I’m not saying to base a law on a hypothetical, but it is part of my fear of guns.
I’m an anti and I have no desire to disarm you. I would just like many gun fanatics to quit hiding behind the 2nd as a way of dressing up their obsession with power, fear, and violence.
I think a lot of the fear comes from people constantly hearing stories of people “accidentally” getting shot, because of guns “just going off.” When in reality, there is no such thing as an accidental discharge, just a negligent one.
How many times do you hear about 17 yr. old Tyrone Jackson getting shot by a cannon on the 11 o’clock news? I’ve held a gun once no reaction out of the ordinary. I’ve had a gun pointed at me once by a plain clothes cop who did not identify himself as such. I forgot my name. Seriously, the fear was that great.
For some people the reaction comes from the realization that these things can kill people.
Negligent doesn’t mean it can’t also be accidental. It is frequently both.
When I was a young adult I was at my then boyfriend’s house and his roommate had a gun. I don’t know what kind, but it was one with a long barrel - a hunting gun, I guess. He thought it was unloaded. It went off in a room full of people. It shot through the ceiling, but what if he hadn’t had it pointed up? It scared the crap out of me in a way I can’t explain.
This thread has been civil to this point and I’d like to keep it that way. If you want to Pit someone, go ahead, but when you’re in MPSIMS, keep it polite.
This is also over the line for this forum because it’s insulting to other posters. Please don’t do this again.
No warnings issued.
*The Polk County Sheriff’s Office said the gun may have been altered, leading to the malfunction. Detectives expect to know more when they take the gun apart and inspect it as they continue to investigate.*The Jennings is an a piece of crap gun to begin with. Inexpertly modifying a weapon, particularly the trigger sear and spring, can make it unsafe even if the pistol was a safe and reliable design to begin with, just as inexpertly modifying an automobile can make it unsafe for the driver, passengers, and anyone else in the vicinity.
The irony with this is that gratuitously violent media, first person shooter games, and the like can desensitize the user to the consequences of armed violence, whereas actually handling and responsible training in the use of firearms makes most people more cautious and respectful when it comes to firearms, and also more appreciative of the hazards and limitations. Whenever I hear or read someone opine that police should have “shot the gun out of the perpetrator’s hand,” rather than killed him, I know I’m dealing with someone who has never fired a pistol at an actual target. There is actually a stronger rational argument for reducing violence by moderating access to violent media than there is for placing additional regulatory restrictions on law-abiding gun owners.
Although not all firearms are built for use in battle, defense, or hunting, it is true that the impetus for the development of firearms was their effectiveness in warfare. (Ironically, unrifled muskets originally used in infantry warfare were less accurate and had a slower rate of fire than the recurve bow, crossbow, and arcuballista, but were more effective on the battlefield in terms of routing and disrupting the enemy due to the blast effect of firing in volleys.) Modern firearms are, of course, capable of greater lethality at range than any other weapon, and incautious or iniquitous use of them is a grave hazard to the user and bystanders, so it is not unreasonable to be concerned about the presence of firearms, especially in the possession of people who do not demonstrate appropriate respect, either in the carriage and handling of the weapon or toward social norms and civility. The familiar Heinlein-quoted “An armed society is a polite society,” is true only in a society that is polite to begin with; there are plenty of armed societies that are anything but polite or responsible (see most of Africa as an example).
There are, naturally, some people who will have a fear of firearms and other weapons regardless of experience, just as some people have an innate fear of arachnids, open spaces, or water. But for most people, an irrational fear of firearms typically comes from either a lack of familiarity of firearms or an abominable experience (either in perception or actuality) with firearms. However, a healthy respect of firearms and concern about the possession and handling by people who do not display respect or have been appropriately trained is an entirely reasonable position. The “soccer mom” who openly displays a weapon at a childrens’ game is certainly pushing the bounds of what is reasonable, and is knowingly (and probably intentionally) making other people uncomfortable for no good reason, which is another argument for the allowance of concealed carry by trained, responsible adults.
Unfortunately, even people who one would think to be “appropriately trained”, such as police officers, may sometimes behave inappropriately with firearms (intoxicated, incautious, unwarranted brandishing, et cetera). I have personally been witness to this myself, and it makes me seriously uncomfortable, just as someone walking up to me smoking a cigarette while I’m fueling my car makes me uncomfortable.
I’m perplexed that some people think about collectible dolls on a regular basis…which doesn’t make it wrong, just something with which I have not interest or regular exposure. There are plenty of reasons someone might think of firearms regularly; because they are a police officer or security guard who carries a weapon as part of their duty rig; because they are a professional soldier who handles firearms as part of his or her service, because they’re a gun hobbyist who wants to improve their marksmanship skill; because they are a hunter who wants to be more effective and humane.
Of course, if none of these apply to you, then naturally you wouldn’t make any effort to think about firearms. But for many people, they are a useful tool, and when used responsibly and mindfully, no more hazardous than many other implements and chemicals that are handled by millions of people every day. I think about nuclear strategy and the technical aspects of ballistic missiles virtually every day, which doesn’t mean that I’m going to build my own nuclear weapons or am in any way enthusiastic about their use (quite the opposite, actually). It is a matter of context, exposure, and personal inclination, and not indicative of any inherent emotional defect or moral deformity.
Stranger
But according to the FBI and most other sources, chances are that if what we’re talking about here is murder (killing someone because you really want to) or the attempt, you will probably know your attacker and the weapon of choice isn’t always a firearm. Its even a toss-up if firearms rank as high as kitchen knives and general “blunt objects”. “Overdose” is gaining in popularity as well although the numbers get fuzzy with some of them possibly being suicides or assisted deaths. Poisoning deaths of children may be as popular now as they were during the Renaissance but again, how they are reported and recorded can be a problem. Call your local CYS if you don’t believe me.
As has been pointed out in other posts, your being generally likable isn’t going to be an issue. A spouse, neighbor or someone else close to you is going off the deep end and whatever weapon is handy at that moment is going to be the one used. Even in my family (and we’re basically what you would describe as armed to the teeth) strychnine and knives are far and away the weapons of choice for murder. Murder by shooting? None. Stabbings and poisonings? Four in my generation alone - so far.
I want to look at one line closer.
<<The danger of getting caught in a knifing crossfire is pretty limited.>>
Actually, depending on your line of work, the chances of getting into any form of crossfire probably ranks up there with getting hit by lightning. I’ve been hurt worse by drunk drivers (and more often) than I’ve ever been by firearms and I was raised with the darn things everywhere. Can you at least understand why some of us find the fear of guns to be irrational?
I don’t know if the media is to blame per se, but unless you are already a gun enthusiast and spend a lot of time around guns that are not being fired or just being shot at targets, the only time the average person hears about guns is when they are being used to kill something.
News reports of murder, news reports of accidental shootings, cop/mystery shows, action movies, video games, hunting shows, personal tales from hunters, etc.
Every so often you see images of people at ranges (usually on TV it’s people at ranges shooting at human-shaped targets - rarely ever clay pigeons!) There’s plenty of here threads on here about guns and ammo, care and cleaning…but not being a gun enthusiast, I don’t read those (don’t worry, I don’t read kitty threads either). But I’d venture to guess that, for me, the ratio of benign-gun-mentions to something-died-gun-mentions that I am exposed to is 1:1000.
And with regards to artillery or archery…no one is going to sneak up on me and kill me with a cannon. If I’m visiting a battleship, I’m not going to be in the line of fire from a large bore gun. If someone’s going to pull out a bow and arrow on the subway, let’s assume they get taken down before they can load up. I’m much more afraid of purse-sized pistols and a shot between the eyes.
So is it really irrational that someone outside of the gun enthusiast camp would be afraid of guns? If the bulk of the time they give a thought to guns, it is because something/someone is killed? Heck, I know some guys who shoot purely for fun, and I get exposed to gun enthusiasts here so I am not totally ignorant of the idea of “just a gun” - but still my exposure to “tool for killing” is way higher, and I am afraid of guns. Maybe not run-out-of-the-room scared, but yeah they make me nervous. Is that really all that weird?
Actually, in southwestern Pennsylvania, about once a year. Although it is more usual that its property damage rather than death. There is a case active now from, I believe, Washington County where someone put a cannon ball through their neighbor’s house.
And I’d still like to see the laws extended to include hot-headed assholes, people who are criminals who have not yet been caught and anyone who drinks alcohol in excess.
Even more alarming! So, as long as a person has no criminal record and knows how to load and point it, that’ll do you?
Nervous is OK; that’s not what I’m talking about when I am using the word “irrational”. I’ll admit to being nervous around strange firearms myself in some situations until I can confirm physically for myself that the gun is empty and/or under control of a trusted person. What was mentioned in the OP (I believe) are people who have a physical/phobic reaction to privately owned guns. Not simply liking or not liking.
Your explanation of media reporting/exposure and other explanations here can explain likes or dislikes. But the phobic, more visceral reaction, still confuses me. Again, it isn’t simply firearms or killing or potential that seems to be the trigger; it is specifically the civilian ownership of firearms and firearms alone that does it. And that, I still contend, is irrational.
In some ways, a gun is the ultimate magic wand – you point it at someone, and after a minute gesture, you have taken the life of that someone, just like that, bang and dead. There’s not many things around with that kind of power; in fact, I fail to think of any that are commonly available; knives, cars, really big hammers or whatever else, they need to at least come into direct contact with you, not just be waved in your general direction. Even bow and arrows are far more cumbersome, and considerably less common.
The reality, of course, may be widely different – you may only wound your target, or miss altogether, or any number of things; but that latent power is there. A person carrying a gun thus has the latent power to take pretty much any life in their line of sight – they generally won’t, and I have no fears of anybody actually freaking out and going on a shooting spree in my vicinity, there are more worthwhile things to fret about.
But still, I can completely understand the fear in giving to a total stranger such a power, even under the reasonable assumption that he won’t abuse it – after all, would you easily give a random stranger the power to access your bank account, even if you could be reasonably certain they wouldn’t just up and empty it out? And that’s just a bit of money, nothing really when compared to your life.
That this fear becomes associated with the object that conveys this power doesn’t seem all too great a stretch to me.
Well, we are talking about my fears here. It doesn’t really matter how prevelant overdoses are, I do not find myself at risk of it, so I have no fear. Tainted products certainly exist, but the number is minimal compared to gun shooting. More to the point baby food is a necessary substance, so this particular risk is unavoidable, unlike say with guns. Same with knives for that matter, as people tend to need to cut things.
The fact that guns aren’t used is often because they don’t happen to be handy. I believe that if there were more access to guns than the amount of guns used in such incidents would increase. This would in turn increase the amount of death and injury, since, as been pointed out, guns are very good at that. Obviously some people disagree.
People don’t tend to attack people they like. There are of course people who go on a rampage, but generally speaking, usually there is a reason for wanting to kill someone. Again we are talking about my fears here, and I don’t worry about causing intense rages.
The point is, when someone goes off the deep end, I don’t want them to have a gun handy. Sure you can murder other ways, but guns make it easier and are far more likely to cause collateral damage than say stabbings.
Just because you haven’t been shot, doesn’t mean guns didn’t increase the likelyhood there of. The vast majority of people own guns without incident. Let’s say legal guns cause 1 out of every 100,000 people to die each year. If that is an avoidable death, I want to avoid it, even if most gun owners live perfectly quiet lives.
The thing is though, that if you (generic) don’t have a gun, you aren’t likely to kill me. In situations where someone is making rash and thoughtless decisions, guns make it easy to turn the situation from maim to kill. That is why I say that the gun killed the person. Yes, the gun didn’t do it by itself, but if the gun hadn’t been there, the person would not have killed the other person. Thus, the gun is a necessary part of the kill.
P.S. I’m very terrified of poisons. For the same reasons.
…Remind me to never accept any invitation to dinner with your family.
Someone compared it to being afraid of heights, and I think that makes the most sense. Ever stood by a cliff and felt dizzy? You know, logically, that you’re far enough from it for anything to happen and no one’s likely to push you (just as you know a gun won’t spring up and shoot you for no reason), but you can’t help but wonder ‘What if?’ What if you trip, have a seizure, or misjudge the distance? It may not be a close call to an outside observer, but it is to the person who’s got the fear, if only in their mind.
And as others have mentioned, a gun shooting something or something has done its job. It’s not like it’s supposed to be used to paint a wall or transport people and occasionally it lets off a bullet by some error. That is its function.
ETA I seem to recall a case in Canada a few years ago not too long after Columbine. The kid had a hit list and a lot of rage, but no gun. Just a knife. IIRC, no one was killed.
You’re interpreting my statements overly broadly. I’m not saying that anyone who advocates for gun control is irrational. I’m speaking specifically of a person like in the OP - she trusts him and his judgement, and she knew that they were in completely controlled circumstances where ammunition was not even available, and yet her reaction was to panic. That’s irrational.
I didn’t say it required malice, but that the use was deliberate. My intent was to say that guns don’t just “go off” like it’s often reported on the news. In almost every case (like 99.99999%+), a gun fires because someone deliberately pulls the trigger. That may be due to stupidity or malice, but my point is that it’s the judgement of the user, rather than an inherent danger of being near a gun.
This rings true to me. I had never been around guns until I took a shooting class because I wanted to know how to use one. And being around real, live guns did scare me, until I learned how to properly handle and fire one.