SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 212>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Are we safer with guns?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
ChasWill Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 860
Joined: Dec. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 10:41 am  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

These forum argument typically resort to clichés and disparaging remarks that don’t tend to foster reasonable debate.  I am hoping this one might make it a few posts before that happens.  I am looking for some thoughtful arguments.  

What I would love to hear from the pro-gun voices, is why you think you are safer in a society where guns proliferate.  I understand that guns are here to stay in the US and the argument that since the bad guys have them, we need them, too.  But taking a much broader view and with the knowledge that we 1) have the easiest access to guns and 2) have one of the highest gun related murder rates of  all developed nations,* why do you think we are safer?  

Second, do you think we should have had more restrictive gun laws in the past so that we might not have ended up with the gun related violence that we have today?  

Please avoid saying it is the second amendment right. The constitution is not perfect and has and will be amended many times.  I guess I am really interested in the rationale that leads people to get caught up in the gun culture.

*The Washington Post has a chart that places us 32 in the world, even behind Turkey and Chile.


--------------
Charlie
OuachitaMaps.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 2
N2theWild Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1645
Joined: Feb. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 10:51 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

You start by complaining about cliches, then proceed to pose your post chock full cliches.

Interesting.


--------------
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, (2 Timothy 4:3)
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
N2theWild Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1645
Joined: Feb. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 10:53 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

We have a high gun crime rate because we have guns.

If we did not, then we would have a high [insert weapon of choice] crime rate, as other countries do.


--------------
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, (2 Timothy 4:3)
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 10:58 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

It's an American institution, A and B, don't bring the constitution into it? That's what stands between gun owners and gun nuts. But your not going to find a gun owner that isn't interested in doing something about the mentally ill having access to guns. All the necessary restrictions on those people to protect society is something it would seem everyone on both sides could agree. There's the bi-partisan angle at work.

What we keep seeing however in recurring gun laws is that they restrict certain guns to everybody instead of all guns to the mentally ill, felons and people on psychotropic drugs.


--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
TigerFan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2731
Joined: May 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 11:02 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(N2theWild @ Jan. 16 2013, 10:53 am)
QUOTE
If we did not, then we would have a high [insert weapon of choice] crime rate, as other countries do.

Do you have actual examples?

--------------
Duct tape is like the Force.  It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 11:08 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I don't believe that more guns makes us safer.

That being said, we have the right to bear arms and I believe we should maintain that right.  I don't believe that we should have unlimited access to arms.  The difference of opinions typically lie in how much regulation and restriction is appropriate.  Contrary to what many in the pro-gun crowd would have you believe, there are actually very few people who support all-out firearm bans.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
JimInMD Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3974
Joined: Feb. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 11:22 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

In the abstract, probably not.  In an environment where there are no guns, where there never have been and never will be, you would be safer from gun violence.  You would be more at risk from the violence that the physically strong and the stronger in number can cause.

In the reality of a culture where guns exist, yes, it is a deterrent to the predator that they may encounter resistance that is capable of stopping them.

The answer that I do not have is how we instill a culture in which violence and predatory behavior is a last resort.  It has never been common in human history for mankind to be benevolent to his fellow man unless he feared reprisal from a more powerful entity.  Even today in "gun free" societies where people are overall non-violent toward each other, they still live with the knowledge that if they become violent the government has the means and the will to punish them.


--------------
"Your number one philosophy for personal security should be a life long commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The 3 Stupids Rule:

Don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
TigerFan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2731
Joined: May 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 11:25 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Jan. 16 2013, 10:58 am)
QUOTE
But your not going to find a gun owner that isn't interested in doing something about the mentally ill having access to guns. All the necessary restrictions on those people to protect society is something it would seem everyone on both sides could agree.

Well, sure, it's hard to argue against that sentiment.  But, realistically, how do we identify who "those people" are?  And how do we enforce the restrictions?

I mean, shoplifting is illegal and store owners can "ban" them from entering their stores but posting a "shoplifters not allowed on premises" sign is probably not going to work...

I'm also curious if you've considered how to deal with situations where a felon or other "restricted" persons may be living in the same household with legal gun-owners.  Is it really realistic to think that a gun-owner, however "responsible", can keep his/her guns out of the hands of someone living with him/her 100% of the time?


--------------
Duct tape is like the Force.  It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
N2theWild Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1645
Joined: Feb. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 11:25 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TigerFan @ Jan. 16 2013, 11:02 am)
QUOTE

(N2theWild @ Jan. 16 2013, 10:53 am)
QUOTE
If we did not, then we would have a high [insert weapon of choice] crime rate, as other countries do.

Do you have actual examples?

street fights & assaults, hit, kicked, scratched bitten or beaten
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....pe.html

Bombs, car bombings, rape
http://urbantitan.com/10-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world-in-2011/

Knives
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010001/article/11146-eng.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4257966.stm


--------------
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, (2 Timothy 4:3)
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
buzzards Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2053
Joined: Apr. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 11:25 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

IMHO, one of the principal reasons why a substantial minority of the country is arming itself is that they really do believe that government tyranny is coming, and not in some distant future, but any day now.  The whole "I need it to protect my family from predators" is frankly, a shibboleth.
It might be irrational, it certainly isn't a majority view on THIS forum, I can just see wwwest rolling his eyes, but in talking to a lot of my neighbors, they are not concerned that Obama is coming for their guns, they are concerned that he is coming for their freedom. And these are not wild-eyed survivalists living in a cabin ten miles up a dirt road. These are suburban dwelling, good job holding, three kids and a dog, normal people. Admittedly, politically conservative, they see the government being involved in their lives in areas where they were not before and project where the arc is trending, and they don't like it one bit. They also see the national debt as something that will precipitate a real fiscal crisis in the next few years. Not a recession, but a true meltdown, with hyper-inflation, riots in the streets when the government checks stop coming, the whole enchilada.
Again, you can come up with reasons they are wrong, you can dismiss their opinions, you can even call them crazy. But what I see is a sea change in the view of what guns are for. It used to be that guns were for hunting and recreation-plinking, skeet shooting, etc...and maybe a handgun in the house just in case.
Now, my friends and neighbors only talk about defending their family-from criminals, from hungry mobs looking for stored food, and from a possible/probable government bent on true tyranny.
This may make no sense to you, but it obviously makes sense to a large swath of the population. Just because they don't live in San Fransisco or Chicago doesn't mean they don't exist.
BTW, just so we are clear, I don't own a gun and probably never will. My wife lost her father in a hunting accident and so she has some strong antipathy towards them.


--------------
Now shall I walk or shall I ride?
Ride, said pleasure,
Walk, Joy replied,
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 11:42 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

buzzards,
As I have several friends and family members that live in Utah, I believe it's safe to say that your state, (in general) is on one end of the bell curve on this issue.

But your point is taken none-the-less.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
TigerFan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2731
Joined: May 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 11:49 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(N2theWild @ Jan. 16 2013, 11:25 am)
QUOTE

(TigerFan @ Jan. 16 2013, 11:02 am)
QUOTE

(N2theWild @ Jan. 16 2013, 10:53 am)
QUOTE
If we did not, then we would have a high [insert weapon of choice] crime rate, as other countries do.

Do you have actual examples?

street fights & assaults, hit, kicked, scratched bitten or beaten
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....pe.html

Bombs, car bombings, rape
http://urbantitan.com/10-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world-in-2011/

Knives
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010001/article/11146-eng.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4257966.stm

Your third link references the same article as the first link, regarding violent crimes in the UK (evidently it's Scotland that's the worst culprit.)  And while the rate of "violent crime" is higher than the U.S., the one exception is murder.  One might conclude that, even if you can't change the culture of violence without guns, you would be able to shift the outcome to fewer deaths.

The "10 Most Dangerous Cities" article implies that the illegal drug culture and/or civil war fosters the most violence.  It didn't make any statement to me that bombs were being used in place of guns... I also saw at least one U.S. city in the list.

For the "Knives" link about Canada, here's a quote from the article.  It clearly indicates that weapons, of any kind, are NOT used often.  Again, the implication that, without guns, the outcome is fewer deaths:

In Canada, most crimes reported by police do not involve violence. Furthermore, among those crimes that are classified as violent, most are committed with physical force or threats (76%) rather than with a weapon (18%).

Did you think that I wouldn't read your links?  :;):


--------------
Duct tape is like the Force.  It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
N2theWild Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1645
Joined: Feb. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 12:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

A pro abortion president speaking about people being denied the right to life during this gun control press conference is priceless.

--------------
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, (2 Timothy 4:3)
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
buzzards Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2053
Joined: Apr. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 12:16 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(hbfa @ Jan. 16 2013, 9:42 am)
QUOTE
buzzards,
As I have several friends and family members that live in Utah, I believe it's safe to say that your state, (in general) is on one end of the bell curve on this issue.

But your point is taken none-the-less.

As a former Californian, I would agree. Although most of the West and the South, as well as significant pockets of the Midwest are out there changing the arc of said Bell Curve. (IMHO, of course)

--------------
Now shall I walk or shall I ride?
Ride, said pleasure,
Walk, Joy replied,
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 12:19 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TigerFan @ Jan. 16 2013, 8:49 am)
QUOTE
Did you think that I wouldn't read your links?  :;):

My guess is he didn't bother to read his own links beyond the titles.  
The theory of:  throw enough stuff on the wall and see what sticks
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 12:22 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(buzzards @ Jan. 16 2013, 9:16 am)
QUOTE

(hbfa @ Jan. 16 2013, 9:42 am)
QUOTE
buzzards,
As I have several friends and family members that live in Utah, I believe it's safe to say that your state, (in general) is on one end of the bell curve on this issue.

But your point is taken none-the-less.

As a former Californian, I would agree. Although most of the West and the South, as well as significant pockets of the Midwest are out there changing the arc of said Bell Curve. (IMHO, of course)

True about change.  And I've seen it here in Ca. as well.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
TigerFan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2731
Joined: May 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 12:42 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

One thing I've come to realize in reading all the rhetoric -- on both sides -- is that we have different definitions of what it means to be "safe".

To me, safety from burglery is very different from safety from rape.  When I hear "Are we safer with guns?", I'm only thinking of the latter.  But I think, for others, "safety" simply means not having their rights messed with.  Period.  And that includes their physical well-being as well as their property and, apparently, for some, their political freedom.

Also, we seem to have different criteria about what constitutes "gun violence".  For some, "gun-related crime" and "gun violence" seem to be synonymous.  I happen to think that a premeditated mass-shooting is a completely different animal than a gun-toting purse-snatcher but, for the purpose of politicized debates, they seem to fall into the same statistic.

Frankly, I think most people who own guns just want to be able to own guns.  I can understand that.  I want to be able to drive 100mph on the highway.  If I could find, manipulate or conveniently interpret data that would show that it's safer, more fuel-efficient and time-efficient to do so, I'd be thrilled.  I might then use that evidence to justify my desire to drive that fast...

I'm not a gun owner and really don't understand the "need" for them but accept the fact that a lot of people like having them.  I'm not all that interested in forcing that group to justify it or prove their benefit.  Seems like a waste of time.  Seems like it would be more constructive to collectively figure out how to manage access better.  To that end, I know that I would feel a lot "safer" if we didn't end up with a lot of lip-service policies and regulations that rely on armed guards and the mentally ill to self-police themselves.   Unenforceable laws are pointless.


--------------
Duct tape is like the Force.  It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
buzzards Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2053
Joined: Apr. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 12:48 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I should probably add that with the exception of some environmental issues, I am virulently opposed to the politics of the current administration. But I see our system of government as able to self-correct, and personally do not see a dictatorship on the horizon.
I do share the concerns about what our accumulated national debt will do to our economy, and have commented on that on other threads.


--------------
Now shall I walk or shall I ride?
Ride, said pleasure,
Walk, Joy replied,
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6605
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 1:21 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I think if we could get to virtually no guns we'd be much much safer - but that's not just realistic. With 300 million guns out there there's no going back.

It's why I'm in no way opposed to people having guns to protect their homes, themselves and go hunting. I think we just need to be realistic with regard to their costs and benefits given the situation we find ourselves in.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
WalksWithBlackflies Search for posts by this member.
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10257
Joined: Jun. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 1:34 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Let's not forget that a majority of gun violence is related to bad guys shooting other bad guys.

--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
ScotH Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1728
Joined: Feb. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 3:17 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I have far more interest in getting illegal hand guns off the streets in the inner cities than I am in getting the semi automatic rifle or pistol that has been sitting in some rural guys gun safe for years.
I know a number of people who have gotten pistol permits for the sole reason of being able to inherit hand guns when a father or grandfather passes away. My brother inherited hand guns from his Father in law and got a pistol permit for that exact reason. He has had these hand guns for over 20 years. I cannot remember him ever firing them.
I bet there are thousands of instances like this. With the now mandatory every five year reapplication process in NYS a lot of those dormant firearms will be in circulation.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
ChasWill Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 860
Joined: Dec. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 4:28 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(N2theWild @ Jan. 16 2013, 10:53 am)
QUOTE
We have a high gun crime rate because we have guns.

If we did not, then we would have a high [insert weapon of choice] crime rate, as other countries do.

I think N2theWild is right when he says “we have a high gun crime rate because we have guns” but I but I disagree with his next statement.

There are statistics all around but I do not believe you can support the notion “if we did not, then we would have a high [insert weapon of choice] crime rate, as other countries do.”  The stats to the links he provides tell some different stories.  I have to get back to work so I just have time to hit one example.  If you dig into the Statistic Canada data you will see that 30% of the murders are by knife and 30% by gun.  Not a huge difference.  More telling is that there are 1.6 murders per 100,000 people in Canada (Stats Canada) and 5.3 per 100,000 people in the US (CDC, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm).  The gun related homicide rate in the US is 3.6 people per 100,000.  

There is no denying that if there were no guns, murder would still happen.  But these numbers tell me that with guns the rate is higher so it leads me to believe guns are not making me any safer.

Now if you want to argue that you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight, you win.  But why did you go to the fight to begin with?


--------------
Charlie
OuachitaMaps.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 23
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 4:43 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TigerFan @ Jan. 16 2013, 11:25 am)
QUOTE

(Montecresto @ Jan. 16 2013, 10:58 am)
QUOTE
But your not going to find a gun owner that isn't interested in doing something about the mentally ill having access to guns. All the necessary restrictions on those people to protect society is something it would seem everyone on both sides could agree.

Well, sure, it's hard to argue against that sentiment.  But, realistically, how do we identify who "those people" are?  And how do we enforce the restrictions?

I mean, shoplifting is illegal and store owners can "ban" them from entering their stores but posting a "shoplifters not allowed on premises" sign is probably not going to work...

I'm also curious if you've considered how to deal with situations where a felon or other "restricted" persons may be living in the same household with legal gun-owners.  Is it really realistic to think that a gun-owner, however "responsible", can keep his/her guns out of the hands of someone living with him/her 100% of the time?

They same way people propose to enforce more gun laws. And further, this logic you use can be applied to guns. Shoplifters won't honour a no shoplifting sign and criminals won't honour gun restriction laws. It always puts the law abiding citizen at disadvantage.


--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 4:54 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(buzzards @ Jan. 16 2013, 11:25 am)
QUOTE
IMHO, one of the principal reasons why a substantial minority of the country is arming itself is that they really do believe that government tyranny is coming, and not in some distant future, but any day now.  The whole "I need it to protect my family from predators" is frankly, a shibboleth.
It might be irrational, it certainly isn't a majority view on THIS forum, I can just see wwwest rolling his eyes, but in talking to a lot of my neighbors, they are not concerned that Obama is coming for their guns, they are concerned that he is coming for their freedom. And these are not wild-eyed survivalists living in a cabin ten miles up a dirt road. These are suburban dwelling, good job holding, three kids and a dog, normal people. Admittedly, politically conservative, they see the government being involved in their lives in areas where they were not before and project where the arc is trending, and they don't like it one bit. They also see the national debt as something that will precipitate a real fiscal crisis in the next few years. Not a recession, but a true meltdown, with hyper-inflation, riots in the streets when the government checks stop coming, the whole enchilada.
Again, you can come up with reasons they are wrong, you can dismiss their opinions, you can even call them crazy. But what I see is a sea change in the view of what guns are for. It used to be that guns were for hunting and recreation-plinking, skeet shooting, etc...and maybe a handgun in the house just in case.
Now, my friends and neighbors only talk about defending their family-from criminals, from hungry mobs looking for stored food, and from a possible/probable government bent on true tyranny.
This may make no sense to you, but it obviously makes sense to a large swath of the population. Just because they don't live in San Fransisco or Chicago doesn't mean they don't exist.
BTW, just so we are clear, I don't own a gun and probably never will. My wife lost her father in a hunting accident and so she has some strong antipathy towards them.

I say your making good points here. I find much the same where I live.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
ChasWill Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 860
Joined: Dec. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 5:28 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Jan. 16 2013, 4:54 pm)
QUOTE
but in talking to a lot of my neighbors, they are not concerned that Obama is coming for their guns, they are concerned that he is coming for their freedom.

That is an interesting observation.  What do you think would cause them to think that?  What do you think Obama has done that would lead them to this conclusion?  There have been many democratic presidents and we are still free.  With the Patriot Act, the Bush presidency probably  did more to take away our freedom than Clinton or Obama. (Yes, the Brady Bill was signed by Clinton, but it was endorsed by Reagan and passed in the house by a bi-partisan vote).  

It is not that I have not heard the this before, I live in Oklahoma.  I just don’t understand why it is so intense.  Do you think it is racially motivated?  If not, what do you think is going on?


--------------
Charlie
OuachitaMaps.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 26
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6605
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 5:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(ChasWill @ Jan. 16 2013, 5:28 pm)
QUOTE

(Montecresto @ Jan. 16 2013, 4:54 pm)
QUOTE
but in talking to a lot of my neighbors, they are not concerned that Obama is coming for their guns, they are concerned that he is coming for their freedom.

That is an interesting observation.  What do you think would cause them to think that?  What do you think Obama has done that would lead them to this conclusion?  There have been many democratic presidents and we are still free.  With the Patriot Act, the Bush presidency probably  did more to take away our freedom than Clinton or Obama. (Yes, the Brady Bill was signed by Clinton, but it was endorsed by Reagan and passed in the house by a bi-partisan vote).  

It is not that I have not heard the this before, I live in Oklahoma.  I just don’t understand why it is so intense.  Do you think it is racially motivated?  If not, what do you think is going on?

It's part of the right wing talk radio narrative.

It's the kind of extremist fundamentalism that's destroying America. The extremist no-compromise on anything ever.

Once you buy into the narrative you're locked in. Nothing, no facts, not actual events can shift them.


I think Dick Cheney was and is an evil man - Rumsfeld not far behind. Nasty little bringers of death to innocents. Bush was simply a man so far out of his depth is wasn't funny - but not for a minute do I think they are out to destroy America.

They were wrong about almost everything, from Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, supreme court appointments, ... the works.

The failure and the appalling mess that they left nearly everything they touched was a result of incompetence and stupidity, not malice towards America.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
ChasWill Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 860
Joined: Dec. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 6:03 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Land Rover @ Jan. 16 2013, 5:36 pm)
QUOTE
It's part of the right wing talk radio narrative.

I understand your sentiment but I would like to focus on the  narrative you mention.  Would those of you who listen to “right wing radio” agree that there is a narrative to spread fear that Obama will take your freedom?  If so, do you agree?  And If you agree, why do you think that is true?

--------------
Charlie
OuachitaMaps.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 28
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6645
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 8:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(buzzards @ Jan. 16 2013, 10:25 am)
QUOTE
IMHO, one of the principal reasons why a substantial minority of the country is arming itself is that they really do believe that government tyranny is coming, and not in some distant future, but any day now.  The whole "I need it to protect my family from predators" is frankly, a shibboleth.
It might be irrational, it certainly isn't a majority view on THIS forum, I can just see wwwest rolling his eyes, but in talking to a lot of my neighbors, they are not concerned that Obama is coming for their guns, they are concerned that he is coming for their freedom. And these are not wild-eyed survivalists living in a cabin ten miles up a dirt road. These are suburban dwelling, good job holding, three kids and a dog, normal people. Admittedly, politically conservative, they see the government being involved in their lives in areas where they were not before and project where the arc is trending, and they don't like it one bit. They also see the national debt as something that will precipitate a real fiscal crisis in the next few years. Not a recession, but a true meltdown, with hyper-inflation, riots in the streets when the government checks stop coming, the whole enchilada.
Again, you can come up with reasons they are wrong, you can dismiss their opinions, you can even call them crazy. But what I see is a sea change in the view of what guns are for. It used to be that guns were for hunting and recreation-plinking, skeet shooting, etc...and maybe a handgun in the house just in case.
Now, my friends and neighbors only talk about defending their family-from criminals, from hungry mobs looking for stored food, and from a possible/probable government bent on true tyranny.
This may make no sense to you, but it obviously makes sense to a large swath of the population. Just because they don't live in San Fransisco or Chicago doesn't mean they don't exist.
BTW, just so we are clear, I don't own a gun and probably never will. My wife lost her father in a hunting accident and so she has some strong antipathy towards them.

The perception of Obama on the right and the reality of Obama are two very, very different things. Obama is a centrist and a pragmatist. Richard Nixon's domestic policies (like creation of the EPA) were for the most part to the left of Obama. What's happened is the GOP has moved extremely far to the right. That's one of the reasons Obama is perceved by the right as a radical leftist -- that and the narratives wwwest mentioned that are constantly being pushed on Fox News and talk radio.

Buzzards, you mentioned "they see the government being involved in their lives in areas where they were not before" and you say you are "virulently opposed to the politics of the current administration," but I'm curious what you think those policies are. The Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare") is a policy hatched in a conservative think tank and the ideas therein had plenty of Republican support until Obama proposed it. Rather than introduce a "public option" or make a real move towards Single Payer (which the left wanted and most advanced democracies have) the Affordable Care Act expands the customer base of private insurance companies.

So I'm really curious what you think this administration has done that is so onerous -- was it saving GM & Chrysler, or not being able to resurrect an economy left in shambles by his predecessor?

"Again, you can come up with reasons they are wrong, you can dismiss their opinions, you can even call them crazy."

They are most definitely wrong. Their opinions should not be dismissed because they're fellow citizens and they vote. I don't think they're crazy, with some exceptions. For the most part they have fallen victim to propaganda that plays on their fears, and that has been steadily reinforced over the last few decades to the point where the false narratives are accepted as conventional wisdom by today's "conservatives."

The government is not coming for their guns. President Obama has been very moderate on gun control, as he has been on most issues. Their fears are irrational, but perhaps understandable given what they've been misled into believing.


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6605
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 8:42 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(buzzards @ Jan. 16 2013, 11:25 am)
QUOTE
IMHO, one of the principal reasons why a substantial minority of the country is arming itself is that they really do believe that government tyranny is coming, and not in some distant future, but any day now.  The whole "I need it to protect my family from predators" is frankly, a shibboleth.
It might be irrational, it certainly isn't a majority view on THIS forum, I can just see wwwest rolling his eyes, but in talking to a lot of my neighbors, they are not concerned that Obama is coming for their guns, they are concerned that he is coming for their freedom. And these are not wild-eyed survivalists living in a cabin ten miles up a dirt road. These are suburban dwelling, good job holding, three kids and a dog, normal people. Admittedly, politically conservative, they see the government being involved in their lives in areas where they were not before and project where the arc is trending, and they don't like it one bit. They also see the national debt as something that will precipitate a real fiscal crisis in the next few years. Not a recession, but a true meltdown, with hyper-inflation, riots in the streets when the government checks stop coming, the whole enchilada.
Again, you can come up with reasons they are wrong, you can dismiss their opinions, you can even call them crazy. But what I see is a sea change in the view of what guns are for. It used to be that guns were for hunting and recreation-plinking, skeet shooting, etc...and maybe a handgun in the house just in case.
Now, my friends and neighbors only talk about defending their family-from criminals, from hungry mobs looking for stored food, and from a possible/probable government bent on true tyranny.
This may make no sense to you, but it obviously makes sense to a large swath of the population. Just because they don't live in San Fransisco or Chicago doesn't mean they don't exist.
BTW, just so we are clear, I don't own a gun and probably never will. My wife lost her father in a hunting accident and so she has some strong antipathy towards them.

I honestly don't know what to do about that though.

There's a group of people who need end of the world scenarios.

For a long time we had the Cold War to fill that need.

Now it seems to be whatever the conservative echo chamber decides will fire up the base.

It'll be interesting if we see the levers being pulled to fire up the tea Baggers on the gun issue.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
TigerFan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2731
Joined: May 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 16 2013, 8:45 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Jan. 16 2013, 4:43 pm)
QUOTE

(TigerFan @ Jan. 16 2013, 11:25 am)
QUOTE

(Montecresto @ Jan. 16 2013, 10:58 am)
QUOTE
But your not going to find a gun owner that isn't interested in doing something about the mentally ill having access to guns. All the necessary restrictions on those people to protect society is something it would seem everyone on both sides could agree.

Well, sure, it's hard to argue against that sentiment.  But, realistically, how do we identify who "those people" are?  And how do we enforce the restrictions?

I mean, shoplifting is illegal and store owners can "ban" them from entering their stores but posting a "shoplifters not allowed on premises" sign is probably not going to work...

I'm also curious if you've considered how to deal with situations where a felon or other "restricted" persons may be living in the same household with legal gun-owners.  Is it really realistic to think that a gun-owner, however "responsible", can keep his/her guns out of the hands of someone living with him/her 100% of the time?

They same way people propose to enforce more gun laws. And further, this logic you use can be applied to guns. Shoplifters won't honour a no shoplifting sign and criminals won't honour gun restriction laws. It always puts the law abiding citizen at disadvantage.

I don't understand your answers.  I said nothing about more gun restriction laws.  I said nothing about criminals.

As I understand it, you're saying that it would be more effective to restrict access by people who shouldn't be handling guns, as opposed to restricting the manufacturing and sales of firearms themselves.  Right?  So, I'm listening.  I simply want to know what that means in practice.

Restricting the manufacturing and sales of new guns is pretty straightforward.  (Yes, I get it that you object to the consequences.)


--------------
Duct tape is like the Force.  It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
33 replies since Jan. 16 2013, 10:41 am < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 212>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Are we safer with guns?
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions