-
The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
Hand gun ownership in the U.S.
- Thread starter Maj.Nick Danger
- Start date
- Status
Fatdutchman
Practically Family
- Messages
- 559
- Location
- Kentucky
Fletch, your first and third points describe me (and you say it as if those things are bad...). The second point depends upon one's whereabouts as much as anything. In some places, one might see violent crime as likely, given their surroundings, while others, like myself, see it as a possibility...but one which you should be prepared for. Your last two points are kind of odd and show a lack of understanding at the very least.
Let's see, what points could I ascribe to the gun hater?....anything I said would no doubt be deemed hateful, insensitive, or "homophobic" (I despise the use of this non-word...someone who is a "homophobe" would be someone who had an intense irrational fear of everything being exactly the same).
Here's what it comes down to. There are "gun people", who like guns and shooting, hunting, etc. and then there are "non gun people", who don't care for such things, which is fine, and then there are "anti gun people", who despise guns, want all of them melted down (except for the ones in government hands), and wish to deny everyone their ability to defend themselves. They are quite vehement about it. The "gun people" don't care whether or not anyone else owns a gun, or likes guns, or anything else, but when the "anti gun people" come along and say that guns are evil (how's that for black and white and believing in evil?), and you must be evil for owning one...you're just a crime waiting to happen, and it must be taken from you before you kill someone, which is inevetable, well, we tend to get a bit miffed. Especially since the only way to take them from us is through the use of force (how is it evil for us, and not for them?). The "anti gun people" pretty much have control over most of the television and print media, and are very influential...beyond their actual numbers. Of course, that influence is put upon the "non gun people", who simply didn't care about guns, but since they don't have a personal stake in things, will often side with the "anti gun people", if not actually pushing legislation, but at least supporting it.
Let's see, what points could I ascribe to the gun hater?....anything I said would no doubt be deemed hateful, insensitive, or "homophobic" (I despise the use of this non-word...someone who is a "homophobe" would be someone who had an intense irrational fear of everything being exactly the same).
Here's what it comes down to. There are "gun people", who like guns and shooting, hunting, etc. and then there are "non gun people", who don't care for such things, which is fine, and then there are "anti gun people", who despise guns, want all of them melted down (except for the ones in government hands), and wish to deny everyone their ability to defend themselves. They are quite vehement about it. The "gun people" don't care whether or not anyone else owns a gun, or likes guns, or anything else, but when the "anti gun people" come along and say that guns are evil (how's that for black and white and believing in evil?), and you must be evil for owning one...you're just a crime waiting to happen, and it must be taken from you before you kill someone, which is inevetable, well, we tend to get a bit miffed. Especially since the only way to take them from us is through the use of force (how is it evil for us, and not for them?). The "anti gun people" pretty much have control over most of the television and print media, and are very influential...beyond their actual numbers. Of course, that influence is put upon the "non gun people", who simply didn't care about guns, but since they don't have a personal stake in things, will often side with the "anti gun people", if not actually pushing legislation, but at least supporting it.
Undertow
My Mail is Forwarded Here
- Messages
- 3,126
- Location
- Des Moines, IA, US
Fortunately, Fletch, the majority of those points did not apply to me save number 2. I believe Carebear's refutation suffices for my opinion so I won't repeat anything in that regard.
Fletch, I will assume you're creating discussion, and even if not, you're at least not without an opinion.
Regardless, I've grown up with some of my best friends whose parents were over-the-top anti-gun. I mean, as children, they weren't even allowed to use squirt guns. Ridiculous, in my opinion. I didn't understand guns as a child so I never would argue their opinion, save for the lack of fun.
But as I got older, I realized the majority of anti-gun people are merely people who are ignorant to the complexities of guns. That's not to say they're stupid, I'm just saying that when an anti-gun person is educated on the statistics relating to guns as well as actual gun use, they realize guns are nothing more than a tool.
And for those that say guns are more prolific in urban murders, need I remind you all that there was, within the last year or two, a man running through a New York subway hacking people up with a chainsaw.
So let's create tighter laws restricting chainsaws??
I am one of those people who makes my own choices based on my morals, ethics and principles. It is neither my business nor my burden to know others' rationales. That pretty much lands me as "Pro-Choice" in regard to every single aspect of life.
And now I'll refrain from anything even slightly political...
How 'bout them Cubbies!
Fletch, I will assume you're creating discussion, and even if not, you're at least not without an opinion.
Regardless, I've grown up with some of my best friends whose parents were over-the-top anti-gun. I mean, as children, they weren't even allowed to use squirt guns. Ridiculous, in my opinion. I didn't understand guns as a child so I never would argue their opinion, save for the lack of fun.
But as I got older, I realized the majority of anti-gun people are merely people who are ignorant to the complexities of guns. That's not to say they're stupid, I'm just saying that when an anti-gun person is educated on the statistics relating to guns as well as actual gun use, they realize guns are nothing more than a tool.
And for those that say guns are more prolific in urban murders, need I remind you all that there was, within the last year or two, a man running through a New York subway hacking people up with a chainsaw.
So let's create tighter laws restricting chainsaws??
I am one of those people who makes my own choices based on my morals, ethics and principles. It is neither my business nor my burden to know others' rationales. That pretty much lands me as "Pro-Choice" in regard to every single aspect of life.
And now I'll refrain from anything even slightly political...
How 'bout them Cubbies!
Tango Yankee
Call Me a Cab
- Messages
- 2,433
- Location
- Lucasville, OH
Response to Fletch
Fletch,
I'm what Fatdutchman would call a "Non-gun person." Here's my view of your points (though I may not address all of them.)
1. I don't believe guns are a political statement, but they are certainly can be a very emotional political topic.
2. There are plenty of handgun owners out there that are not political people, though you may be correct regarding the conservative angle--the majority of gun people I know are conservative. I believe (and this is just my opinion, not based on solid evidence) that what you see here and on other forums are actually the minority. A vocal and active minority, but a minority none the less. It's not that I think the other gun owners are any less passionate about their guns, I just think they don't get politically involved.
3. Not necessarily, but this trait may also be simply a conservative trait.
4. At the very least they believe that it is possible, even if not probable. I also believe it is possible; sadly, we are not as civilized a people as we like to think we are.
5. Not sure I can address this one, other then they believe that if they are in a situation where violence is possible they believe it comes down to "it's either them or us." If the situation cannot be defused, they're right.
6. I think that for the "lowest common denominator" you may be right, but for the types of gun owners that post here I think what they encourage is to be prepared for the situation.
7. Again, I think this may apply more to the lowest common denominator though it does seem to be a conservative trend.
My reference to the lowest common denominator is to the type of person I often see around here: not well-educated, rather limited in experience, doesn't seem to care about issues regarding safety (either in terms of training or protective gear), not all that concerned with the law (not necessarily criminals in the going out and robbing people sense but in the do what I want even if it means trespassing or violating other laws sense), easily riled up through emotions. The type of person you see on the news that gets into an argument with a buddy, pulls a gun, and shoots them. These are the people who worry me when it comes to gun ownership, not those who are responsible enough to take the courses, keep up with the laws, practice on a regular basis, give a lot of thought to what it means to pull a weapon on another person, and take the issue of gun ownership seriously.
As a non-gun person I will say there is one type of weapon I do not believe should be in the hands of civilians, and that is the automatic weapon. It has no place as a hunting weapon and they tend to be a bit indiscriminate when used for self defense. Such weapons should be relegated to government use (Military, and in very extreme cases, police.)
Cheers,
Tom
Fletch,
I'm what Fatdutchman would call a "Non-gun person." Here's my view of your points (though I may not address all of them.)
1. I don't believe guns are a political statement, but they are certainly can be a very emotional political topic.
2. There are plenty of handgun owners out there that are not political people, though you may be correct regarding the conservative angle--the majority of gun people I know are conservative. I believe (and this is just my opinion, not based on solid evidence) that what you see here and on other forums are actually the minority. A vocal and active minority, but a minority none the less. It's not that I think the other gun owners are any less passionate about their guns, I just think they don't get politically involved.
3. Not necessarily, but this trait may also be simply a conservative trait.
4. At the very least they believe that it is possible, even if not probable. I also believe it is possible; sadly, we are not as civilized a people as we like to think we are.
5. Not sure I can address this one, other then they believe that if they are in a situation where violence is possible they believe it comes down to "it's either them or us." If the situation cannot be defused, they're right.
6. I think that for the "lowest common denominator" you may be right, but for the types of gun owners that post here I think what they encourage is to be prepared for the situation.
7. Again, I think this may apply more to the lowest common denominator though it does seem to be a conservative trend.
My reference to the lowest common denominator is to the type of person I often see around here: not well-educated, rather limited in experience, doesn't seem to care about issues regarding safety (either in terms of training or protective gear), not all that concerned with the law (not necessarily criminals in the going out and robbing people sense but in the do what I want even if it means trespassing or violating other laws sense), easily riled up through emotions. The type of person you see on the news that gets into an argument with a buddy, pulls a gun, and shoots them. These are the people who worry me when it comes to gun ownership, not those who are responsible enough to take the courses, keep up with the laws, practice on a regular basis, give a lot of thought to what it means to pull a weapon on another person, and take the issue of gun ownership seriously.
As a non-gun person I will say there is one type of weapon I do not believe should be in the hands of civilians, and that is the automatic weapon. It has no place as a hunting weapon and they tend to be a bit indiscriminate when used for self defense. Such weapons should be relegated to government use (Military, and in very extreme cases, police.)
Cheers,
Tom
Tango Yankee
Call Me a Cab
- Messages
- 2,433
- Location
- Lucasville, OH
The Self Defense Question
Thanks for the responses! It is unfortunate that such things happen.
I've had only one instance in my life when I thought, in retrospect, having a gun might have been a good idea. Way back in 1990, and was at night on an empty stretch of I-10 in west Texas--the stereotypical long way from any help bit.
I friend of mine once told me of an incident when he was driving a cab in Compton, CA in the '70s. One night he was parked and taking a nap when he was disturbed by someone tapping on his window. He rolled it down and some punk stuck a .38 in his face and demanded his money. Darwin raised the .45 he had in is hand and said "No, you give me yours." He then called the police and held the guy until they came. The officers didn't believe the punk's story about being robbed by the cabbie.
I live in a rural area now, though on a state highway. My wife and I considered using our property to board horses and discussed the security issues of doing so. We did come to the conclusion that having a weapon available might be a good idea, and settled on the idea of a shotgun. Why a shotgun? Well, in part because we thought that the intimidation factor of the sound of a shotgun being racked would be a good thing.
We never did go the horse boarding route, though.
Cheers,
Tom
Thanks for the responses! It is unfortunate that such things happen.
I've had only one instance in my life when I thought, in retrospect, having a gun might have been a good idea. Way back in 1990, and was at night on an empty stretch of I-10 in west Texas--the stereotypical long way from any help bit.
I friend of mine once told me of an incident when he was driving a cab in Compton, CA in the '70s. One night he was parked and taking a nap when he was disturbed by someone tapping on his window. He rolled it down and some punk stuck a .38 in his face and demanded his money. Darwin raised the .45 he had in is hand and said "No, you give me yours." He then called the police and held the guy until they came. The officers didn't believe the punk's story about being robbed by the cabbie.
I live in a rural area now, though on a state highway. My wife and I considered using our property to board horses and discussed the security issues of doing so. We did come to the conclusion that having a weapon available might be a good idea, and settled on the idea of a shotgun. Why a shotgun? Well, in part because we thought that the intimidation factor of the sound of a shotgun being racked would be a good thing.
We never did go the horse boarding route, though.
Cheers,
Tom
Twitch
My Mail is Forwarded Here
- Messages
- 3,133
- Location
- City of the Angels
The idea that firearms of any type are "political" is just another warped product of our wanna-be utopian society. For the entire history of this nation folks used firearms as tools and as this land developed. I personally know people who literally put food on the table in rough economic times like the Depression because they had firearms.
When wars came along men like my grandpa and his ilk went to fight the Kaiser already quite familiar with firearms. There were quite a few people like Sgt. York who could shoot extremely well.
As WW2 developed cadres of American men skilled in the use of firearms went to training with the skills needed to handle firearms. Guys like my Dad became a pilot and knew exactly what lead and defelction were all about due to his hunting with his dad.
He later spent a lifetime in law enforcement and once cautioned me, "remember even if we (cops) get there in just 5 minutes you're on your own till then. A lot can happen in that time. Think about it."
He was right, of course. In combat 3 minutes can mean the differnence between being over run and surviving. It doesn't matter whether your squad is being overwhelmed by an enemy company and air support is 3 minutes out or you've dialled 911 because some sleaze bag broke in and is making his way towards you and your loved ones. Time is critical in life and death situations and if there is no deterrent to thwart an enemy he will take you out.
So how did we pioneers of this great nation come to this- actually pondering whether a statement as assinine as saying anyone who owns firearms is conservative or has some predetermined political leanings is even valid.
I have journeyed through every conceivable political point of view from mild to wild in my lifetime and have always owned firearms. What does that prove? Nothing of course since firearms owners are individuals and not part of some imagined conspiracy identifyable as a "type."
The idea that sexist firearms owners have some wack version of men and women's roles in society is just plain laughable since it illustrates a vintage perception of sexes. It's obvious anyone prescribing to that nonsense has no idea that there are a great many females of all ages, races and backgrounds participating in firearms ownership and activities. Hello!! It's 2007 not 1937! Go to a gun range an see!
As a society with laws based on basic christian ethics and rules it is no mystery why our morals parallel teachings such as the 10 Commandments. There are actual laws that equal each commandment in almost every Western society including the USA. So well defined laws that are "black and white" concerning right and wrong are ubiqutous.
But the sickest portrayal of all is to imagine that firearms owners all perceive that we live in crime-ridden societies and expect to be the victims of crime. For the major part of the past 15 years violent crime has fallen across the nation as per FBI Uniform Crime Statistics. It certainly isn't exclusively firearms owners who contuine the facade that the country is swimming in crime. The media and politicians of all levels prepetrate this ongoing lie of uncontrolled escalating crime seemingly in some effort to sway opinion the next time a feel-good "anti-crime" law is passed.
This image of firearms owners as actually expecting and encouraging violence and then reacting with glee as authorities and law enforcement personnel use extreme force to quell some anarchy is absolutely the most perverted and bankrupt picture imaginable. Once again the firearm owner is portrayed as a drooling savage laughingly amused by the misfortunes of the innocents so he can participate in or view marshall law dealing out swift, violent justice beating his chest as he imagines some survival of the fittest, Mad Max, post apocalypse society where guns rule.
This stinking garbage dredged up from the sewer to indict firearms owners as the catalyst of evil thinking in society is simply another attempt for the "anti" crowd to demonize what they imagine is a specific group of bad people when in fact gun owners represent a broad spectrum of cultures, values, economic and racial backgrounds and social mores.
The very idea that any one group of people should be branded in some particularly negative manner smacks of bigotry and elitism. If there are some250 million? firearms owned in the US it stands to reason that statistically more than a singular, one dimensional class of people have them. Since there are far, far fewer Hondas on the US roads it would be tanatmount to concocting a profile of their owners as left wing degenerates bent on child molestation.
This type of rationalization really does belong in the Golden Age of fuddy duddys.
When wars came along men like my grandpa and his ilk went to fight the Kaiser already quite familiar with firearms. There were quite a few people like Sgt. York who could shoot extremely well.
As WW2 developed cadres of American men skilled in the use of firearms went to training with the skills needed to handle firearms. Guys like my Dad became a pilot and knew exactly what lead and defelction were all about due to his hunting with his dad.
He later spent a lifetime in law enforcement and once cautioned me, "remember even if we (cops) get there in just 5 minutes you're on your own till then. A lot can happen in that time. Think about it."
He was right, of course. In combat 3 minutes can mean the differnence between being over run and surviving. It doesn't matter whether your squad is being overwhelmed by an enemy company and air support is 3 minutes out or you've dialled 911 because some sleaze bag broke in and is making his way towards you and your loved ones. Time is critical in life and death situations and if there is no deterrent to thwart an enemy he will take you out.
So how did we pioneers of this great nation come to this- actually pondering whether a statement as assinine as saying anyone who owns firearms is conservative or has some predetermined political leanings is even valid.
I have journeyed through every conceivable political point of view from mild to wild in my lifetime and have always owned firearms. What does that prove? Nothing of course since firearms owners are individuals and not part of some imagined conspiracy identifyable as a "type."
The idea that sexist firearms owners have some wack version of men and women's roles in society is just plain laughable since it illustrates a vintage perception of sexes. It's obvious anyone prescribing to that nonsense has no idea that there are a great many females of all ages, races and backgrounds participating in firearms ownership and activities. Hello!! It's 2007 not 1937! Go to a gun range an see!
As a society with laws based on basic christian ethics and rules it is no mystery why our morals parallel teachings such as the 10 Commandments. There are actual laws that equal each commandment in almost every Western society including the USA. So well defined laws that are "black and white" concerning right and wrong are ubiqutous.
But the sickest portrayal of all is to imagine that firearms owners all perceive that we live in crime-ridden societies and expect to be the victims of crime. For the major part of the past 15 years violent crime has fallen across the nation as per FBI Uniform Crime Statistics. It certainly isn't exclusively firearms owners who contuine the facade that the country is swimming in crime. The media and politicians of all levels prepetrate this ongoing lie of uncontrolled escalating crime seemingly in some effort to sway opinion the next time a feel-good "anti-crime" law is passed.
This image of firearms owners as actually expecting and encouraging violence and then reacting with glee as authorities and law enforcement personnel use extreme force to quell some anarchy is absolutely the most perverted and bankrupt picture imaginable. Once again the firearm owner is portrayed as a drooling savage laughingly amused by the misfortunes of the innocents so he can participate in or view marshall law dealing out swift, violent justice beating his chest as he imagines some survival of the fittest, Mad Max, post apocalypse society where guns rule.
This stinking garbage dredged up from the sewer to indict firearms owners as the catalyst of evil thinking in society is simply another attempt for the "anti" crowd to demonize what they imagine is a specific group of bad people when in fact gun owners represent a broad spectrum of cultures, values, economic and racial backgrounds and social mores.
The very idea that any one group of people should be branded in some particularly negative manner smacks of bigotry and elitism. If there are some250 million? firearms owned in the US it stands to reason that statistically more than a singular, one dimensional class of people have them. Since there are far, far fewer Hondas on the US roads it would be tanatmount to concocting a profile of their owners as left wing degenerates bent on child molestation.
This type of rationalization really does belong in the Golden Age of fuddy duddys.
warbird
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,171
- Location
- Northern Virginia
Well said Twitch and Carebear. The generalizations of gun owners is simply another representation of the section of urban so-called enlightened intelligentsia who's progressive ideals and utopic world views makes them have utter contempt for certain 'old ways' and the people who believe in many of our founding beliefs. They are cast as simpletons, misogynists, bigots, war mongers, dumb and/or ignorant hicks. They are men who use guns to dominate women and all other species because of a raging desire for masculine domination. I am a proud gun owner and carrier and I am NONE of those things above.
Tango Yankee
Call Me a Cab
- Messages
- 2,433
- Location
- Lucasville, OH
warbird said:
Ummm... Isn't this a generalization?
Cheers,
Tom
carebear
My Mail is Forwarded Here
- Messages
- 3,220
- Location
- Anchorage, AK
Tango Yankee,
Thank you for your comments.
One thing I'd like to point out. Automatic weapons are highly regulated, but only since 1934. In that time only one lawfully owned machine gun has ever been used in a crime, and that one was owned by a police officer as part of his duties. Yet tens of thousands of them are in private hands and their owners enjoy shooting them (although they are very expensive to feed).
The idea that machineguns are somehow "more dangerous" than semi-automatics or any other firearm is neither correct nor logical. Again, it is only the individual who decides to commit a crime that is the problem, not you me or anyone else. Incidences of gun accidents have been dropping for decades. If you look at the actual crime studies, the "guy pulls out a gun and shoots someone" is NOT a guy who just snaps, they are almost uniformly folks with multiple run-ins with the law for violence. The problem is they were not dealt with properly in the first place. (Which raises questions of what is our justice system busy prosecuting that pushes assault down the list?)
Owning guns has nothing to do with hunting or any other sport at root. "Sporting use" in fact is a common catch-phrase used by the anti-gun folks as a justification to remove arms they dislike from perfectly safe and law-abiding people. The owning of weapons is about freedom, as long as you obey the law and are not a threat to others there is no reason to believe you would be any more dangerous with a machine gun than with a single shot small caliber pistol. The desire to control what other people have and do on the unlikely chance they might do something "bad" with it is something we in a free country need to approach with a lot more caution than many folks do nowadays.
Thank you for your comments.
One thing I'd like to point out. Automatic weapons are highly regulated, but only since 1934. In that time only one lawfully owned machine gun has ever been used in a crime, and that one was owned by a police officer as part of his duties. Yet tens of thousands of them are in private hands and their owners enjoy shooting them (although they are very expensive to feed).
The idea that machineguns are somehow "more dangerous" than semi-automatics or any other firearm is neither correct nor logical. Again, it is only the individual who decides to commit a crime that is the problem, not you me or anyone else. Incidences of gun accidents have been dropping for decades. If you look at the actual crime studies, the "guy pulls out a gun and shoots someone" is NOT a guy who just snaps, they are almost uniformly folks with multiple run-ins with the law for violence. The problem is they were not dealt with properly in the first place. (Which raises questions of what is our justice system busy prosecuting that pushes assault down the list?)
Owning guns has nothing to do with hunting or any other sport at root. "Sporting use" in fact is a common catch-phrase used by the anti-gun folks as a justification to remove arms they dislike from perfectly safe and law-abiding people. The owning of weapons is about freedom, as long as you obey the law and are not a threat to others there is no reason to believe you would be any more dangerous with a machine gun than with a single shot small caliber pistol. The desire to control what other people have and do on the unlikely chance they might do something "bad" with it is something we in a free country need to approach with a lot more caution than many folks do nowadays.
warbird
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,171
- Location
- Northern Virginia
Tango Yankee said:Ummm... Isn't this a generalization?
Cheers,
Tom
No. I said that section of......... meaning most of the prognosticators of these ideas, i.e. the professors and authors and politicians, all have similar backgrounds and typically come from the urban areas, not that urbanites all think this way, or even that all liberal urbanites think this way. It was a statement on the roots of this particular type of thinking and their purveyors. And I know this because my travels have taken me all across the country and I have literally debated hundreds of people on this issue. Hence another aspect of separating generalizations from not, fact.
Tango Yankee
Call Me a Cab
- Messages
- 2,433
- Location
- Lucasville, OH
carebear said:
Actually, my concept of a machine gun being "more dangerous" has more to do with controlling the weapon while firing it in automatic mode than in actual output. Someone not trained or experienced in using an automatic weapon would tend to wander off target with the rounds flying indiscriminately. This is one reason the AF trains most of it's personnel to use their M-16s in either semi-auto or "burst" mode, which limits you to three rounds per trigger pull.
Do you consider that there should not be any limit as to size/type of firearm that can be legally owned? How about legally carried?
Cheers,
Tom
warbird
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,171
- Location
- Northern Virginia
I'd kind of like my own F-16 and M1 Abrams. [huh] A howitzer to set off on the 4th of July might be swell too.
- Messages
- 15,563
- Location
- East Central Indiana
Boy!...Some of you fellers ways of throwin true thoughts out...is this conservative leaning localyokel HoosierHick's heros fur sure!
HD
HD
Tango Yankee
Call Me a Cab
- Messages
- 2,433
- Location
- Lucasville, OH
warbird said:
Ah, well, those aren't firearms, are they? They're weapons platforms.
warbird
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,171
- Location
- Northern Virginia
Tango Yankee said:
The tank and plane yes. Howitzer now, thats a gun.
J. M. Stovall
Call Me a Cab
- Messages
- 2,152
- Location
- Historic Heights Houston, Tejas
Not if it's the M109A6 Paladin, then it's still a weapons platform.warbird said:The tank and plane yes. Howitzer now, thats a gun.
Haversack
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,194
- Location
- Clipperton Island
Warbird wrote: "Howitzer now, thats a gun."
Naw, a howitzer is a howitzer, a gun is a gun. (Although because they've been making the barrels longer lately, they've taken to calling them gun-howitzers.) The last true gun in the US Army's inventory was the M107 175mm gun.
Haversack.
Naw, a howitzer is a howitzer, a gun is a gun. (Although because they've been making the barrels longer lately, they've taken to calling them gun-howitzers.) The last true gun in the US Army's inventory was the M107 175mm gun.
Haversack.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
