Oh, I agree completely. But try saying that publicly and you’ll immediately be labelled a Misogynist.
Personally, I think that what’s needed is a public education campaign, to educate people about how guns aren’t evil and are a piece of sporting equipment like that used in any other sport.
Also, how many characters in TV shows are shown as recreational shooters? Occaisonally you see people (usually from The South) in full hunting get-up, often to take a “City Boy” hunting (hiliarity inevitably ensues).
I’d like to see a well-rounded character in a major TV show who is a clay pigeon shooter, for example. There’s no big deal made about it, but it’s widely acknowledged that Bob (who is a normal, average guy) is a clay pigeon shooter, no-one considers it’s a problem, and it’s never used for comedic or negatove dramatic effect.
Definitely impossible to enforce. That’s been demonstrated in Washington, DC and New York City and all the other “gun-free zones” with astronomical murder rates. But totally possible to put down on paper. The only result will be law-abiding people unable to legally acquire weapons.
I was thinking of that other asshole who killed John Lennon, Mark DAVID Chapman. The two men looked surprisingly similar, actually. In any case, yeah I know it hurts to lose a family member to anything, but that’s no reason to try to foist a pointless, stupid law on the rest of the country because of your own personal pain. If my son crashed his motorcycle and died, I wouldn’t try to ban motorcycles. If he was killed by a drunk driver, I wouldn’t try to ban beer. If he choked to death on a hot dog, I wouldn’t try to mandate that all food be shredded into a slurry before being consumed, on the chance that you might choke on it.
Argent Towers, throughout this thread you’ve been mentioning the “unfortunate trend” of declining gun exposure to men, women, and children in America as firearms become “villified” and as they (meaning the population as a whole) pass their lives without knowing many people who shoot.
I don’t understand this. Can you explain why, exactly, it is bad for people not to have these experiences? I don’t understand how a nation that is familiar and comfortable with guns is any better off than a nation which shuns them.
And please, don’t explain the problem as “people who aren’t exposed to guns are more likely to view them in the wrong light” or somesuch - I’m interested in the specific benefits to America (or other applicable nations) of a populace that is at home with firearms.
Uh, because it leads to the only people left with the guns being criminals? And will lead to the eventual banning of guns because “nobody uses them anymore?”
Some people value the idea of being able to defend themselves. Lawful possession of and training with firearms facilitates this - makes it MUCH easier for, let’s say, a small or weak or elderly person to defend him or herself against a stronger and more powerful attacker. I want to be able to defend myself and my home if I need to.
While Diogene’s response may be a bit blunt, it does sum up one of my main questions regarding this particular stance. Are there any sources or statistics detailing incidents in which private gun ownership played a contributing role in thwarting a crime where otherwise the crime would have been committed unopposed? For example, are there any statistics out there showing how many “weak or elderly” people out there have fended off robbers thanks to their firearms?
I just can’t imagine that the defending-your-home-from-invaders situation is really all that common. Don’t most home invasions occur when houses are unoccupied? I can certainly understand the logic behind the “if criminals want guns and guns are illegal, they’ll just get illegal guns anyway, so I should be able to legally own a gun to defend myself” argument, but before I can definitively articulate a position on the issue, I’d need more data. Some of the factors that need to be considered:
Does having access to firearms cause people to commit violent crimes where they might otherwise not? I’m thinking of “fit of passion” crimes here.
Is there any evidence (large-scale analysis, not small localized surveys) demonstrating a connection, for better or worse, between gun control/banning and rates of gun posession among criminals?
Is there any statistical evidence to show that posession of a private firearm noticable reduces ones liklihood of being victimized by a home invasion?
In essence it comes down to one question: Which will benefit society more, banning guns or easing restrictions?
If it turns out that a straight-up nationwide gun ban would (DISCLAIMER: PURELY HYPOTHETICAL SIMPLIFIED EXAMPLE) cause 15,000 less people to be murdered every year, but simultaneously lead to an additional 2,000 home robberies (because the law-abiding owners were unarmed) and also leave a lot of shooting hobbyists out in the cold, well, I think saving those lives would be worth it. Similarly, if it turns out that a gun ban would only save a couple hundred lives yearly while leading to an additional 27,000 burglaries (and shafting the gun hobbyists)… Then maybe it’s not worth banning them. It would all come down to a cost-benefit analysis that could be projected into the future to maximize the benefit (ostencibly in the form of increased personal safety) for all Americans.
However, that kind of number-crunching is well and truly beyond my ability, especially with finals looming.
I don’t think it’s fair to characterize those of us who own firearms for self protection as being paralyzed with fear. I happen to live in an area that is prone to break ins that seem to happen when the owners are home at an alarming rate. A few months ago one of my neighbors shot an intruder and killed him during a break in during the middle of the night. The friends of the intruder returned a few nights later and did a drive by shooting. I don’t believe it’s entirely unreasonable for me to be worried. I would rather have a firearm and not need it than to find myself with a need for one without having it available.
I agree completely. However, it would be nice if people on both sides of the issue could put a little work into understanding their opposition. Learning a little bit about why some people own guns and what they use isn’t going to hurt them.
That said: I think some of the characterizations of the anti-gun crown is grossly unfair. I don’t think it’s fair to describe Sarah Brady as someone who just wants to take away everyone’s toys because of a personal tragedy. Most of the anti-gun crowd honestly believe that more control will make the U.S. a better place to live.
Odesio
I’m not personally anti-gun, but I think one thing that often gets missed about those who are is that anti-gun sentiment tends to be most prevalent in those communities which have most been victimized by gun violence – ie. urban areas with high crime and gang activity. Gun violence isn’t abstract and hypothetical in communities where children get killed by stray bullets, and the idea of adding more guns and more powerful guns to that mix does not strike those people as much of a solution.
Don’t bother telling me those guns are illegal. I don’t care. It’s not the point. I’m just trying to say that the fear of guns in those communities is not based on ignorance or effeminate skittishness, but on actually having to worry about themselves or their kids getting shot on a daily basis.
The need by so many gun advocates to portray themselves as somehow physically more courageous than non-gun owners annoys me to no end. It’s inaccurate and self-deluded and plays right into stereotypes of gun owners as using the imagined machismo of owning firearms to mask their own insecurities.
Speaking as a UK resident with no vested interest either way, what effect would a sustained program of ‘education’ have if kids were subject to a ‘guns are evil’ message from kindergarten onwards ?
Would there not be a possibility of a significant shift towards anti gun ownership within say 20 years ?
I ask since the nazis indoctinated children to hate jews, and the soviets under Stalin got children to inform on parents by precisely this method.
It’ll never happen because the number of people who shoot clay pigeons is vanishingly small (and I’d imagine always was so) and would also be almost impossible to portray on screen in a realistic manner related to the plot.
ETA: 17,000 people in the US belong to a clay shooting organization. I think I can find more than 17,000 SCA members in just New York state and how many of them ever get a mention on a TV show outside a comedic setting?
In this context I was using Clay Pigeon shooting as a stand in for “Any Shooting Sport That Isn’t Hunting”, in which case you’ve probably got a couple of million participants. You don’t have to show Bob at the range- just having him coming home from the range and locking his gun away in its gunsafe would be enough.
It’s an interesting point about SCA members, but everytime someone gets stabbed the media don’t demonise all SCA members as “Blade-owning nutters” with “Armouries of bladed weapons”, do they? They basically don’t have the unfair negative reputation in the public eye that gun owners do, and so aren’t as badly in need of positive role models on TV, IMHO.
As far as sport shooting goes, it’s a red herring to me. If you enjoy it, great, but it doesn’t affect my view on gun ownership or gun rights in any significant way. In general, I think there’s far too much focus on the sport aspect of gun ownership - politicians easing people by ensuring they respect sportsmen while the entire idea of using guns as a tool for self defense has completely fallen out of the discussion.
I’d be fine with the popularization of shooting sports in that it would probably introduce people to guns in a positive way - but as far as discussing gun rights in the context of sporting rights is detrimental to gun rights generally.
I work in Queens and I shoot clay pigeons. It’s neither impossible nor unlikely. There’s at least three good ranges within driving distance on the weekend. Probably more I’m unaware of, I lived four miles from one for most of my life and didn’t realize it. I’m also not a member of any sport shooting association. I really should join the ATA, I just havn’t bothered.
One point: Soldiers who grow up shooting are better at shooting and more comfortable around guns than soldiers who don’t. Considerably so.
Did Hornady et. al. create the present situation? No. If you have evidence otherwise, please be good enough to present it.
Hornady et. al. are for-profit companies, some privately held, some public. There is an increased demand for their product due to a combination of factors. It would be idiotically bad business practice for them to refuse to try to meet that demand and maximize their profits.
The apprehension concerning gun bans isn’t a product of the gun industry. We have a sitting POTUS with an anti-gun voting history. Gun control was part of his campaign platform. His appointees have called for a revival of the AWB. His party, which has gun control as part of its platform, controls congress.
2nd Ammendment activists like myself have been dealing with these people for years. I know how they work. The fear of new gun control laws is not a ploy by the makers to increase sales. What is driving the sales is people buying now to be sure they have the guns they want even if new laws are passed. Plus, of course, some speculators buying in quantity hoping to turn a profit in the event of a renewed AWB.