HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "Gun culture" b...

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 02:39 PM

"Gun culture" begins with parents. Any law that doesn't restrict parents won't change gun culture.

Just because humans have the reproductive equipment, doesn't mean they're entitled to reproduce, especially when they create gun culture. Yes. PARENTS -- who are not adults -- create gun culture.









Parents all around the world create the image of guns as both toy and protection for kids.

NO ONE IS TEACHING KIDS TO NEVER USE A GUN AROUND OR AMBUSH AN UNARMED HUMAN.



?1437552721





These photos are not overkill. They barely scratch the surface of how we have to change "gun culture." All parents with guns must go to education training on how to teach their children the proper attitude toward, and use of guns, who they are unsafe around, how guns might be used to hunt, and what they must never use guns for. They must earn certificates and own gun insurance in case of theft or accidental shooting.



Every single family in Switzerland must have a gun by law, yet one doesn't see there photos of guns paraded around with children in tow. They don't treat their guns like toys in front of children. If you can come up with a training course that changes gun culture I'll happily support it. Until then, this fucking, stupid country...

61 replies, 6380 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 61 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Gun culture" begins with parents. Any law that doesn't restrict parents won't change gun culture. (Original post)
ancianita Oct 2015 OP
jeff47 Oct 2015 #1
ancianita Oct 2015 #8
jeff47 Oct 2015 #10
ancianita Oct 2015 #11
Decoy of Fenris Oct 2015 #12
ancianita Oct 2015 #13
Decoy of Fenris Oct 2015 #14
ancianita Oct 2015 #16
Decoy of Fenris Oct 2015 #18
ancianita Oct 2015 #20
Decoy of Fenris Oct 2015 #29
ancianita Oct 2015 #33
Decoy of Fenris Oct 2015 #37
ancianita Oct 2015 #41
Decoy of Fenris Oct 2015 #43
ancianita Oct 2015 #44
Mojorabbit Oct 2015 #26
Decoy of Fenris Oct 2015 #30
lancer78 Oct 2015 #49
jeff47 Oct 2015 #60
ancianita Oct 2015 #61
smirkymonkey Oct 2015 #56
TipTok Oct 2015 #58
Kilgore Oct 2015 #57
Hoyt Oct 2015 #2
Throd Oct 2015 #3
ancianita Oct 2015 #9
Mojorabbit Oct 2015 #34
Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #4
moondust Oct 2015 #5
Snobblevitch Oct 2015 #6
hack89 Oct 2015 #7
Snobblevitch Oct 2015 #19
IVoteDFL Oct 2015 #15
ancianita Oct 2015 #17
ancianita Oct 2015 #21
ancianita Oct 2015 #22
branford Oct 2015 #23
ancianita Oct 2015 #24
beevul Oct 2015 #25
ancianita Oct 2015 #27
beevul Oct 2015 #31
branford Oct 2015 #32
ancianita Oct 2015 #35
branford Oct 2015 #36
ancianita Oct 2015 #38
branford Oct 2015 #40
ancianita Oct 2015 #46
branford Oct 2015 #28
TipTok Oct 2015 #39
ancianita Oct 2015 #42
footinmouth Oct 2015 #45
ancianita Oct 2015 #47
branford Oct 2015 #48
ancianita Oct 2015 #50
branford Oct 2015 #51
ancianita Oct 2015 #53
SheilaT Oct 2015 #52
ancianita Oct 2015 #54
Kang Colby Oct 2015 #55
CrispyQ Oct 2015 #59

Response to ancianita (Original post)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 02:43 PM

1. So...your plan to combat gun violence is a eugenics program.

Yeah....you have fun with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 08:59 PM

8. I didn't know I was thinking along those lines or even to go that far. I think you know that I'm

referring to responsibility and judgment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #8)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 09:03 PM

10. You said people should not be able to reproduce if they "create gun culture".

Just because humans have the reproductive equipment, doesn't mean they're entitled to reproduce, especially when they create gun culture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #10)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 09:06 PM

11. Not fair. Quoting out of context, which also included...

All parents with guns must go to education training on how to teach their children the proper attitude toward, and use of guns, who they are unsafe around, how guns might be used to hunt, and what they must never use guns for. They must earn certificates and own gun insurance in case of theft or accidental shooting.


Eugenics is harsh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #11)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 09:10 PM

12. To the other poster's credit, I read the same thing.

Implying that reproduction is not an entitlement by virtue of political or cultural upbringing is eugenics, regardless of intent. In your first few lines, you quite clearly state that people -do not have the right to reproduce- and then apply that statement to the culture they subscribe to. If you take what you said and apply it to any minority (black, latino, jewish) or cultural (hip-hop, rape, feminist) phenomenon, it immediately falls under "Eugenics."

It may not have been what you meant, but its pretty solidly what you said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #12)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 09:22 PM

13. I admit to the impulse, but the civilized side of me prevails. I'm still trying to get at the source

of irresponsible gun use and gun culture.

But if you need to boot out another voice in favor of the "well regulated" clause, I guess I set myself up for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #13)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 09:39 PM

14. No, for the most part I agree with the concept of "Gun culture" and what's wrong with it.

That said, I try to keep my expectations realistic; short of actual eugenics, or a multigenerational government program aimed at disarming the populace, "gun control" as a nebulous ideal or practical goal is a non-starter.

If you want to end the violence in which a firearm is used, you don't just take away the tool, for that is only treating a symptom of a larger illness. Removing a tumor is a half-assed fix in the short-term, but in the long term, that won't cure the cancer. There are a host of symptoms that prevail when referring to gun violence, from inequality to racism, economic hardship or social ostracizing, even simple perception of injustice. If you want to stop the violence involved in these attacks, it's going to take more than just removing guns from the equation. Yes, larger-scale mass murders will stop but the mentality behind these attacks will continue.

As an example I used earlier, look at the 4chan post where some anonymous user threatened violence on a large scale. That poster was met not with outrage or pleas to rethink any course of action he'd take, but he was encouraged. He was given hints and tactics to up the body count, he was dared to do it and ultimately, -by his peers-, he was told in no uncertain terms to kill as many people as possible.

That, to me, is the crux of the issue. It's not the guns, it's the willingness and eagerness of a younger generation (and within our society itself) to casually disregard human life as worthless. That thought process won't change simply because you take guns from the equation; The body counts may lower, but people will -still die- because of thinking like this. A lot of people are jaded and nihilistic to the point of just not giving a shit if people die, so long as they're entertained or simply because it causes chaos.


The reason I think gun control fails so miserably at actually accomplishing anything is because many people realize that this level of violence is not a result of simply owning a gun; it is a symptom of a much larger disease that infects our country. As soon as that fact is acknowledged, gun control becomes meaningless and actual action falls flat on its face due to tremendous magnitude of work necessary to realistically stop the cycle of violence. Hell, just look around the forum; The first and most immediate response to a gun rampage is "ban all guns" because it's -easy-. It's intellectually lazy and irresponsible, but Gods help 'em, "Ban all guns" is a hell of a lot easier than "Examine root cause of rampages, analyze cause, offer and enact solutions, stop the violence."

If we want to stop shit like this from happening, we need to do a -lot- of work and truth told, not one single bit of it involves "Gun control" and you'd be hard-pressed to find more than one or two people in this entire forum willing to actually do the legwork to accomplish anything of note in that regard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #14)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 10:02 PM

16. If you reread the OP, you'll see that I'm not at all talking about taking away the tool. At all.

Once again:

All parents with guns must go to education training on how to teach their children the proper attitude toward, and use of guns, who they are unsafe around, how guns might be used to hunt, and what they must never use guns for. They must earn certificates and own gun insurance in case of theft or accidental shooting.


This addresses the "well regulated" militia clause of the 2nd Amendment.

Shit like this will stop when responsible gun ownership around children is trained into parents in such a way that they respect the gun as a tool of food and protection, not shooting sport and warfare.

I hope you get that I'm not into banning guns. I'm into requiring retraining of all gun owners with children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #16)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 10:12 PM

18. Again, I'm with you in spirit, but what you're proposing will never end rampages like Oregon.

Hell, it's not like this recent spree was done by a child, either; proper training and edification or not, people were going to die. This guy knew -exactly- what he was doing, knew exactly what guns are capable of doing, and that didn't stop him. It wasn't as if he had some grand revelation as he was shooting people; "Gee, guns -kill-?! Well I guess I'm in too deep now."

I'm all for programs like the one you're suggesting and have volunteered at the local range teaching precisely what you've proposed; Guns are not toys. Likewise, they aren't to be feared in and of themselves, but treated with respect and care. There are hundreds of programs out there like the ones you suggest, and there are dozens per program. Honestly, I don't know a single gun-owner who wouldn't agree to a training course like the one you're suggesting, especially if it was government-run and funded. Hell, if you can get it up and running, I'd be one of your first volunteers to teach those classes. I'd do it for damned near free, too.


Also, my apologies for insinuating you were in favor of banning. I was mistaken, and I do genuinely apologize for that. (In my dubious defense, your OP's formatting is a mite wonky. )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #18)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 10:23 PM

20. Never? You'll really never be able to claim that until a parent gun training course is nationally

mandatory and implemented for at least ten years. We can then compare gun death data.

And you really sure there are "hundreds of programs out there like the ones you suggest, and there are dozens per program"? Then where have you been??

I and everyone who thinks parents play a major part in promoting "gun culture" look forward to your uplifting this thread with a small list their sites that are safety certification training programs for both parents and children.

But at the very least we have to make having such a course mandatory for gun owners in any home that has dependents 21 years or younger. You're dreaming if you think parents want to pay for much more than their guns; I only know of parents who take their kids to grown ups' gun events.

We must work on the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment. That means making gun owner parent training courses national law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #20)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 11:05 PM

29. Well, yes, I can claim that fairly reliably.

Unless you're telling me (and I know you're not) that there will be no civilian gun deaths after ten years of mandatory training, then yes, I can say "never" reliably. I'm willing to grant that there may be minute possibility of "No rampages like Oregon", but at that point you're arguing matters of degree, not efficiency.

Well, in regards to the programs, I know that we have one every other day in the town I live, one a week in one nearby town and one every two weeks in another nearby town. The last large course I taught this summer, in a small town of less than 40k, brought in thirty seven -new- gun owners, eleven of which were under the age of sixteen. While I'm not willing to post where exactly I live or the towns around me (nature of my career; I've had guns pulled on me several times and I'm not about to fork over intel online), I'd urge you to... And I suspect you'll almost immediately discount this... check out this NRA page for certification and safety courses. http://www.nrainstructors.org/search.aspx

NRA aside, I hope you can understand that almost all firing ranges hold their courses either on an "as requested" basis or as a part of overall area-wide safety promotions. Where I volunteer, the training and certification courses are run via donations from the community and the ranges personal funds so people with lower income aren't required to cut meals solely for a certification. The same is true of many, though not all, firing ranges; If your proposal were to be offered by the government, especially with either tax rebates or other financial incentives, I think you'd find compliance to mandatory training to be relatively high.

In relation to "Well regulated", we differ greatly on the semantics and neither of us are going to budge on that point, so it may be worth bypassing that point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #29)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 11:22 PM

33. To list one NRA training course, I'm sorry, but that doesn't support your claim of "hundreds" of

programs.

Whatever programs exist fail to train mentalities and respect for human life beyond individual gun safe handling, shooting range practice, and storage, and that bare bones minimum totally ignores the family and community cultures that all but allow guns for sport, even play, and killing humans who are narrated as "fearful."

I've owned guns, used them, have never had them when I had children in my house; have left my now grown children to approach gun use as they see fit. Neither has guns in their homes.

When we can't agree on gun purchasing, ownership qualifications, use, use around children, or what makes "gun culture," we leave families to their own irresponsible pride in their toys and protection.

It's so far beyond semantics anymore, that I'm just giving up on such a large country that -- from community to Congress -- refuses to come together about mandatory training of gun owning parents. We'll get the children we deserve, and we'll continue suffering whatever mindless protections of the 2nd Amendment inflict upon us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #33)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 11:47 PM

37. What I was getting at, rather in a roundabout way, was that each range runs their own.

Generally speaking, if there's a range, there's a safety course, if not multiple safety courses. I used that lil' NRA tracker page to find seven courses within 25 miles of me in the next two weeks. My point is that there are many, many courses out there if you know where to look; you won't find an online database of all of them simply because they're decentralized and tend towards times based on need according to location. Just head to the nearest range, ask them when their next safety course is, and they'll direct you accordingly.

I want to make absolutely certain you understand what you're asking, though; you're asking firearm instructors to literally train morality into shooters. That is not the job of -any- adult. Adults shouldn't have to train adults to not be asshats; that is the job of parents, not random strangers. How do you teach "Respect for human life" to a grown adult? At that point, they either have it or they don't. Sure, you might make a few psychopaths question themselves, but what you're asking for (instructors to teach "mentalities" is far outside the scope of any firearm instructor. Moreover, that's outside the scope of almost anyone outside of that person's immediate family.

Let me give you a brief rundown of how I got where I am. Three of my friends in high school killed themselves with firearms. I didn't know my family even owned firearms until I was the tender age of twenty three. I have had guns held in my face at least on a yearly basis and I've knocked myself out when I fired a scoped rifle for the first time. I bought my first rifle of my own volition and without instruction from my family at the age of twenty four. Never once... Not -once-... have I ever feared a gun. I respect the power they convey and their ability to kill; I know how they work, how they fail to work. I understand what negligence with a firearm can cause and the hideous damage they are capable of if misused, yet never once have I feared them.

That, I think, is the most vital aspect of fighting outbreaks of violence on the scale of these mass shootings. We teach our children "Fear guns, they kill." Every time people talk to their children, it's "Fear" "fear" "fear". In granting such a level of terror to an inanimate object, yes, children will grow up thinking "This is power. This is death. This is fear." The more you stigmatize guns as an object, the more powerful they become in the minds of their users and the more people will turn to them when they wish to impose their will on innocent civilians. We need to teach not fear, but respect; Respect the tool, fear the person with their finger on the trigger. Unfortunately, as with most issues, both extremes render sensible discussion moot.


Anyways, at least we've come to the same conclusion. "We'll continue suffering." The gun controllers won't act to stop the violence, the gun advocates will keep trying to stop the controllers, and in the middle, thousands of innocents die. Until the two partisan elements can knock off their respective bullshit, people will die by the thousands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #37)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 12:25 AM

41. I'm talking about the training of tool use morality for children. If no one can train morality into

adults, then what is education for at all. AT ALL. I've been a high school, college prep teacher. Why would people send their kids to me for 34 years, to teach the basics of civilization's morality through its culture, while I also have to accept less of those parents as gun owners.

You're concentrating on adults. I'm talking about the maintaining of the moral code of their descendants.

If I have to face that adults -- and that's who you're concentrating on here -- have the constitutional right to produce fucked up, self serving uses for guns as "fun" ways to relate to their children -- in spite of all your pragmatic training -- then they shouldn't be allowed to own guns until their children are age 21.

Saying they can use guns however they choose, no matter their training -- if they're willing to bear the cost or take the consequences -- is like telling them they have the freedom of speech to shout "fire," incite crime, spew "fighting words," make true threats, and share obscenity as defined by the Miller test/child porn. When you imply that we can do nothing but let them have guns and just use them as their free wills see fit.

But I'm talking about the moral imperative of adults to morally train their children through parents' own mandatory training in use of a life threatening tool they own.

Cooking education teaches the absolute morality of knife use, and so can gun training for parents. I learned how to cut a whole chicken at age 11, how to handle, sharpen, clean and store knives. I learned how to clean, handle, store guns and how to shoot game. Not play at throwing knives into boards, thrill contests, shoot targets or anything I wouldn't eat, or point any of them at unarmed people. I call that respect for the tools that can protect or kill.

Finally, I'm glad you said this:

We need to teach not fear, but respect; Respect the tool, fear the person with their finger on the trigger. Unfortunately, as with most issues, both extremes render sensible discussion moot.


Because that right there is morality. Respect contains within it the recognition of humanity's and living creatures' right to exist, the effort of empathy that is our duty as humans, and the best kind of fear of the power of the tool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #41)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 12:45 AM

43. Sorry, ancianita. I have to bolt.

My baby girl is starting to fuss something fierce, so I have to go tend to her. As we part, I want you to know that I -do- agree with you on the large scale. We only differ on the details.

Anyways, thank you for a pretty reasonable conversation. You should swing past the Gungeon sometime; you'd be surprised how many folks might agree with you, if everyone keeps the passive-aggressiveness at a minimum.

Have a great night. I'll respond to this post when/if I'm able.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #43)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 12:47 AM

44. Thank you for all your thoughtfulness here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #14)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 10:58 PM

26. Great post. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #26)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 11:07 PM

30. Shame I somewhat misinterpreted the OP when I read it. ~.~ n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #14)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 02:08 AM

49. wow

 

This needs to be taken to the top of every gun violence post on this forum. The ban all guns crowd is intellectualy no different then the ban all abortions crowd. Neither group is wanting to cure the disease.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #11)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 12:57 PM

60. No right to reproduce because ______ is eugenics.

You started with a eugenics program and then backed away from it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #60)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 01:29 PM

61. We've been through this. I implied that having total freedom doesn't mean that any of the free

don't have responsibility to the whole, and that the few who abuse their freedoms as parents shouldn't threaten the "life, liberty and happiness" of those parents or the rest of society with poor gun ownership modeling with their innocent children.

It's irresponsible to take license with freedom. Everything costs, whether we know it or not. Right now, the bad side of gun culture is apparent in parents' misuse of their role to encourage children's ignorant use of life threatening tools as toys, as if life and death are just another game.

Guns are a tool. Like money they can be used for good or bad.

If you won't take all my words on balance, then you have an agenda. Is it to derail the overall point of my OP? Is it to make a perfect expression the enemy of the good?

For the record, I am against eugenics, that humans have to pass some genetic test. I'm saying

All parents with guns must go to education training on how to teach their children the proper attitude toward, and use of guns, who they are unsafe around, how guns might be used to hunt, and what they must never use guns for. They must earn certificates and own gun insurance in case of theft or accidental shooting.


That gun culture parents, wittingly nor not, threaten all our other constitutional rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" under cover of their own one, unfettered 2A right, matters for a society whose members are literally fettered by threat to their own rights as they pursue first amendment rights to discuss and learn in a university, church or school, or control resources on publicly owned land, or speak at political rallies, enter government buildings, airports, play in playgrounds, walk to school or, like me, sit outside and have a cigarette while my husband recuperates from heart surgery. (ironic, right?)




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #10)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:49 AM

56. Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smirkymonkey (Reply #56)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 10:16 AM

58. You could make a list...

 

... of the appropriate traits a couple should have before being 'allowed' to reproduce.

Not that it would be utterly creepy or anything...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #1)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 10:14 AM

57. This should befun to watch!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Original post)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 02:45 PM

2. Recommended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Original post)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 02:49 PM

3. My father taught us how dangerous firearms can be and how to use them safely.

I need to tell him what a bad dad he was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Throd (Reply #3)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 09:00 PM

9. I owned and learned how to use guns, too, but we didn't play with or have portraits done with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Throd (Reply #3)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 11:23 PM

34. So did mine. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Original post)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 02:52 PM

4. And the hysteria keeps getting more and more absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Original post)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 03:46 PM

5. Speaking of parents...

the Oregon shooter's father declines to answer questions in this clip. He sounds like he has a slight accent, *possibly* Australian.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34421741

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moondust (Reply #5)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 04:33 PM

6. He's British.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Original post)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 04:43 PM

7. My father taught me gun safety. I did the same to my kids

Three generations without an accident or killing a living thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #7)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 10:21 PM

19. My brother has taught gun and hunting safety training for the DNR for 27 years.

My best friend's father did the same for 38 years before my friend took over for him and he has been teaching gun safety for over two decades. Both of our families have a hunting tradition. We sometimes target shoot at our hunting cabin, but not on every visit. It is a mandatory course for 12 year olds if they wish to do any hunting in Minnesota.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Original post)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 09:58 PM

15. I worked shipping ammunition for a while

Not the highlight of my life. There are actually brands of ammunition that have an encouraging note for parents to take their children shooting right on the fucking box.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IVoteDFL (Reply #15)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 10:04 PM

17. I'm not optimistic about such a message, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Original post)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 10:34 PM

21. 35% of convicted people who've used guns got them from family or friends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Original post)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 10:37 PM

22. Gun deaths can't even be considered a public health issue?? THAT is part of gun culture, too.

Despite widespread concern about the impacts of gun violence on public health, Congress has banned the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) from conducting research on gun violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #22)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 10:46 PM

23. Yet, the government still both conducts and sponsors significant amounts of research

 

about firearm related issues. This is mostly accomplished by the USDOJ, National Institute of Justice (my former employer before law school many moons ago), as well as the Bureau of Justice Statistics, FBI, and other agencies.

The reason why Congress cut most funding for CDC gun "research" was that they were conducting blatant anti-gun advocacy using dollars designated for scholarship. The CDC has only themselves to blame for results of their own abuses.

Moreover, the CDC still sponsors some firearm research, including one of the most comprehensive reviews of current firearm-related scholarship containing information widely cited by both sides of the gun control debate.

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#vii

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to branford (Reply #23)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 10:50 PM

24. Fair enough. I wasn't aware. I still think it's been a public health issue, not just a criminal

justice agency issue.

Every mass shooting is presented in a pathological narrative. It's either PR or real. Either way, the "well regulated" clause of the 2nd Amendment has yet to "well regulate" the background check baseline data on buyers and parent owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #24)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 10:55 PM

25. "Well regulated", as you use it, is a false premise.

 

Amendment 2 does not authorize anything.

Amendment 2 does not grant anything.

Amendment 2 restricts only government.


It therefore can not mean what you imply it does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #25)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 11:01 PM

27. Constitutional words are either descriptive or prescriptive.Lawyers can argue the prescriptive here.

Why does Congress take "implied" authorization, the lawyers among them, even, to vote on some controls if such controls cannot be part of the constitutional implication for users of guns.

"Well regulated" remains what state and federal governments do, even if it's not "well."

Not that either of us are lawyers, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #27)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 11:10 PM

31. One needn't be a lawyer, it isn't that complicated.

 

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://www.billofrights.org/

Why does Congress take "implied" authorization, the lawyers among them, even, to vote on some controls if such controls cannot be part of the constitutional implication for users of guns.


Many in congress presume they haven't the limits to work within, that they actually do have.

Nothing new there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #27)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 11:12 PM

32. As I indicated, I am indeed a lawyer.

 

Trying to argue "well regulated" is essentially whatever the government says it means effectively vitiates the phrase. The "well regulated Militia" language also doesn't limit or expand any part of the right to keep and bear arms. It simply provides a reason why the right needs to be guaranteed, as discussed by the Supreme Court and most scholars.

In any event, Congress (or the states or localities) can pass any gun control legislation they wish. The courts may later strike them down, but it doesn't prevent the legislatures from trying (e.g., Chicago and Washington, D.C.). The fact that most gun control laws are not passed (and most are likely constitutional) is simply because they lack the requisite popular support in the relevant states and districts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to branford (Reply #32)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 11:24 PM

35. Sorry I missed your qualifications. Yes, the popular support part is what I'm concerned with here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #35)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 11:45 PM

36. My profession, apart my my personal knowledge of the research conducted by

 

the National Institute of Justice, shouldn't be inherently persuasive, as I cite the same facts and figures as anyone else. One's views concerning firearms are also a very subjective matter. I am just happy to engage in civil dialogue (at least with some people like yourself).

Also note that while my views are decidedly pro-gun rights, I have never owned a firearm. My support is based on our inherent right of self-defense, the express language of the Constitution, and fear than any serious attempts to tamper with the Bill of Right is a slippery slope that could lead to the reversal of centuries of liberal constitutional jurisprudence.

As to popular support, guns are integral part of the unique history and culture of our country, particularly in rural and exurban America. To many, the firearm debate is not about safety, but rather just another battle in the culture wars. A great many Americans, arguably a majority, and definitely including a significant number of loyal Democrats, view gun rights as integral to their identities and necessary for a free and open state. They will vote on this issue alone, and our elected representatives, most of whom wish to keep their jobs, understand their constituencies.

Moreover, popular support for gun rights and against restrictions is actually steadily growing, despite events like Sandy Hook, all while crime rates are about half of decades past, many millions more guns are entering circulation every year, firearm ownership and carry laws are the most liberal they've been in generations, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms.


http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-have-no-impact-on-support-for-gun-rights-in-the-us

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179213/six-americans-say-guns-homes-safer.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179045/less-half-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx

http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to branford (Reply #36)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 12:03 AM

38. Your description is clear. An indisputable truth. That said, gun culture as part of American culture

is killing us. All innocent deaths by the tens of thousands cannot help but kill the innocence of our people.

I must accept this reality. Yet, while I myself cling to the belief that the entire "personal responsibility" crowd should be compelled to give up its blind love of weaponry culture, along with its clinging to whatever imagined power weapon ownership confers, this won't ever happen. If it could, it would have by now.

I'm committed to accurate maps of humanity, so thank you for the links, as well.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #38)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 12:18 AM

40. In fairness, and admitting than any violent crime, with or without firearms, is a tragedy,

 

the vast majority of legal owners are indeed peaceful, law abiding people.

There are 80-100+ million legal gun owners, with over 1 in 3 American owning at least one firearm. Even with our notoriously high rate of gun crime, this still represents a very tiny fraction of gun owners. More significantly, most gun crime is committed by people who are proscribed from owning firearms and are not part of the 80+ million figure.

That is why when discussing remedies to gun crime and accidents, it is essential not to accuse or imply, as many do, that all these people are essentially heartless (pre-)criminals, and to ensure that the gun control proposals are actually targeted at the people statistically committing the crimes without depriving the law-abiding of their constitutional rights because of the malfeasance, no matter how terrible, of the very, very few.

Every time I read about "gun humpers," "ammosexuals," and similar juvenile and counterproductive drivel on DU, to say nothing of the authoritarian fantasies repealing the Second Amendment and confiscating over 300 million firearms, I sadly know that compromise on any legislation that might actually be helpful, such as universal background checks, becomes far harder to achieve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to branford (Reply #40)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 01:25 AM

46. It takes dwarves 1/100th the time to tear down a building it takes architects and skilled workers

a year or two to build. So it is with a united, even if not uniform, society built over 100 years. Look at what's gone on in recent history to see how they're doing it.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

We are like grousing bystanders, fussing and handwringing as these small numbers tear the fabric of a hard built American nation and its interwoven moral compass over the last few years.

It's too much for us to tolerate. It's know-nothings killing the innocent while do-nothings lament. Have we become so weak and miserable as a people that the fuckups run the show?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #24)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 11:02 PM

28. I would simply note that there's nothing that prevents academics outside the government

 

from researching firearm-related issues from a public health perspective. It's not like the only research being conducted on relevant issues is confined to the halls of government.

However, the basic data (number of incidents, demographics, etc.) will not change regardless of who conducts the research.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Original post)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 12:13 AM

39. NO ONE IS TEACHING KIDS TO NEVER USE A GUN AROUND OR AMBUSH AN UNARMED HUMAN

 

I feel like these should be separate statements....

Like if we are at the range and another human is near me but unarmed I will a) continue to use my gun or b) let them borrow one of mine so they are no longer unarmed

Secondly..

Really?

No one is teaching their children not to ambush other people with their firearms?

Really?

Are you sure.................?

See a lot of complex L shaped ambushes on the news nowadays?

Hmm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TipTok (Reply #39)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 12:30 AM

42. No. But I was just mad. Mass killings, even from such slight numbers of gun users, is soul killing.

I can't say no one. Studies of conceal carry people have shown that their reaction time is insufficient to prevent ambush behavior even when they're expecting ambush. That alone bugs the hell out of me. But I have to accept it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Original post)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 01:17 AM

45. Thank you ancianita

for hosting a civilized and interesting gun discussion. Being a non gun-owning family I have difficulty relating. We don't even discuss them much here. We've never owned guns here. Our sons are in their late 30's and do not own them either.

I would probably think differently if I lived out in the country or in the inner city. I'm in a very safe suburb and we just never considered it. That's why I really can't relate to those who are not in favor of any regulation at all.

Thank you again for such a civilized conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to footinmouth (Reply #45)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 01:39 AM

47. Thank you, too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to footinmouth (Reply #45)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 01:45 AM

48. Few, particularly pro-gun rights Democrats on DU, are against any gun regulations at all.

 

In fact, despite the hyperbole, myth and dueling talking points, firearms are an extremely regulated product, particularly in light of the fact it's constitutionally protected. The desire for more regulation does not obviate thousands of pages of federal, state an local laws and ordinances.

The pertinent issue is whether additional regulation (at least that passes constitutional muster) will have any demonstrable effect on firearm crime (and assuming it could garner sufficient support for passage).

For instance, many demand universal background checks (and I personally support the proposals with certain minor reservations). However, in virtually every instance of the recent mass shootings which generated the demand for UBC's, the shooter would, and did, pass NICS background checks, or in the case of Adam Lanza (who would have passed a check), his mother easily passed the check and then he killed her and stole her guns. The only instance where a proper background check might have denied the shooter a weapon was the Charlestown massacre this summer. However, Roof passed the check because of flaws in paperwork and communication between a federal background check worker and state law enforcement, not due to some perceived legal shortcoming.

Similarly, despite the fact that ALL rifles account for a tiny percentage of gun crime, and the DOJ's own research couldn't conclude that the 1994 Assault Weapons ban was in any way effective (and Lanza's rifle complied with CT's own AWB), the demand for a new AWB is still a primary point among gun control advocates. I don't understand how it could be seen as anything other than a solution looking for a problem or, more likely, a transparent attempt toward a gradual gun ban, with the accompanying lack of trust ruining any chances for gun control compromises with the opposition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to branford (Reply #48)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 02:12 AM

50. We HAVE to keep trying to implement regulations that do have demonstrable effects. We have to.

Everything you say may be true. But this isn't about the small numbers. It's about the big numbers.

Two years ago, two kids whose parents legally owned a 40mm glock semi-automatic pointed it at me.

I quietly talked them out of it, but this issue is still about the lack of serious gun training from parent to child. The parents knew it. The kids knew that, as juveniles, they'd get another shot at new choices. And I'm still alive.

Even if everything you say is true, hundreds of thousands have died who shouldn't have had to, over variations of what I experienced. The variables are too many, even with mandatory training of gun owning parents. But.

We have to do better than vent popular oppositions over an overly protected amendment that's little more than a setup for moral and cultural death beyond all the physical death. If we are that apathetic a society, then we deserve all that death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #50)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 02:28 AM

51. Minimum gun safety and proficiency training is something that I personally support,

 

as do many gun owners and gun rights proponents, here on DU and elsewhere. However, it's not a major proposal among those offered recently by gun control advocates.

They generally much prefer things like assault weapons bans and magazine limits because they are effectively partial and gradual gun bans that they believe can be built upon later. Policies which might actually improve gun safety, such as training, are often disfavored because they might appear to approve of or encourage "gun culture."

I've said this many times on DU, one of the biggest problems with gun control are most gun controllers. They are generally insistent on making the perfect (i.e., policies leading to gun bans) the enemy of the good (i.e., compromises for gun safety), and we end-up with the status quo (i.e., dead children).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to branford (Reply #51)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 02:40 AM

53. That is, indeed, the tedious framing. My framing concentrates on national, law-based policy.

Last edited Thu Oct 8, 2015, 08:31 PM - Edit history (1)

This.

Policies which might actually improve gun safety, such as training, are often disfavored because they might appear to approve of or encourage "gun culture."


... is less like training and licensing for driving two-ton vehicles and more like a vocational course in responsible tool use. Which would make for more of a gun culture similar to Switzerland's or Canada's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Original post)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 02:38 AM

52. Hmm. As a parent who has never owned a gun,q

 

whose sons never had any sort of exposure to guns, I'm not sure what to think.

Don't get me wrong. I'm in favor of total confiscation (a notion oddly not in favor here on DU), but while I'm willing to agree a lot needs to be changed, please do not assume that all parents are gun assholes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #52)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 02:43 AM

54. I'd be stupid to think that. But the sloppy minority spoil it for the careful majority, don't they.

Sometimes, for the sake of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for the many, the few have to make some concessions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Original post)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:31 AM

55. Good golly...

There is nothing wrong with teaching your children firearm safety and marksmanship.

Do posters like the OP ever stop to consider that they are doing the work of pro-gun advocates when they make posts like this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Original post)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 11:15 AM

59. So I'm looking at the 3rd pic of all the little kids holding a gun & I'm wondering,

what happened to the first rule, never point a gun at something you don't want to shoot? WTF? The one kid's gun is pointed right at the person taking the pic. And yet I'll bet their parents claim they are responsible gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread