating people like me (honest, law abiding gun owners) out of our choices/rights. To address the problem of gun violence you have to find the root of gun violence which is poorly enforced laws coupled with light-handed sentencing and the existance of corrupt gun makers who aren’t forced into compliance by any concrete set of laws and regulations.
Agreed. Could you imagine if this woman’s friend was killed in a car wreck and her reaction upon hearing a car engine running was to sob uncontrollably? Every shrink in the world would agree that she was not coping properly, but if she reacts that way to a gun, she gets a sympathetic ear.
Another thing that I see around here in the news is when someone is caught robbing a liquor store or something, the news reports that they were in possession of “an unregistered handgun”. Well, no shit. This is Florida, there is no such thing. I can’t register a handgun if I wanted to. I email the reporter every time this is written asking for clarification. To date, only one reporter has written me back, and he swore that is what the police told him.
I think the canard here is that “gun owners” in general are painted in any way at all. The concern is not that people can’t own guns responsibly, or that most people who own guns are crazy assholes, but that crazy assholes can get them just as easily as responsible people.
You could say the same thing about anything from nuclear weapons to pillows, both of which have sometimes been used to kill people on occasion.
True, and I absolutely understand why gun owners object to this. Then again, “you pussies can get my guns from my cold dead fingers, suck my Glock” isn’t any more productive, if what you’re looking for is a productive discussion. (I think you hear these refrains equally often from the opposing sides.) And for that matter, “guns should be banned” is less threatening than “I’ll shoot anybody who tries to take my guns.”
How do you know she “blamed the object” instead of just reminded painfully of her friend’s death? Not a good example of gun phobia in my opinion.
Fear is irrational. You’re not likely to ever fall off a building and it’s incredibly unlikely your elevator is going to plummet down the shaft, but people are afraid of it anyway sometimes. The odds don’t matter. Cars can be dangerous, but what really makes people nervous is that you can be in your car and driving safely and still get killed if somebody else fucks up. You don’t really know who else is on the road with you. It’s more or less the same with guns, except it’s hard for most people to live without cars and guns are more of a choice.
The only issue to me is that that fear has crept into the laws.
At least in light of many of my posts on this board, I’m sure I would qualify as one of your “gun nuts,” Dio.
Nevertheless, with these statements you’re painting with an offensively large brush. To address the latter sentence first, a lot of gun people call those who want to prevented concealed carry cowards because they appear (and in fact, many are) scared of inanimate objects. People who own guns generally understand that they don’t go off at random (or even when dropped, unless maybe you’re packing a Bryco). I doubt anyone who carries a gun claims that those who go without are cowards.
Regarding the first two quoted sentences, I have carried concealed in Wal-Mart plenty of times. Never once have I done it because I was scared; if you think that going to a place will make you fear for your life, it’s probably better not to go, right?
My reasoning for carrying concealed is pretty simple: 1) I know how to use a gun, 2) I have a CPL (concealed pistol license), 3) I have a gun. I carry a J-frame .38 (snub-nose revolver), I just put it and its holster in my front pocket and it’s good to go. This is a safety precaution, little different than making sure to take my cell phone when the roads get icy.
I spend most of my time out of the house on a college campus so I almost never carry my .38 anymore. Even when I do go to Wal-Mart, I generally forget the thing. It bothers me that I can’t carry on campus, but not because I’m afraid: I just really don’t like my government assuming that I’m some sort of loose cannon.
Carrying a gun is a big responsibility, and I think even the most irresponsible legal concealed carrier understands that. When one carries a gun, it is actually beneficial to the armed individual to de-escalate any confrontation. If someone has managed to obey the law long enough to get a carry permit (at least 21 years), I think he probably grasps the fact that, if he displays the gun or shoots someone without a damn good reason, he will be going to jail. Although a selfish perspective, that in itself is pretty good incentive not to shoot someone AFAIC.