About America And Guns.

[ADigitalArtist]

I sense an attempt to be clever in evading my catching your error...
but I don't understand what you posted

You don't practice what you preach, and don't acknowledge your own errors.

Do you object to my saying that addressing mental health problems is important,
but independent from the issue of allowing qualified teachers to be armed

Yes, in that the former is worth as much consideration as the latter when addressing the same problem.

Woe unto those who would start a war of cartoons with an actual
cartoon character....especially an unbalanced & volatile one.

This could go on for days but to prevent spamming we should make a political comic thread. Might be fun. Maybe after work (I'm on weekend clinic.)

 

[ADigitalArtist]

How about you patrolling my neighborhood tonight between-say- midnight and 5 am. I am sure that would make me feel safer. I'll take responsibility for my families safety when you're not around--thank you very much.

Patrol your neighborhood? What? The whole point of the thread is that 'a man and his gun defending the weak' is a fantasy. I think we can think of more creative ways to address crime than building every house a bunker and a gun safe. (Not that I'm knocking gun safes, considering how many toddlers have shot themselves and each other this year. Jesus.)

 

[Revoltingest]

You don't practice what you preach, and don't acknowledge your own errors.

Deflection by accusation, eh.

Yes, in that the former is worth as much consideration as the latter when addressing the same problem.

So you do object to both?
I suspect that there's more agreement here than you post suggests.

This could go on for days but to prevent spamming we should make a political comic thread. Might be fun. Maybe after work (I'm on weekend clinic.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Patrol your neighborhood? What? The whole point of the thread is that 'a man and his gun defending the weak' is a fantasy.

Using a gun in defense of oneself & others is a "fantasy", eh.
Would you have cops be unarmed when they enter the school then?
But if not, what would you have those cops do with their guns?

 

[YmirGF]

Using a gun in defense of oneself & others is a "fantasy", eh.
Would you have cops be unarmed when they enter the school then?
But if not, what would you have those cops do with their guns?

Why not just arm the kids? What could go wrong?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why not just arm the kids? What could go wrong?

They should be busy with read'n, write'n, & 'rithmetic.


Although, I was once sort of armed in elementary school.
I brought an ancient muzzle loading pistol to school for show-&-tell.
No one batted an eye. (Btw, it was unloaded.)
And in high school, I was captain of our rifle team.
I brought a rifle to school for practice on the school's indoor range.
This was normal back in the 70s.
But now....no more team....no more range...can't even draw pix of guns.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So you do object to both

Would you have cops be unarmed when they enter the school then?

Although, I was once sort of armed in elementary school.

The strawmanning is strong with this one.

 

[PureX]

I never said it did, just pointed out that wild west fantasy is not unique to males therefore it's reasonable to assume that the reasons are not just gender-based. People are more complicated than that.

That's true, and it's a legitimate observation. It's not strictly a gender issue so much, I think, as it's an autonomy and self-empowerment issue. And for some people, it's a real safety concern. We shouldn't overlook that, either. Some people live in places where having a gun around for security is a reasonable precaution. Though I think those instances are pretty rare. FAR more rare than people believe.

I, personally, have no problem with people owning or even carrying a gun. But for public safety, those people need to be well trained, well educated, and thoroughly vetted and tested if they want to exercise that right. And we need to have a quick and effective response should they exhibit any form or degree of social irresponsibility.

 

[oldbadger]

I don't think these men are "nuts", at all. I just think they feel emasculated (because they are) and owning guns helps them to feel empowered.

By 'gun nuts' I don't mean men. I mean people.
Although being in possession of a gun could help a person to feel empowered, I think that a lot of people have guns because they feel insecure or even in fear.

These bizarre excuses we hear like everyone should carry a gun, even in schools and churches, and whatever, are just the smoke-screen being thrown up by those who don't want to acknowledge the real problem, or the real solutions.

Absolutely!
And some, when 'cornered' in debate, can fall back on the 'villains can always get guns' base line.
It is true that in the event of any type of gun being banned that it would be the great grandchildren who could benefit, but the US does seem as if it needs to start somewhere.

 

[PureX]

You make some good points, particularly in addressing the cultural aspects, although it's not just the "wild west."

Some of it is also religious-inspired, as many people are stockpiling weapons, food, and other supplies in anticipation of the end of the world.

I also think that the Cold War and the widespread fears of nuclear war contributed to the survivalist mentality, along with countless movies showing post-nuclear aftermath or some kind of "zombie apocalypse" in which have a large cache of weapons would come in handy.

Then there's also crime itself - gangs, organized crime, etc. - and this too has become widespread and ingrained in the culture to some degree.

But added to that is a generally apathetic, cold, and harsh attitude towards the suffering of others and even the value of human life. This is why the issue gets so emotional. I recall last week, just after the Las Vegas shootings, people kept saying "don't make it political, let's at least mourn the victims first," but it kept turning political just the same. I think this is where the rubber meets the road and why these discussions get so emotional and both sides become entrenched.

This may relate to your point about "emasculation," since men are expected to be rough and tough. We can handle a bloody nose, and we honor those who sacrifice themselves to save others. We're supposed to laugh in the face of death, because we fear nothing.

Historically, we've been a warlike, militaristic society from the very beginning. Every citizen on the frontier was automatically "militia" because they perceived themselves in almost a virtual constant "state of war" with the Native inhabitants. While that eventually ended, the same mentality transformed into what we became as a result of the World Wars and the Cold War, as fears of evil, tyrannical regimes overseas compelled many Americans to want to remain ever-vigilant.

I think many on the right-wing see themselves as "guardians" or "protectors" or some kind of "warrior," and they see the left/liberal gun control advocates as being "weak sisters," "wimps," and/or otherwise too naive about the ways of the world and all the "dangers" we face. They might see the liberals as too soft, letting their emotions cloud their judgment and blinding them to what "real men" have to do.

That's one reason these debates go nowhere and the gun control issue generally gets deadlocked politically. It's a lot of bickering over endless statistics, the wording of Constitutional amendments, long dry technical explanations of the inner workings of firearms - it all just seems like a lot of beating around the bush and missing the elephant in the living room.

That's why I think you're on to something with your point about men and emasculation.

The Right sees the Left as a bunch of wimps, while the Left sees the Right as a bunch of simps. (I'm not a poet and I know it.)

I agree that the undercurrent to all of this in terms of socio-political divisiveness boils down to the 'Darwinists' vs. the 'Idealists'. The Lone Warrior wandering the Earth and fighting for his own brand of righteousness, and the idealists that believe we can only solve our problems by working together for the betterment of all, and so on.

 

[oldbadger]

Who proposes this?

Where were you???? !!!!
After the Sandy Hook (?) shootings the 'arm teachers' proposal was written again and again, on RF posts.
I also saw reference to it on tell programs.

 

[oldbadger]

The fact that the NRA has suggested a control or ban on fast-fire attachments is the best thermometer that there could be to show that the US people are slowly moving away from supporting some guns.

 

[PureX]

Two things:

1. I have been in the home security business for over 30 years. I have done trailers and I have done homes that cost north of 2 million dollars. Trust me, there is no such thing as a safe neighborhood when it comes to someone invading your home with bad intentions; and these types have no problem hurting you or your family. If you chose to use a weapon to protect yourself and your loved ones I totally recommend one with the largest magazine capacity available. If you shoot an intruder that you feel is going to hurt or even kill you, then you want to make sure that person never gets up again. Harsh, yes. Cold blooded, maybe. But rather you like it or not reality has a way of biting you no matter what your opinion maybe. BTW, if you get past my alarm system and my wife's stupid dog then you cease being human and you just became "target". Being a lousy shot, I am going to hit you dead center with as many shots as I can. Don't like it? Tough, don't break into my house with me there.

Most people who die by the gun do so by shooting themselves. So your argument falls on it's butt, right there. We don't need to protect ourselves from violent intruders. We need to protect ourselves from ourselves.

Also, FAR more of us are shot by a family member, relative, neighbor, or friend in a drunken or drugged up altercation than are ever shot by some violent stranger breaking into their home. So your argument falls on it's butt, there, too.

Also, massive magazine capacity is irrelevant to suicide by gun, and is a detriment to the drunken altercation death by gun because the fewer the bullets, the better chance the drunken gunman will miss whomever it is they're shooting at, and won't hit someone else while trying.

And in both of these scenarios (both far more likely that an armed intruder), it's very likely that no one would be shot at all if the gun was not readily accessible, and easy to use, at that moment of despair, rage, confusion, or drunken stupidity.

2. Do you advocate confiscating all the firearms that now exist in private hands throughout the US?

Not at all. I have no problem with responsible citizens owning or carrying guns, so long as they have been well trained, well educated, thoroughly tested and vetted before they are given the license and responsibility to do so.

I have a problem with drunks, drug addicts, stalkers, bar-fighters, ragers, wife-beaters, convicted criminals, emotionally unstable, psychotic, physically unable and intellectually retarded people owning and carrying guns. And I think we should do everything we can to make sure none of these people get hold of them.

Don't you?

 

[PureX]

No one can buy assault weapons as of 1986, so this conversation is moot.

Of course they can, and a great many do. There are plenty of loopholes that make it easy enough.

Who are you to determine what I or anyone else needs to protect our families?

The purpose of established government is to lay out and enforce the laws that the society it governs needs to maintain and protect itself. As a member of that society, you will be expected, and forced, if necessary, to comply with those laws. "I" would not be telling you what you can and cannot do to "protect your family". You fellow citizens would be. And as you are living among them, they would have that right, and that ability.

Secondly, the constitution is abundantly clear on this issue - our guns are to protect us specifically from our own government.

There is nothing clear about this intent, at all. Which is why we are still debating it 240 years later.

After being disarmed and terrorized by King George the founding fathers wanted to make sure that crap never could happen in their new country. If you don't like the American way you can always move as there are plenty of nice places... With less freedom.. lol

We have an enormous military force protecting us in the U.S., that's populated by our own brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters. They are not threatening to attack us by even the most bizarre stretch of imagination. And in fact, I believe they would protect us even from our own government, if it ever came to that. Because THEY ARE US.

 

[PureX]

By 'gun nuts' I don't mean men. I mean people.
Although being in possession of a gun could help a person to feel empowered, I think that a lot of people have guns because they feel insecure or even in fear.

I agree. But in many of those instances their fears are unfounded, or are irrationally based, AND they are poorly trained and educated, untested, and will likely be dangerously ineffective should they ever decide that they need to use their gun.

I'm OK with citizens having guns. But only those citizens that have been trained, educated, tested, and vetted. And even then, that right would be forfeited upon ANY instance of social irresponsibility.

 

[Vee]

It got so bad the people invented martial arts and practiced fighting skills with simple garden tools in order to fight back.

I like that idea. Excellent way to get people in shape and reduce the health care budget.

 

[oldbadger]

Two things:

1. I have been in the home security business for over 30 years. I have done trailers and I have done homes that cost north of 2 million dollars. Trust me, there is no such thing as a safe neighborhood when it comes to someone invading your home with bad intentions; and these types have no problem hurting you or your family.

You say that you have 'done homes', which suggests that you were installing either bolts, bars, chains, locks or special glazing, or alarms, or camera systems, or safes, or ant-vehicle rails.
What was your speciality?
No catch intended.

If you chose to use a weapon to protect yourself and your loved ones I totally recommend one with the largest magazine capacity available.

OK, you can go back on 'alert' now
Why would your customers need to be shooting to kill intruders if you had done an effective security job? Just askin'

If you shoot an intruder that you feel is going to hurt or even kill you, then you want to make sure that person never gets up again.

My goodness!
Law Officer: Why did you shoot this person five times Sir?
Householder: Because I felt he might hurt me.

That's pathetic. That householder should have had time to shout loud and clear that he weas armed, prepared to shoot, and would shoot if the intrusion attempt might succeed.
Lord, Sir, what was your security work supposed to be doing but giving time for the warnings to be given?

Harsh, yes. Cold blooded, maybe. But rather you like it or not reality has a way of biting you no matter what your opinion maybe. BTW, if you get past my alarm system and my wife's stupid dog then you cease being human and you just became "target". Being a lousy shot, I am going to hit you dead center with as many shots as I can. Don't like it? Tough, don't break into my house with me there.

So that's all you were doing...... installing alarms?
Where was the proper security carried out on these million dollar places?

2. Do you advocate confiscating all the firearms that now exist in private hands throughout the US?

Well, you were asking somebody else, but I would suggest that US citizens vote for all assault rifles to be very very tightly controlled, which would almost amount to an outright ban because nobody seems to have a reason for keeping one.

 

[PureX]

I like that idea. Excellent way to get people in shape and reduce the health care budget.

Yeah, they don't work very well against bullets, though. If our oligarchy ever decides to subjugate us to the degree being discussed, I really don't think kung fu OR a bunch of Bubbas with assault weapons is going to stop them. What will stop them is our own military. So long as our military IS US, we have nothing to fear from the new oligarchs and their hired thugs. Anyway, they'll starve us into submission, without firing a shot.

 

[oldbadger]

I agree. But in many of those instances their fears are unfounded, or are irrationally based, AND they are poorly trained and educated, untested, and will likely be dangerously ineffective should they ever decide that they need to use their gun.

I'm OK with citizens having guns. But only those citizens that have been trained, educated, tested, and vetted. And even then, that right would be forfeited upon ANY instance of social irresponsibility.

Absolutely!
We watch reality US Cop programs here, and not long ago we watched two law officers approach a home after a 911 call to go there, and as they approach the front door the householder fired at them through the door. The householder later said that he thought the cops were the baddies he had reported.

In a mass shooting in, say, a retail centre, yiou can imagine how many people could draw guns and start shooting at anybody holding a gun = dreadful and unnecessary killing. We do get accidents here in the UK where innocents die in friendly fire, the last one that I remember being during the Southwark terrorist attack...... a lady was shot, I think by law officers, but it was only briefly mentioned and then....... gone.

 

[Kemosloby]

I like that idea. Excellent way to get people in shape and reduce the health care budget.

Yeah, like severed limbs or heads are cheaper to fix than bullet wounds....