A contradictory point of view...

[Glassunion]

I’m still new here, and am not sure if this topic of discussion has been run through the ringer yet. I looked through most of the older topics and did not see anything related.

I am having trouble with a couple points of topic that I have seen going back and forth in some discussions on the topic of firearms and private ownership thereof. I personally believe that everyone who is able (non-criminals, domestic abusers, etc…) should have the RIGHT to own a firearm if they so choose. Personally I exercise that right, and I further it by exercising my privilege to carry one with me everywhere I go.

I have seen arguments that say something to the effect of the following, usually in the topics on recent shootings that have occurred. The point of view that the general public cannot be trusted with the ownership of guns, since they may be inclined to go on a shooting spree, or kill someone in a crime of passion, or perhaps use the firearm in the committing of a crime. Basically stating that the general public cannot be trusted not to run around killing each other with their guns.

And on the other hand I have seen the same point of view arguing in the completely opposite direction.

However these arguments pop up in topics that are usually on the subject of why an individual carries a gun. The points of view that gun owners are paranoid of the public and that they live in fear of the general public and somehow that owning a firearm feeds that fear and paranoia. That the gun owner is overreacting to the news about how bad the world is, and that they are falling for sensational news reports about crime and statistics.

To both points my opinion is that of being prepared. I own and carry a firearm because of what someone in the public may do. The odds are outstanding, however they are there. I completely understand the fact that the news is quite sensational and is not there to keep us informed of world events. They are in existence for the sole purpose of obtaining good ratings. The same can be said for newspapers, news websites and even magazines. So my advice is to take everything that the news feeds me with a grain of salt.

Death is always good for ratings, so in turn would it not be in the “news agency’s” interest to report on stories about death, and then repeat it over and over again until every ounce of ratings are squeezed from the story?  On the other hand, what ratings could be squeezed from a defensive gun use story? None really. Ratings prove that people love stories of death, infidelity, celebrity failures, political failures, etc... How much news coverage of the airplane that landed in the Hudson would there have been, had the plane been smaller and only held 4 passengers? It would have been a couple of quick little sidebars for maybe a day or two.

Back to the topic at hand… These two arguments, in my mind, seem to contradict each other. How is it that it can be said that a “gun owner’s” point of view is invalid because they are living in fear of what the public may do, however at the same time make arguments that “gun owners” need to be feared because of what they may do? Are gun owners a group that is more prone to killing than the rest of the population? I just can’t see it.

EDIT: Removed quote from a bumper sticker that some found in poor taste. My apologies...

[ret5hd]

1. So, you did all that typing just to see if you could slide a Kennedy bash in here.

[Glassunion]

2. No it was a joke. Perhaps in poor taste...

In fact I honestly respect most of the work they did and do for the public is. In my eyes it is to be admired and respected. Does not mean I have to agree with everything they do.

[ret5hd]

4. Is your best friend black too?

[Glassunion]

5. Yes, how did you know?

My best friend is my wife. I am her best friend as well. I'm sorry, did you assume I was white?

[Katya Mullethov]

24. Some of my best friends

Shoot black rifles .

[east texas lib]

26. You'll have to excuse him/her...

Certain assumptions are made 'round these here parts about firearm owners by a minority of certain posters.

You must be: white, bigoted, have a fifth grade education, live in a trailer house, be paranoid, repulican, sexist, misogynist, sexually frustrated, a government hating homegrown terrorist, and so on.

If you're not white, then you must be: a right wing dupe, a misguided child-slave desperately in need of a beneficial Big Nurse to protect you from your own ignorance. You befuddle these posters if you don't fit their pre-conceived template.


They're just not used to anyone thinking for themselves and taking responsibility for their own life, no matter what their paint job is. But this place is oh so entertaining. I think you'll like it!

:D

[Glassunion]

29. Should I change my board name to "Angry Black Man"?

I think it would help those struggling with white-guilt. It should alleviate the "foot in mouth" disease.

I also like the fact that they are ignoring the topic. Perhaps I did raise a good point?

Either way, I just was looking for a good dialog.

[Glassunion]

10. It's ok. I'm not upset at your comment at all.

[burrfoot]

6. Regardless of how you feel

about the Kennedys, the validity of the statement remains. Care to address the actual issue?

[PavePusher]

7. Avoiding the subject.

Nice dance moves...

[rd_kent]

12. He removed the offending comment. Care to reply to the OP now or are you just trolling?

[ret5hd]

16. I think if anyone be accused of trolling it's the OP...

Just because someone posts something you happen to agree with, are you willing to take all the tripe that it is covered in?

[rd_kent]

17. So, your answer is no, you do not care to comment on the OP.

The OP recognized his mistake, acknowledged it and corrected it and apologized for it. I think we can let THAT part go.



Would you now like to comment on the OP?

[burrfoot]

18. You were offended by the comment.

We get it. He took it down. The fact that it offends some, however, does not take away from it's factual truth.

Ease up on the ad hominem and give more gas to logic.

[Glassunion]

20. So the questions I posed are invalid?

I understand that I am new here, and perhaps don't quite have a feel for this forum yet. But if I posted an invalid question or topic, please let me know. I am not here to disturb anyone, I just have a point of view from my observations.

If I did post a decent topic, that can spur some honest discussion, then no harm no foul. I did remove the quote from the bumper sticker and apologized. I honestly did perceive that it would be taken as harsh, and again I apologize. It was insensitive of me.

[daleanime]

3. That last little bit of flame-bait aside...

Your framing the question wrong, gun owners are no different from anyone else. They just as likely to get into arguments, have domestic problems, and have one too many drinks as any one else; but with a gun present those situations it's more likely to lead to injury and death. That is the position of the gun control side, and remember it's gun 'control', not gun 'outlaw'.

[burrfoot]

8. I think we should

bear in mind that any individual gun owner cannot be legitimately described by anything that gun owners (or the general public) "statistically" do.

While I certainly don't believe that having a CCW guarantees wisdom and discretion on the part of the licensee, I do think that there are a lot of CCW's out there who have taken the time to train, learn the legality of self defense, learn how to properly store/carry/use their weapons, etc. Therefore, I believe that some gun owners actually are less likely to get into arguments (presumably you mean ones that lead to violent altercations of some sort), have domestic problems (again that lead to a violent encounter of some sort), or have one to many drinks (while carrying or otherwise in active control of a firearm, which is the only time it would be relevant)

Since we all obviously can't know each other in depth to make these individual assessments, what we're left with is arguing the statistics of who does what how often. It's been demonstrated by others on these boards that by governmental report (the only real measurement we have), CCW holders do not commit as many crimes as non-CCW holders.

Does this have anything to do with their being CCW holders? Fucked if I know. But we're talking in generalizations and statistics here. We don't actually need (at least for this discussion) a causation to apply to the documented correlation.


* edited for typos *

[PavePusher]

9. All to often around here...

"control" does equal "ban".

[Euromutt]

11. Out in the real world, too

There are a number of "reasonable, common sense" gun control measures that I support in the abstract, but not in practice, because they have in the past been exploited to impose a de facto prohibition.

For example, in theory, I'd be fine with licensing gun owners, i.e. require prospective gun owners to pass a test demonstrating that they have a good understanding of firearm safety, the legal aspects of using lethal force in self-defense, etc. In short, that they can be trusted to responsibly exercise the freedom to possess firearms before somebody ends up in a body bag.

However, it has happened in the past that police chiefs have managed to turn such a licensing requirement into a de facto ban by the simple expedient of not actually holding the classes required to apply for a license, or only holding them at times and places inconvenient to most members of the public, with little to no notice, etc. etc. Such abuses of power have made me mistrustful of giving the executive branch of government any power to deny citizens the freedom to acquire and possess firearms.

[rd_kent]

13. Can you back up that assertion with facts or evidence?

but with a gun present those situations it's more likely to lead to injury and death


I see what you are saying but I also feel that it is just your opinion, not a fact. Can you provide any facts or evidence to support your claim?

[daleanime]

30. Not a claim, it is my opinion...

which I feel is correct. Now please notice that I have not stated that I want gun control, I have simply tried to point out what I feel is one of the views of those who do.

That being said I don't know what's in dispute: argument-bad, argument plus gun-possible much worst.

[eqfan592]

14. Sorry, but I have to disagree.

The risk doesn't increase any more or less than if drinking is taking place around knives, cars, blunt objects, etc. There is nothing about a firearm that will suddenly take an otherwise passive person and make them feel like doing something exceptionally stupid, unless that person was already likely to do something stupid with any other number of objects around them.

But even if you were right, what controls do you propose that would keep people from occasionally acting stupid? How do you control the natural rights of people based only on the idea that they may, at some point, act like an idiot?

[Glassunion]

15. Hence the joke that I removed...

[daleanime]

31. Again, please notice that I didn't call for gun control...

I simply pointed out what I feel is one of the views held by those who do.


However I think that you got it backward, it not guns making people do 'exceptionally stupid' things; its guns making the 'exceptionally stupid' things that people do worser.

[SteveM]

19. You may wish to study the information in this link...

It goes straight to the mendacity of those gun-controllers/banners who say (without any substantiation) that most killers using guns are "normal, every-day people who suddenly go off the edge." In fact, the data has shown -- FOR YEARS it has shown -- that most killers using guns have long records of criminality. THEY are the rule and not the exception.

If you read these threads enough, you will see this Big Lie of gun-control chanted nearly everyday; yet when you pull down the pants of those making the arguments, either insult or a quick retreat follows.

And the reason for making this lie a leading argument, even when disproved? It is to leverage the argument to get guns out of the hands of the law-abiding. Gun-controllers MUST make this argument because to admit that the great preponderance of murders are the result of the actions of a comparatively small group of veteran criminals severely restricts the gun-controller's field of operation. So they MUST extend the population to include the vast majority of American gun-owners who are not criminals; hence, it really is "gun outlaw."





http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

[GreenStormCloud]

22. Excellent site. I bookmarked it from the other thread. Thanks. N/T

[daleanime]

32. Thank you for the link...

bookmarked for later review.

Please note that I didn't call for gun control, I simply tried to present what I felt was one view for why some do.
"Great preponderance of murders"? So not all murders are by 'small group', and remember not all gun deaths are listed as murder. These are items for further thought.

[GreenStormCloud]

21. Why don't those same people run to the kitchen and grab knives?

How about the sewing basket and grab sharp scissors.

How about the closet for a baseball bat?

Do you have a chain saw?

Shoelaces can make a fine garrote. How long would it take to untie your shoes and use them?

Screwdrives make excellent stabbing weapons, and they are cheap too. (The muggers that Bernard Goetz shot were armed with screwdrivers.)

Every room in your house if full of stuff that can be used as a deadly weapon.

Aren't you afraid that someone will just snap in a fit of passion and use one of those? How can you trust the general public with such deadly weapons?

[PavePusher]

23. Don't you know?

Guns are different.

Although they never explain exactly how.... hmmmmmm. :think:

[rd_kent]

25. No, no no! Guns embolden crime. Just ask sharesunited!

[rrneck]

27. Lets don't and say we did. nt

[rrneck]

28. I think it works something like this,

Since gun owners are supposed to be so paralyzed by unreasonable fear, they will react excessively and unreasonably if they feel threatened. Thus, since they possess firearms they will use them unjustifiably in the face of a threat they may perceive but actually does not exist. Ergo, firearms cause more harm than good since their possession is based on unreasonable fear but the potential damage they will do is a reality.

To believe that you have to ignore several things:

People who are armed have a better chance of surviving an assault. That means they have less to fear from assault.

There are severe civil and criminal penalties for the misuse of a firearm, so overreaction becomes less likely for most people who assume the responsibility of firearms ownership. This is doubly so for those who obtain a CCW and the training that goes along with it.

Actual risk for any individual can only be successfully evaluated by that individual. That is no guarantee that that risk assessment will be accurate, but it will almost certainly be more accurate that an assessment made by somebody on another continent.

Most people are basically good and, for any number of reasons, want to do right. Owning a gun does not make them crazy.

edit for clarity. I hope it worked.