General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat If We Made Gun Culture Uncool Like We Did Cigarettes?
Sorry, I cant bring my kids to your place if there are unsecured guns in the house.
Thanks for coming over. Do you mind leaving your shoes in the hallways and your pistol off my property?
I cant stay over if you keep a gun in the bedroom, especially if weve been drinking. Guns make things less safe when the lights go out.
Its surprisingly easy to imagine a society where gun ownership is looked down upon, if not scorned outright. This already happened with smoking, at least partly as a result of a public education campaign aimed at young people, and it happened when polite society finally came down against people flying the Confederate flag after the Charleston church shootings this year. Sometimes, when legislative action is difficult or downright impossible, a cultural approach works to curtail dangerous behaviors.
..................
Like cigarettes, guns are big business. Smith & Wesson has a $1 billion market capitalization and a CEO who made $1.9 million last year, Sturm, Ruger & Co. has a $1.1 billion market cap and a CEO who made more than $1.1 million in the latest fiscal year. The National Rifle Association boasts 4.5 million members and regularly takes in contributions approaching $100 million a year, in addition to its program revenues. In short, guns are part of the establishment and people who spend money on them are no more iconoclasts than people who fork over money to Phillip Morris on a daily basis.
Like the tobacco industry, the gun industry has obfuscated about the safety dangers of its products. It has sold a fantasy of self- and home-protection that is out of touch with reality. And like tobacco companies, the industry aggressively markets to young people. A presentation by Smith & Wesson from March 2015 says that two thirds of new shooters are 18-34 years old, that a quarter of first time purchases by a second gun within a year, and that 60 percent of new shooters are buying for personal defense or security.
...........
MORE:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/guns-cigarettes-cultural-shift
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)How hard is that to understand?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Hint - less than two, and the one that was repealed banned the sale of alcohol.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)If you ever managed to repeal the 2A, it would then fall to the states to set their firearm policies.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Isn't Civics 101 taught in schools anymore?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)If you took Civics 101, you would know about the Supreme Court - FYI, its the highest Court in the land and rules on the constitutionality of Federal and State laws and regulations - and about the limitations the Court has placed on firearm restrictions based on the "right to bear arms" under the 2nd Amendment.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I never said that if the 2A were repealed, that there couldn't be more stringent regulations on firearms.
branford
(4,462 posts)Yes, without the Second Amendment, states might have greater discretion to restrict firearms.
However, note that 44 states still have their own Second Amendment equivalents that would still protect the RKBA, in addition to any common law protections established in state law jurisprudence.
More importantly, nothing would compel states with liberal firearm laws to pass greater restrictions, and since even generally constitutional measures cannot pass Congress, more draconian restrictions would fare far worse. All that would possibly occur if the Second Amendment were repealed is that a few anti-gun states that already have strict regulations might pass a few more restrictions, and there would be even greater disparity among state firearm laws.
Additionally note that regardless of the Second Amendment, Congress could liberalize gun laws on a national basis and preempt many state and local restrictions. Remember that Congress is now controlled by pro-gun rights Republicans. Consider a more realistic scenario that repealing an Amendment, and what could happen if Republicans also take the presidency. I assume that many in our Party would develop a sudden appreciation for State's rights.
Mister Ed
(5,924 posts)..to say they think your arms are uncool. Which is what the OP is proposing they do.
How hard is that to understand?
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)imthevicar
(811 posts)Keep My Weapons!
kpete
(71,965 posts)imthevicar
(811 posts)I could post Just as much Bullshat as you. The fact remains that the 2ed amendment is still in place and the House is still stuck at 450.
Http://www.thirty-thousand.org
Yeah, good luck with that, just keep on stigmatizing firearm owners, it's worked out so wonderfully so far.
kpete
(71,965 posts)and i am a very visual person
pictures of sick lungs did the trick for me
but it did take several years
peace GGJohn,
kp
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)food tastes better, don't get winded so easily anymore.
But the fact is that the trend, except in a few traditional gun control states, is towards more liberalizing of firearm laws.
People aren't going to relinquish their firearms because of photos, the ongoing stigmatizing of owners, etc., at least not in our live time, and I very much doubt in the future.
Peace kpete.
GG.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)LonePirate
(13,409 posts)Every mass shooting, every shooting of another person by a child, every crass social media photo, every incident of vigilantism gone wrong, every ridiculous, paranoid and anger-filled statement - all of which come from firearms possessors themselves - do more to "stigmatize" firearms possessors than any word or action from those who advocate against them. Culture in this country is already changing - albeit slowly - and the change is not one which the gun nutters happen to like.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)And if the culture were changing, then explain why more and more states are loosening their firearm laws?
Why do more Americans now support a right to firearms than more gun control?
YOU may think the culture is changing for more gun control, but the stats don't back you up.
LonePirate
(13,409 posts)If you think actions by red states are moving this country in a better direction, then I'm not sure this message board is the right place for you.
And if you want to know the future of gun control in this country, talk to the under 30 crowd who have grown up under the specter of guns since Columbine. Gen Y and Z might just save this country from its unconscionable gun addiction.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)less restrictive firearm laws, IL was a no CHL issue state, now they're a shall issue state, CA is moving towards being a shall issue state, NY, with some of the most restrictive laws, recently passed the NY SAFE Act, of which a portion of it has already been ruled unconstitutional, there is a 95% non compliance to the law and most of the NY Sheriff's are flatly refusing to enforce it due to it being almost impossible to enforce.
And your 30 and under crowd?
Can you post a link showing that the 2A is unpopular with them?
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)In addition, I don't' think you know what gerrymandering is because it makes no sense in the sentence you wrote.
If loosened gun laws are mostly in 'red states', there aren't many 'blue states' left.
sarisataka
(18,501 posts)support your evaluation of younger generation
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)to the killing because it too is becoming a larger part of the culture.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and I can't fathom why this is happening.
I think there are steps that can be taken to reduce the shootings without stepping on American's right to own firearms.
My first and strongest suggestion would be to end the failed WOD, shift the funds to the mental health system, that would greatly reduce the instances of suicide by all methods.
Secondly, more funding to the ATF to better enforce the nations federal firearm laws, like going after felons in possession of a firearm, more stringent prosecutions of straw buyers and those lying on Form 4473,.
Thirdly, reduce the DOD's budget and place the money towards infrastructure rebuilding with the added bonus of creating thousands upon thousands of new, hopefully, union jobs.
I would also strongly support passing the Universal Background Check bill currently languishing in the Congress
Also, I would support a national FOID card, much like Illinois currently has.
I'm sure there are other measures that would help without violating firearm owners RKBA.
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)would not abide better enforcement of firearm laws. The media does cover mass shootings which should lead to US's outrage over the killings but to me it seems more guns are sold in the wake of the killings much to the delight of the Republicans-NRA coalition. I hate to think that that coalition cheers these massacres, but it looks that way to me.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)published is systemic suppression of truth in America by a controlled media. How else could that happen??
LonePirate
(13,409 posts)The terrorists at the NRA and their puppets in Congress would not have been able to counter those horrific images.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)is to use the emotional card?
Just shows how weak the support for gun control, other than UBC's, really is.
LonePirate
(13,409 posts)The gun nutters have no sense of human decency to appeal to, so bringing that emotional message to the masses is a far better approach. That would make people realize their life is more valuable the gun nutters' WANT (not NEED) of guns. Besides, gun nutters are motivated by fear so using your own standards, the case for not having gun control is pretty weak.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I refer you to the Patriot Act.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Fear of some black guy no matter how mild mannered.
Republicans are dominated by their fear-driven reptilian brain. Thus the need for so many to own.carry a lethal security blanket.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I'd like to see a link with those stats.
Every firearm owner I know didn't buy their firearms on fear, they bought them for a variety of reasons, but fear was definitely not one of them.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)To shoot a paper targets. Most are old bolt action rifles.
No fear of the plates, I can assure you.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Your posts get more bizarre every day.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 9, 2015, 05:31 AM - Edit history (1)
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)No, I'm quite solid, but thank you for your concern.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Get out of here with emotion, this is the tool in its prime!
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)It's been expressed here on DU several times.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)used for what it was finely crafted.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I saw more blown apart bodies during my career than any one should ever see in their lifetime.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It would add much to the conversation.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)but if the parents or next of kin gave their approval, that's their business.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)"I need guns to protect my family" being the most obvious emotional card used.
The difference is they're fantasizing about muslims/blacks/whomever is the bogeyman this year wreaking havoc and murdering their children. It actually happened in Sandy Hook.
Paladin
(28,243 posts)The old talking point that all reason and logic reside on your side of the argument is absolute horseshit. Given some of your posts over the last week, denying it isn't going to be convincing.
beevul
(12,194 posts)#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023396665
I guess we'll never be hearing 'nra talking point' from you then, since you support anti-gun talking points strait from the published manual.
Response to LonePirate (Reply #16)
Post removed
LonePirate
(13,409 posts)Unfortunately gun nutters think their guns are more important than other people's lives. That is another reason why we need to repeal the 2A. Guns have no place in a modern society.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)then the issue of guns would revert to the states. There are 44 states with RKBA in their constitutions. Now if the 2A were repealed and a gun ban amendment were to be added, then guns could be outlawed. That is not going to happen.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)that might "infringe" on the people's right to keep and bear arms. No amendment would be needed to allow
for restrictions banning guns. Federal law > state law.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)but it is easy to change laws. My point is that it isn't going to happen.
branford
(4,462 posts)They cannot pass Congress and state legislatures because they're unpopular, and nothing to do with the Second Amendment or state equivalents. This resistance is the reason why any discussion of repealing the Second Amendment, an even more difficult task, is patently ludicrous.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)afoul of current 2nd amendment interpretation.
branford
(4,462 posts)and some of their ideas, once memorialized in a bill, could well have constitutional concerns (but that would hardly be unusual about many matters, guns or otherwise).
However, as I indicated, the Second Amendment is certainly not preventing them from being offered or voted on in Congress. Judicial review is an entirely separate matter.
The impediment to gun control, particularly on the national level, is lack of popular support. The fact that support for gun rights is very regional and advocates extremely determined voters, make congressional passage of firearm restrictions extremely diffcult.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Have you heard of unenumerated rights? The ninth amendment ring a bell?
Here's one for you, where is the right to travel enumerated?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)on any court decisions ever reached. Did you pass reality?
If the 2nd amendment had never been included in the bill of rights there
would be more gun laws than there are now. I contend that to be reality.
You are free to believe otherwise.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)The right exists. It existed before the bill of rights. It is explicitly protected by the second amendment. Repeal the second amendment and the right goes from being explicitly protected by the second, to being implicitly protected by the ninth amendment.
Here's a free clue- you'll find it in the preamble to the bill of rights:
[div class='excerpt']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.
The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)
The right to travel is a good example of an unenumerated, yet fully protected right. You won't find it in the constitution or the bill of rights.
Derp.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)think it's a super-protected unenumerated right after all. Feel free to think that the court would,
but I think it wouldn't and that the removal of the 2nd amendment would result in the court
looking much more favorably on restrictive gun laws.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. various state constitutions." If the right exists, and is not implicitly protected by an amendment, it must therefore be protected by the ninth (and tenth) amendments. You know the ones that say, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I swear, some folks need to take a refresher course on civics.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I love the people who think the govt grants rights via the BoR.
I guess Civics 101 isn't taught in schools any more.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)And others blaming the president for not doing by executive order things that couldn't pass congress.
Constitutional scholars, they're not.
raccoon
(31,105 posts)"The end goal is to ban and forcibly remove firearms from all of us. "
Enjoy your stay.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)See what the media outlet has to say.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I'm pretty sure that if you laid alcohol related deaths at the feet of people that didn't drink and drive, your reactions would be similar to what you get from pro-gun folks.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Don't go throwing food in momma's face while she's feeding you.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)That guns should be banned? Has publishing the pictures of dismembered fetuses convinced anyone that abortion should be banned (no, because it shouldn't)? Why don't you reach out to the parents of the Sandy Hook victims (one of whom I grew up with) and ask their permission to publish pictures of their dead child. Christ, instead of calling for publication of pictures of dead children, focus on issues that will actually help address gun violence in this country.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)It stopped a war and had the bush regime not banned images of caskets coming back from Iraq it may have stopped that war much sooner and saved many lives.
If photos showing the true carnage and devastation firearms inflict, common sense legislation of firearms would happen in a time frame of years not generations.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)karadax
(284 posts)Taxing those smokes helped dissuade a large swath of Americans from picking up the habit.
You can have your guns but you're gonna pay through the nose to use it. That sounds more reasonable than taking them all away.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)while firearm ownership is an enumerated right and heavy taxes would be considered a poll tax on a right, which is unconstitutional.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/460/575/
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)CTyankee
(63,893 posts)tp buy their precious guns. Weird.
librechik
(30,674 posts)Brickbat
(19,339 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Those numbers haven't really changed much.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)What if gun products had warning labels like tobacco procucts?
!CAUTION! IMAGE IS VERY GRAPHIC!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)"Before using gun, read warnings in instruction manual, available free."
Response to kpete (Original post)
olddots This message was self-deleted by its author.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)women and children.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Just give them a minute and they will tell you.
While the vast majority of them aren't ranting about the government taking away their guns and/or bibles, it's not hard to believe they aren't lulling themselves to sleep with their Rambo fantasies. I live in Texas right in the middle of gun nut heaven and get to listen to them go on about what they would do with precious if they caught someone committing some hypothetical crime. That's why you have wingnut politicians like Rick Goodhair Perry and Ben Carson relaying their made up hero stories. It's like red meat to the gun nuts.
Throd
(7,208 posts)This anonymous discussion board is pretty much the only place I ever mention them at all.
Like you, I don't generally speak of what firearms I own, except on this chat board, which is anonymous.
Not even my close acquaintances know what I own.
I just love the internet psychoanalysts who think they know all about the mind of firearm owners.
Locrian
(4,522 posts)It's not the same.
Guns aren't glorified in movies, tv etc like cigarettes were.... oh, wait.
But it's not like mfgs use imagery and associate being cool and masculine with guns like cigarettes .... oh wait.
But it's not like guns are dangerous like cig.....
Amishman
(5,554 posts)Try to stigmatize gun ownership and they will respond with pride and band more tightly together as a group. By attacking a person for the interests or values they hold, you re-enforce it as part of their identity. Its already happening. I see more firearms related stickers on cars and trucks today than I ever did ten years ago. Gun owners are banding together. This is why NRA membership is rising. This is why pro gun rallies are usually far larger than those by Mothers Demand Action.
It only worked with smoking because many smokers are addicted and wish they could quit. Those smokers agreed with the criticism and went along with it. This is not a good comparison for gun owners as there is not a large subsection of them that wants to 'quit'. They own guns because they want to own guns, not because of an addiction (ok, maybe a tiny fraction might qualify as addicted, but its not significant). Smoking was also something that the average person was inconvenienced with on a daily basis. This kept the issue from getting lost in the daily shuffle of people's lives. On any given day, very few people are directly negatively impacted by the prevalence of guns. This is why the issue fades away so quickly.
An adversarial approach is the reason it is so very difficult to make any headway. We aren't working with gun owners on the smaller items which could get wider support. The drive for improved background checks focuses on banning private sales or even creating a registration system; where instead we could work with them and open the background check system for use with those private sales. Safe storage programs would likely be very popular if it was done from the perspective of making proper storage containers more affordable / available. Instead of solely to block concealed carry, why are we not trying to encourage training programs so that those who do choose to carry are safer about it? I know I would feel safer if PA offered free safety training classes as part of their licensing process. When we talk about compromise on gun control, we usually see it as a perspective of any rights that gun owners retain is what we are 'giving' up in the deal. The gun crowd sees it only as more restrictions with no benefit to them, and are not willing to talk. The few items I listed here (opening up background checks to private sales, subsidized gun storage lock boxes, free training programs) are the types of things we should be offering up as part of any compromise.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)That the youth, are more pro gun then older folk?
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Skittles
(153,122 posts)seriously, they are irrational about them
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Gun control advocates talk "compromise" all the time, but they are the ones completely unwilling to give any ground up whatsoever.
hunter
(38,304 posts)I honestly wonder sometimes if it's the lead in bullets.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,047 posts)I think I would be about as interested in hearing about their porn stash.
Skittles
(153,122 posts)yes indeed
Aristus
(66,294 posts)It's been reported that more and more guns are being acquired by fewer and fewer people. This suggests to me that gun use is beginning to devolve most upon the die-hard fanatics, rather than casual users.
I'm starting to see an decrease in my clinical practice of smokers who tell me "Yeah, I know I should quit", and an increase in smokers who tell me "I enjoy smoking".
I don't believe them. You enjoy smoking? It looks bad, tastes bad, smells bad, is expensive, and it killed such legendary bad-asses as Ulysses Grant, Yul Brynner, and the Marlboro Men.
It seems to be a defensive reaction to the notion that sensible people are giving it up, for their own health and the health of others.
There has been a sharp upswing in the national public support for firmer gun control. But it is being opposed by wealthy corporations, fanatical lobbying organizations, and the sort of die-hard obsessives who would rather kill or die than give up their deadly addiction.
We just have to wait for the gun-fanatics to die off, the way the "I'm-going-to-smoke-the-hell-out-of-these-cigarettes-just-because-you-oppose-them-so-strongly" types are dying out.
branford
(4,462 posts)That's not what I've read, despite continuous attempts at denigration of "gun culture" for decades by gun control advocates. In fact, support for gun rights and against restrictions ultimately increased after Sandy Hook.
http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pew-study-gun-rights-20141210-story.html
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/
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)An examination into the theory of how political movements die off with age, and criticisms of this theory, focusing on both the assumptions of non-transference of ideas during transition, and the social construction of fixed socialization processes from one generation to the next. Only one section offered. Joint registration with Dept. of Myth and Religion. Lower Division.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)I read that if you smoked from an early age till you were fifty,the damage has already been done.Is that true? As in copd?
I don't have it now,but will I get it later on?
Aristus
(66,294 posts)The damage is done when the functional lung surface, called the parenchyma, is finally burned away. The structures that facilitate gas exchange, called alveoli and look like bunches of grapes, collapse, and don't grow back. Once that happens, you've got COPD, which is irreversible. By quitting, you've help prevent further damage to your lungs. Whether or not you develop carcinoma down the line is kind of up in the air.
But at least you quit. Thank you.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)Aristus
(66,294 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)bottom line, it can't hurt.
and I looked soooo cool when I was 16!
I miss them so.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)threw the pack away and haven't touched a cancer stick since.
The first 2 weeks were the worse, not because of the craving, but, believe it or not, what to do with my hands, LOL, I did a lot of writing and doodling on pads of paper.
I quit just about the time the Army started their campaign against smoking, so it worked out well for me.
The almost immediate effect was I could taste my food much better, I didn't become so winded after working out, etc.
I urge every one to quit, but I'm also not one of those ex-smoker assholes that tries to browbeat smokers into quitting.
Peace
John.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)plus,big tobacco getting a little less money.
Thanks!
KG
(28,751 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Our middle school kids came home every day and told us to put out our cigarettes, always preaching about our health and their health. It worked...it took about 8 months of the constant badgering but we did it. Stopped cold turkey one day and spouse stopped gradually within two months.
NickB79
(19,224 posts)"It is hard to qualify to what extent rifle sales have increased as a result of being in games," says Ralph Vaughn, the man who negotiates deals with game developers for Barrett. "But video games expose our brand to a young audience who are considered possible future owners."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannon-watts/game-over-tell-the-gun-lo_b_3424031.html
I personally know several guys in their 20's who bought AK's and AR's specifically because they said those were what they loved using in games they grew up playing, such as Call of Duty.
So, what do with do with that information?
elfin
(6,262 posts)Trendy PSAs featuring adolescent girls and young women saying they won't go out with boys with guns or males who think guns are terrific. Not getting laid because you love guns could be a worthy deterrent.
A woman rethinking her choice for a potential spouse and future parent to her kids once she learns he/she thinks it's just fine to have guns in the house.
Videos of Moms calling to see if the parents of the kid having the sleepover have guns in the house and how are they protected - and then saying their child can't attend, but the other child is welcome at their house anytime. Making it evident that it is routine behavior for good parents.
Videos showing the monetary investment in a gun collector's stash and comparing it to the cost of a family vacation that may not have been taken. Etc.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Brickbat
(19,339 posts)Anyway, with women being the one of the fastest-growing demographics of new gun owners, that might not be the best approach.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)underpants
(182,632 posts)Guns really dont
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Led by the ubiquitous, old-line and rather unchanging MSM cartoons, and spittle-flying editorials from both MSM and boutique anti-gun sites. Calls for stigma and culture war (and that is what this is all about), have persisted for years, and given the rather conservative and at times indolent nature of the control/prohibition outlook, calls for someone, somewhere to fund more of this baited-breath stuff will no doubt continue.
More importantly, what has been the result in terms of gun sales and the burgeoning popularity in the shooting sports?
NOTE: Gun-owners don't eat bullets.
hunter
(38,304 posts)There are indications that lead increases violent ideation and behavior.
Gun love is an addiction in some respects, in that firing guns satisfies the "itch" that firing guns causes. It might not be the lead, but it looks very much to me like there is something going on there. The nitrates in gun smoke, perhaps?
That's why "target shooting" gun lovers bristle whenever you suggest using air guns firing unleaded darts or bullets might be a good alternative sport.
Hmmm, maybe if you used nitrous oxide as the propellant... of course a bunch of people firing weapons in an atmosphere of laughing gas might not be such a good idea...
branford
(4,462 posts)that substantiate your claims that firing weapons is a hazardous lead risk to humans, no less cause a demonstrable increase in violent behavior, or that participation in firearms sports, training, hunting or other firearms activities constitutes some form of sexual ideation, i.e., "gun love."
hunter
(38,304 posts)These sorts of studies are difficult, and face a lot of organized opposition when it comes to funding. Studies about pesticides and human health face similar opposition. It's very similar to the situation with tobacco and climate change. Certain corporations and organization don't want anyone to know, and do their damned best to impede studies, especially government funded studies.
How lead exposure relates to temporal changes in IQ, violent crime, and unwed pregnancy.
Nevin R1.
Abstract
This study compares changes in children's blood lead levels in the United States with subsequent changes in IQ, based on norm comparisons for the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) given to representative national samples of children in 1984 and 1992. The CogAT norm comparisons indicate shifts in IQ levels consistent with the blood lead to IQ relationship reported by an earlier study and population shifts in average blood lead for children under age 6 between 1976 and 1991. The CogAT norm comparisons also support studies indicating that the IQ to blood lead slope may increase at lower blood lead levels. Furthermore, long-term trends in population exposure to gasoline lead were found to be remarkably consistent with subsequent changes in violent crime and unwed pregnancy. Long-term trends in paint and gasoline lead exposure are also strongly associated with subsequent trends in murder rates going back to 1900. The findings on violent crime and unwed pregnancy are consistent with published data describing the relationship between IQ and social behavior. The findings with respect to violent crime are also consistent with studies indicating that children with higher bone lead tend to display more aggressive and delinquent behavior. This analysis demonstrates that widespread exposure to lead is likely to have profound implications for a wide array of socially undesirable outcomes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10845777
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Probably not on the range. But the smell of spent modern propellent is pleasant to me (old gun-powder is NOT). But then I enjoyed the smell of raw leaded gasoline.
Addiction discussions are fun in some ways: 90% moral approbrium, 10% SCIENCE! I also love the circuity of logic. But air does suck (ahem) since the ballistics (even in the better ones) can suck beyond modest ranges. To each hiz/her own on that.
hunter
(38,304 posts)Lead is hell on our local California Condor population.
On a shooting range why would anyone use lead?
What distance do you shoot? Maybe you should try golf. Hitting little balls with a stick. I've one brother who is a champion at that.
Modern 2000+ psi airguns with no-lead ammo are very fine target shooting machines.
But maybe not so good to keep in a purse as a security blanket, I guess.
So what pleases you again? You like the "smell" of those nitrites and nitrates? Buy some poppers.
--Best wishes, Hunter
P.S. This is the 100% science Hunter who has played with things like very big hand guns, rail guns, high explosives, and dangerous rockets, but never any personal safety issues, even frolicking in the surf naked in great white shark territory. The secret of a good life is to be fearless, even if you have to occasionally ask some trusted friend or family to pick shrapnel out of your butt and tell lies to your mother.
P.S.S., this is a photo of my very most sweetest gentle great grandma:
Her autistic spectrum husband was always more fond of engineering math. She'd passed away before I was born, maybe because she wasn't mean enough and hadn't shot dead or emasculated any bad Mormons or other religious fanatics. (Though she did write many harsh words about religious extremists of many flavors. Especially Mormons.)
My other three great grandmas were more the-call-the-county sheriff-coroner-to-clean-up-the-mess sort. Strong silent types. I'd frequently watch one of my great grandmas in awe as she cut up freshly dead fish, birds, or small mammals for dinner. Too fast to see her hands moving. Knife magic. The same grandma who once threatened my dad with a knife. He wisely decided not to press his opinion further.
I've always felt a little sad about this great grandma, she didn't quite believe the Apollo Project, that landing men on the moon was real, even though my dad's dad was one of the many engineers. And she was still complaining about her dead dreamer worthless husband who had signed onto rural electrification for the homestead simply to feed his radio habit. She'd also scolded my mom's cousin, her firstborn grandchild of the homestead, for indoor plumbing in the second house. According to my great grandma electric pumps and indoor plumbing would be the ruin of the family, so better discard the wife who demanded such luxuries. My mom's cousin stood his ground and kept his wife. There was water from the kitchen tap in his bigger house, and later an indoor toilet, bath, and a septic tank. No more bathing in the kitchen in a tub of water heated on the wood stove, women and girls first, men and boys in the cooler leftovers.
Whenever we visited my great grandma we slept in her house, used her outhouse, and bathed in her kitchen in water heated on her wood stove. I witnessed great grandmother boobs, house in the wilderness, Scandinavian style. We'd have been much more comfortable in my mom's cousin's house, but my great grandma ruled all, so much as she could. She could shoot you or cut you if you dared press.
My wife and I are both of matriarchal Western North American families. One of my wife's grandmas was the strongest women I've ever met. (Her other grandma had passed away before we married. A Gaelic Catholic Fuck-this-Shit sort.)
My wife's Southwestern Native American ancestors survived the U.S.A. genocide by fleeing to Mexico and her grandma then birthed her own children back to the U.S.A. when it was a safer, but she refused U.S.A. citizenship until she died, which sometimes made border crossings awkward.
My wife's dad was born in a Mexican farm labor camp within two hundred yards of a small farm my parents later owned. That's among the weirdest coincidences of my life. My wife and I met as commuter school teachers in urban Los Angeles.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)and illegal in all 50 states for waterfowl. On the range, it is mined periodically out of the berms, and poses little threat to the environment. But if an affordable substitute is developed, then it lead may go the way of other substances. On gun-love, I heard someone (Tom Robbins?) say 80% of sex is odor.
Not interested in golf; airguns are of passing interest. I do like hunting, however, and most my shots are below 180 yds (my limit, not the rifle).
Enjoyed your family history. My Mom's folks are old Florida Crackers who came to the state just before the Civil War (most folks saw what was going to happen, and if you didn't want to get caught up in anything, you cut out to Florida. Same as it ever was. They farmed their own place, my Mom and Aunt picked strawberries for $1/day during the Depression, and the uncles worked in saw mills and trucking. He t they had a used Model T and gas lighting and a pump well in the kitchen; i.e., the house was built around the well. When things got rough, Pappy would hire out to the state, and drive a mule-drawn wagon to prospect for the State (lime, phosphate, and other minerals), camping in the sticks for a week or two at a time. But he preferred farming, and did not hunt.
In the 50s he would visit our family in G'ville where we had the usual modern conveniences. But he would disappear into the woods after the big family meal. Once my brother trailed him, only to discover that he had taken a dump. He asked Pappy why he did that when we had a full bathroom and running well water, and he answered that he brought up not to crap where you got fresh water. Heh. Maybe due to his mining experience, he had less faith in limestone and clay filtration.
Lots of tales from that time; some good, some bad. He died in '56 and was eulogized as a pioneer in the Bartow area. Mamma died at 99 yoa. My Mom will be 96 next mo.
Peace.
beevul
(12,194 posts)You know as little about gun owners as you appear to know about nitrous. Additionally, you appear to be someone that feels 'gun hate', so your diatribe about 'gun love' is a bit suspect.
Show me an air gun that is good for 1000 yard target shooting.
hunter
(38,304 posts)My dad can beat up your dad too!
(That's where this sort of argument always goes.)
Nitrous oxide is an oxidizer, silly. Makes good rockets too.
So what's the utilitarian purpose of shooting targets at 1000 yards?
Confess, it's a power trip, an itch an air gun doesn't quite satisfy. The smell of that smokeless powder makes you imagine yourself as some Simo Häyhä shooting "bad" guys, guys who are in truth not much different than yourself, but caught up in the same bad circumstances.
Yep, I do hate guns. I've lived most of my life now in the sorts of urban wilderness where the cops and gangsters are always shooting at someone, and I've seen too many suicides by gun.
Gun fetishes are entirely unappealing to me, but I do have some respect for fine machines and hobbies that require excellent hand-eye coordination.
beevul
(12,194 posts)A question way above your pay grade.
Please explain to the next rapist killed by a woman via firearm, that the rapist was in truth not much different than the woman herself, but caught up in the same bad circumstances.
I haven't fired a gun in a few months now, and haven't bought one in over ten years, though I have to admit that a crossbow is interesting to me.
As I suspected.
That's nice. Straw men are entirely unappealing to me, but I do occasionally gain respect for those who can debate honestly.
hunter
(38,304 posts)(Well actually, I'm more a "Q"
Gun talk is so sweet.
Yes, above your pay grade.
Until we become a society in which 'utilitarian purpose' becomes the yardstick by which things are left alone or deemed forbidden, that will continue to be the case.
There is no place in a free and civilized society for a 'department of needs and utility'.
hunter
(38,304 posts)Most of the guys masturbating in public at your local park are utterly harmless, but some are not.
And clearly there's no need or utility in it.
Keep your gun fetishes to yourself, man, it's disgusting.
For example, any sane person, unlike braggart-hero-in-his-own-mind Chris Kyle, would probably realize it's not a good idea to bring a PTSD veteran to the shooting range as "therapy."
That kind of gun love is just sad.
Anyways, long range target shooting is a lot like gulf. I've done both. The difference between golfers and gun fetishists is their daydreams:
Golfers dream of hitting a hole-in-one. Gun fetishists dream of shooting "bad" guys.
beevul
(12,194 posts)When I said :
Until we become a society in which 'utilitarian purpose' becomes the yardstick by which things are left alone or deemed forbidden, that will continue to be the case.
I meant it.
I haven't fired a gun in months, or bought one in over a decade. You're barking up the wrong tree, sparky.
Whether something is 'a good idea or not' is not the metric I used, so have fun with your strawman.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)We're dealing with the moran culture here.
valerief
(53,235 posts)ThoughtCriminal
(14,047 posts)See any of their posts above.
Skittles
(153,122 posts)they make me sick
GoneOffShore
(17,337 posts)"Like cigarettes, guns are big business. Smith & Wesson has a $1 billion market capitalization and a CEO who made $1.9 million last year, Sturm, Ruger & Co. has a $1.1 billion market cap and a CEO who made more than $1.1 million in the latest fiscal year. "
hack89
(39,171 posts)Billion dollar market cap is not that big compare to major corporations
beevul
(12,194 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Demit
(11,238 posts)15-second "The More You Know" spots illustrating how guns aren't all that. Culture does change, and it does start with kids.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)No taxpayer money should be used for this campaign, though.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)does not seem to be happening with guns.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Get the message out in popular TV shows, repeat it constantly so kids hear it non-stop growing up.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)to the extent that it is possible. focusing on "gun culture" is putting the cart before the horse, i think.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)This is, I think, the only workable idea.
hunter
(38,304 posts)It's no longer acceptable in polite society to drive drunk, or let your family and friends drive drunk. It's okay to take away the potential drunk driver's keys.
Foolish behavior with guns should be treated in the same manner.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)The push over Drinking and driving laws, largely make sense, it punishes BEHAVIOR and MISUSE of a legal product, while allowing adults to do "what ever" with the booze as they wish... That is the way gun laws should largely be.
Most of today's gun control laws, wish to take away even the ability to own a gun regardless of how you plan to use it.
You thought they would have learned from prohibition, but they did not...
raccoon
(31,105 posts)Sorry, I cant bring my kids to your place if there are unsecured guns in the house.
If I had kids, I'd be very worried about that.
ecstatic
(32,653 posts)I only know one openly gun nut.