Czar - What goal are you trying to work towards?
Do you answer questions posed to you or just simply respond to questions with more questions?
A lessening of the attitude that guns are a solution to societal or personal problems.
I have responded in this thread, and even provided a link with statistics.
I’m not really sure what that is supposed to show. You made 2 comments that I think are of dubious validity.
-
people are convinced that guns were some sort of overall “solution” to what ails society
-
guns are “stored in a shoebox in the closet, in a glovebox or in a holster waiting for that extremely rare opportunity when a re-run attacks them in a dark alley in the middle of the night”
I have no idea where #1 comes from. I mean, there probably are a few whack-jobs that think guns are an “overall” solution, but I’m not sure how you think that is some sort of mainstream thinking.
As for #2, people own guns for lots of different reasons, be that hunting, target practice, collecting, or personal protection. How that is supposed to be related to #1 is even more puzzling.
Actually, John, Czar hasn’t actually said he thinks #1. I asked directly in post #14 if that was what he was claiming but he declined to answer.
How do you measure this attitude? How do you know it exists at all? It seems you’d want to establish that first, then connect how any particular effort works towards this goal. Gun control proponents these days remind me of trying to maufacture some tragedy so they can go invade Iraq.
Make the world a safer place to live. I’d start by eliminating poverty (just give poor people money), which will go a long way towards eliminating the desperation that drives poor malcontents to a life of crime. Then we could end prohibition, breaking the cycle of sending poor innocent teens and young adults to crime college in their formative years and condemning them to a life where they can no longer get a legitimate job. We basically manufacture criminals in this country, so I’d say not doing that would greatly help most people feel safe enough to forgo weapons for self defense.
But that just answers the question you asked. None of it will prevent the odd whacko from murdering people for shits and giggles if he feels like it. But it would decrease crime and violence, cutting down on the perceived need to protect oneself with guns, which would further cut down on crime and violence. Bonus: No fundamental rights need to be eliminated or infringed in this scenario!
The goal should be identifying mass-murdering monsters before they become mass-murdering monsters.
You object to this monster’s choice of one inanimate object, as if that inanimate object forced/made/cajoled the monster into murdering people.
If you could manage to ban all firearms, you would still be left with mass-murdering-types, who have chosen knives, swords, pipe bombs, pressure cooker bombs, arson, poison, dynamite, and driving into crowds with cars, and trucks.
You haven’t stopped the mass-murdering monsters, you’ve only limited their weapon of choice.
And take gun rights away from citizens who are still law-abiding? You’re sure?
How would *you *have identified Dylann Roof, before the fact, as a “mass-murdering monster”? Or any of them, for that matter? Who can you identify now who’s going to become one?
Doesn’t have to be all. First world countries with roughly a third the US gun ownership rate, like Canada and Germany, are much safer.
As far as not going to happen soon, I agree this is likely. It could be like US cigarette consumption, which peaked around 1960 and took 40 years to decline by half. I’d love if gun sales, without having to lock people up, crashed the way confederate flag sales – and, hopefully, confederate flag flying – seem about to crash. But I admit the gun decline, when it comes, will probably be slower.
Alternately, America could become even more heavily armed. But when you are at an extreme, the tend is regression to the mean. And the US is now at that extreme, with the world’s highest gun ownership rate:
World’s highest gun ownership rate. World’s highest incarceration rate. First world’s highest income inequality after taxes and transfers. But Mike Huckabee says it’s the best country in the history of the world, so what do I know :smack:
P.S. And to be fair to Mr. Huckabee, it may be that every serious US presidential candidate will eventually say something like that.
I guess finding out WHO might become an unstable, mass-murdering monster would be a far better goal than trying to find new ways to blame an inanimate objects?
doorhinge:
wrt any of your posts above, more of the same schlock--hyperbole and willful ignorance; go find any other gun thread and cut and paste replies to what you wrote
Bone:
Are you denying that up and down the American cultural landscape (to include media, family and community practices and traditions, etc.) information comes through on the gun as an instrument of power, leverage, revenge, anger-, fear- and threat-response, and even on these boards, a click or two away, even in a thread you just participated in, giveaways like "Colt's great equalizer". You're being unashamedly disingenuous here.
Let's try something else. What is Bone's personal value system re guns? What are your perceptions of American gun culture with respect to the OP? How does a comprehensive system of morals and ethics integrate the gun into it in a way that, for one, cherishes human life?
I can’t parse your question. Actually, I don’t think there is a question - I see no question mark. Could you rephrase if you’d like a response?
As for being disingenuous - I’m not clear on how you draw that conclusion. Czar stated he was trying to work towards a goal of “A lessening of the attitude that guns are a solution to societal or personal problems.” I’m merely trying to suss out the underlying premises of this goal. I find it difficult to engage with folks who like to pose a lot of questions without offering any responses - it’s very one way and isn’t conducive to discussion. If you think clarifying statements made is disingenuous, well, good luck with that.
Your question is too broad for a meaningful answer. I’ve been posting on this board regularly about guns, gun rights, gun issues, etc for nearly 10 years. Feel free to read the hundreds of posts made ranging from the broad to the nuanced. If you have a particular question, I’d be glad to address it.
By asking your question about morals and ethics, is it fair to interpret that as your belief that the gun culture doesn’t cherish human life? If that’s not a fair interpretation, how is the gun culture different than your own, which I presume cherishes human life?
One does aways with drugs and its concomitant criminality. This is a biggie. To stop acting like drug use is cool would be a good start.
One does away with our revolving-door justice system which sees people arrested and jailed over and over again, like in the case of these two assholes, who, at 33 and 32 years of age are out of jail and physically attacking their neighbors after having been arrested 45 and 31 times respectively for a variety of crimes including burglary, assault and theft.
One does away with the practice of defending cultural behaviors which result in children being born to very young and often poorly educated single mothers and raised virtually on the streets without proper discipline, education or values.
And speaking of education, one does away with the ridiculous practice known as “social promotion”, which at its worst can result in students graduating high school unable to read or write at even a first grade level, and therefore unable to make a living outside of crime.
One does away with the glamorization and tacit approval of ‘thug life’, which promotes violence, weaponry and illegal activity of all sorts.
In other words, guns are the symptom, not the disease.
If society’s squeaky wheels were anywhere near as determined to address these issues - which are more serious and harmful to society by multiple orders of magnitude - as they are to make sure everyone behaves correctly on issues PC, we could create a society where people are much less likely to feel the need to arm themselves for protection…and where a sizable proportion of its members lead better lives to boot.
BTW, doorhinge, does your name rhyme with “orange” ? 
Gun nuts do not impress with their cognitive power when they make this argument. One wonders what “weapon of choice” you refer to that would be able to cause nine quick deaths. Hand grenades?
A huge number of gun homicides, gun suicides and gun accidents are deaths that would not have happened without the gun. This is obviously true in any event, but is amplified if we assume a positive correlation between gun-wielding and cowardice. (Recall one Doper afraid to travel overseas since he couldn’t bring his gun.)
And you deserve a lot of credit for your persistence in what I’m sure at times can be hostile waters.
Not disingenuous? You're trying to ground out the major element of the discussion by "catching" Czarcasm on a narrowed down definition of American gun culture (his "an attitude"), a major element which I reinvigorated and redirected toward you in the interest of the OP, and now which you dodge, again, refusing to discuss the nature and often fraught facets of our gun culture. Fine. Don't answer, nanswer, you're not a position of strength there.
As far as what I've (briefly) seen of Bone's posts:
Of your views on guns and what I gather as a value system on that front, whether or not this is faith at heart, a religious feeling assoc with it or not, it is a faith in fact.
Anytime you have an individual or group selectively picking and choosing from among the facts, and holding a set of values above most other considerations, I consider a faith in fact. And though, absolutely, people are free to worship whatever faith they choose, and I and most others wouldn't judge, condemn, try to disuade anyone for that (unless it's obviously of blatant harm), we do live in a country that separates church and state. The problem with eg 2nd-Amendment-as-sacred (or, ~equivalently, as a value held above all other considerations and at the expense of certain facts) is it gets treated as scripture by the faithful, and those not of the faith very understandably become frustrated, resentful, reactionary, etc. to the conclusions. What are the hazards to others with 2nd-A-as-sacred? We for instance become threatened with this narrowness of case law that can come out around it. Another thread, you were trying to make an argument that the 2nd Amendment supported gun ownership at a cutoff age of 18, not 21 (correct me if wrong there), and would accept no other. Rigid case law.
I am NOT attacking your value system (and its details are very much your business, fine). I'm saying it isn't for everyone, and it shouldn't be foisted on everyone.
In not just you, but a lot of the "core" pro-gun crowd, I see someone who is backed up into a very highly held, even quasi-religious, value system.
Chains of reasoning such as
[ul]
[li]nine people died in a massacre by a shooter[/li][li]looking at all contributing causes, America’s gun culture was obviously a factor[/li][li]sending a message that America’s gun culture is not OK and needs to change would help address this contributing cause[/li][li][eg insert any centrist gun control measure here, such as closing background check loopholes][/li][/ul]
get a blind eye and ear.
As a package, America's gun culture? Yes. Absolutely. America's gun culture doesn't do nearly enough to emphasize the sanctity of human life.
Again, you’re kind of all over the place here. Simplifying here - Czar stated his goal and I one question I asked was how he measured success around that goal. I think that’s a fair question. Do you?
The second part of the question I asked was around the basis for that goal. His goal was to change an attitude. I asked how he knows what he is trying to change actually exists. I think that’s a fair question. Do you?
Thus far Czar has declined to asnwer.
What isn’t being answered?
This is a difficult sentence to understand based on the way you’ve written it. Style of course, but I think there is some meaning that I’m not getting. I’ll state clearly what I think you’re asking - I believe the right to self defense is a matter of first principles. This right is a natural right and includes means for effective defense. You can call them faith, but there is nothing religious about it. There is surely crossover between these natural rights and what is recognized in our system of laws. I argue from a position of what is supportable in the law because I do not expect anyone to conform to my personal belief system.
You are wrong. My argument was that by definition the age of majority conferred all the rights of adulthood and those rights should be recognized consistently at one age, be it 18, 21, or 45. The 2nd amendment supports the right to own and purchase handguns, and if this right extends to 18 year olds by virtue of 18 being the age of majority, then they ought to enjoy this right. I posted extensively about the analogues to the 1st amendment, the two step analysis required in 2nd amendment jurisprudence, the rationale in the 5th circuit that decided this issue, and the conceptual framework from which I drew conclusions. To simplify that as saying "the 2nd amendment supported gun ownership at 18 not 21 is inaccurate.
Here’s the thing - I take a pragmatic approach to these things. There is no reason whatsoever to compromise on gun issues . Just like you can’t compromise with the person who wants to kill you (how about just a little dead?) You can’t compromise on gun issues because gun control groups ultimately want to ban guns.
I’ve posed this question many times - what would you give up in order to pass legislation that required a background check on all firearm purchases? Here’s what I want - national reciprocity and federal shall issue. Is that worth it to you?
Okay, great. Can you define your terms? How are you characterizing “america’s gun culture”? What would be doing “enough” to emphasize the sanctity of human life?
In any event, I think you wanted to talk about “gun culture”, not a general catch all for all gun related issues. To do that, I think you need to clarify and support what you mean when you use the term. The gun culture in CA is certainly different than in South Carolina.
So no, you don’t have a single clue about how to do what you claim we need to do, do you?
Maybe it’s time to look for an alternative approach to saving lives, then. How about it?
Would you mind rephrasing your post? I have no idea what you are trying to say.
An individual somehow manages to justify their mass murdering of others. Not because of imminent danger, but because their very own inner monster decided it necessary.
You may prefer to blame one inanimate object for the monsters decision.
You’ll need to ban knives, swords, cars, gasoline, rat and bug poisons, ammonium nitrate fertilizer, propane tanks, iron and steel pipe, and pressure cookers. All of which have been used by mass murdering monsters to kill people.
How many inanimate object tell you what to do?
And you have no idea how to address that problem, you only know it’s the only problem we *should *address. Is that not the case?
No. I blame all of you who have relentlessly fought any measure that would restrict his access to the means of death for allowing him to *act *on his monstrous decision. There is blood from Charleston on your hands too.
All those things have primary purposes other than causing death. Even so, we do what we can to make them as safe as possible, to keep them out of the hands of people with no legitimate use for them, to regulate their manufacture and sale, and so forth. Do you agree we should do no less for items whose primary purpose *is *causing death? If not, why not?