Trying to understand gun rights supporters...

[Canadian Joe]

OK, I've been warned that I'm walking into the lion's den by entering this part of the forum, but another thread I started elsewhere began to take on a gun debate theme, and I was told this is the place for it.

So, I come in here, yes, as a liberal, but I am bearing flowers and goodwill!!

My ONLY purpose is to better understand those who have a different opinion than I do, and I am truly SINCERE about saying that!!! The other thread featured a debate about statistics, which I will NOT include here. My mission is only to understand. I think my statistics-based approach on the other thread was the wrong way to engage people in talking about this meaningfully, so I am trying a more open-ended approach.

So, here it is... viewed from afar, those who passionately support the right to bear arms are difficult to understand by those of us who don't. It is true that I am a liberal, and where I come from, guns are used for hunting deer and ducks (which I fully support!), but when I go into the thread entitled "Do you know where your gun is?", I get honestly frightened. I am not trying to be insulting here, I am genuinely baffled and a little bit scared to read that thread. Very few people there seem to be talking about hunting, but everyone is super-enthusiastic about having their guns (MULTIPLE guns for many of them) loaded and "READY TO GO", in the words of one person.

My question is, "Ready to go" for WHAT exactly? Are those of you who feel this way expecting an intruder to break into your house at any moment? Do you spend years waiting for that intruder, or do you live in a place that you actually get people breaking in regularly? Or are you "ready" for something else? Some people in that thread talked about having one of their guns on their person at all times, even inside their home, which they might be able to use (if I understood correctly) to fight their way to get to another gun in the case of need. Have I understood that correctly, or am I missing something? Do some of you actually live every moment walking around your home with a gun on you 'just in case'?

And my related question is what inspires your passion for guns? Many great American leaders (Reagan, Roosevelt, Truman, and others) who certainly proved their toughness as leaders also spoke very eloquently on the issue of pursuing peace. To me, guns are weapons, and weapons are tools that should only be used to maintain peace when necessary. When all is peaceful and the guns are silent, I would personally call that a GOOD thing. Would you agree with that statement? Or are you actually hoping for the opportunity to use your guns against another person? As gun lovers, would you also say you are equally passionate about having a peaceful society around you? (Knowing the answer to that would truly help me to understand you better.)

Comments from any gun-loving person, conservative or liberal, are welcome!! But please don't write me off by saying, "You're just a dumbass Canadian, you'll never understand" or "You liberal nutjobs will never take my gun away from me". I am opening this thread to sincerely try to understand you better. If you take the question seriously, I will listen with an open mind. If you blow me off with dismissive insults, I will come to the conclusion that you can't explain your position.

 

[H. Lee White]

It is true that I am a liberal, and where I come from, guns are used for hunting deer and ducks (which I fully support!), but when I go into the thread entitled "Do you know where your gun is?", I get honestly frightened. I am not trying to be insulting here, I am genuinely baffled and a little bit scared to read that thread. Very few people there seem to be talking about hunting, but everyone is super-enthusiastic about having their guns (MULTIPLE guns for many of them) loaded and "READY TO GO", in the words of one person.

The 2nd Amendment to the US constitution, at its root, is about people killing other people whenever such a thing may be necessary
Thus, any discussion regarding huniting has no relevance whereas discussion regarding preparedness to exercise the right in its root is.
A gun is like insurance - you never know when you'll need it, and if you don't have it when you do need it, you're in serious trouble.

And my related question is what inspires your passion for guns?

Guns - some, anyway - are mechanically complex machines that require skill to use effectively and so, like other complex machines that require skill to use effectively, many people find them, and their effective use, an interesting and rewarding endeavor.

 

[Canadian Joe]

The 2nd Amendment to the US constitution, at its root, is about people killing other people whenever such a thing may be necessary
Thus, any discussion regarding huniting has no relevance whereas discussion regarding preparedness to exercise the right in its root is.
A gun is like insurance - you never know when you'll need it, and if you don't have it when you do need it, you're in serious trouble.


Guns - some, anyway - are mechanically complex machines that require skill to use effectively and so, like other complex machines that require skill to use effectively, many people find them, and their effective use, an interesting and rewarding endeavor.

Thanks for that. I may not agree, but your explanation makes sense to me.

 

[H. Lee White]

Thanks for that. I may not agree, but your explanation makes sense to me.

Not really sure what there is to disagree with

 

[Canadian Joe]

Not really sure what there is to disagree with

Fair enough... I chose the wrong wording... perhaps I should have said, "Even if I don't share that enthusiasm for the gun as a fine machine, the explanation makes sense to me..."

 

[Harshaw]

OK, I've been warned that I'm walking into the lion's den by entering this part of the forum, but another thread I started elsewhere began to take on a gun debate theme, and I was told this is the place for it.

So, I come in here, yes, as a liberal, but I am bearing flowers and goodwill!!

My ONLY purpose is to better understand those who have a different opinion than I do, and I am truly SINCERE about saying that!!! The other thread featured a debate about statistics, which I will NOT include here. My mission is only to understand. I think my statistics-based approach on the other thread was the wrong way to engage people in talking about this meaningfully, so I am trying a more open-ended approach.

So, here it is... viewed from afar, those who passionately support the right to bear arms are difficult to understand by those of us who don't. It is true that I am a liberal, and where I come from, guns are used for hunting deer and ducks (which I fully support!), but when I go into the thread entitled "Do you know where your gun is?", I get honestly frightened. I am not trying to be insulting here, I am genuinely baffled and a little bit scared to read that thread. Very few people there seem to be talking about hunting, but everyone is super-enthusiastic about having their guns (MULTIPLE guns for many of them) loaded and "READY TO GO", in the words of one person.

My question is, "Ready to go" for WHAT exactly? Are those of you who feel this way expecting an intruder to break into your house at any moment? Do you spend years waiting for that intruder, or do you live in a place that you actually get people breaking in regularly? Or are you "ready" for something else? Some people in that thread talked about having one of their guns on their person at all times, even inside their home, which they might be able to use (if I understood correctly) to fight their way to get to another gun in the case of need. Have I understood that correctly, or am I missing something? Do some of you actually live every moment walking around your home with a gun on you 'just in case'?

And my related question is what inspires your passion for guns? Many great American leaders (Reagan, Roosevelt, Truman, and others) who certainly proved their toughness as leaders also spoke very eloquently on the issue of pursuing peace. To me, guns are weapons, and weapons are tools that should only be used to maintain peace when necessary. When all is peaceful and the guns are silent, I would personally call that a GOOD thing. Would you agree with that statement? Or are you actually hoping for the opportunity to use your guns against another person? As gun lovers, would you also say you are equally passionate about having a peaceful society around you? (Knowing the answer to that would truly help me to understand you better.)

Comments from any gun-loving person, conservative or liberal, are welcome!! But please don't write me off by saying, "You're just a dumbass Canadian, you'll never understand" or "You liberal nutjobs will never take my gun away from me". I am opening this thread to sincerely try to understand you better. If you take the question seriously, I will listen with an open mind. If you blow me off with dismissive insults, I will come to the conclusion that you can't explain your position.

The problem, Joe, is that while I have no doubt you didn't mean it this way, this whole thing reads like you're Dian Fossey studying gorillas in the wild. The set of presumptions you come in with are on full display, and you may not even realize it. Yet, they are there nonetheless.

Guns are power. Power belongs in the hands of the people. Whether it's to defend themselves and their homes against invaders, domestic or foreign, or to provide a counterweight to government power, it's about not surrendering the means to defend your personal sovereignty.

 

[Canadian Joe]

The problem, Joe, is that while I have no doubt you didn't mean it this way, this whole thing reads like you're Dian Fossey studying gorillas in the wild. The set of presumptions you come in with are on full display, and you may not even realize it. Yet, they are there nonetheless.

Guns are power. Power belongs in the hands of the people. Whether it's to defend themselves and their homes against invaders, domestic or foreign, or to provide a counterweight to government power, it's about not surrendering the means to defend your personal sovereignty.

As to the first part of what you wrote, I honestly don't know how I can do it any differently. I came to this site (you may have noticed I'm a recent arrival) to seek honest open conversations about political issues ("debatepolitics.com" seemed like a good place to come for that!). I was involved in another discussion about gun control where it devolved into petty insults and childish arguments (on BOTH sides, to be honest), so I started this thread to see if "civil" discussion between opposing viewpoints is possible on this site. Yes, of course I realize my own biases are evident in my questions (I wouldn't be asking these questions if I didn't have those biases), but I also hope that my sincere desire to have an open discussion comes through too. I regret if there's any "Dian Fossey" tone about it... if there is, that certainly was not intended, but like I say, I don't know how else to open a respectful discussion with people on the opposite side of an issue. I tried to sincerely say "I want to understand your perspective". That isn't bulls**t. You (ie- those with your perspective on American culture) have a big influence on the direction of the world I live in. I have criticized that perspective a great deal in the past, but I've never sat down with someone who holds that view and asked them why. That's all I'm trying to do here.

For the second part of your response, I thank you. Despite your first comment, you did still dignify my question with an honest answer, and I appreciate that.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Joe. The reasons people support the second are varied, the complex machine part is one aspect. Weapons have a certain deadly artistic aspect to them, whether it's the Katana, Halberd, rifle, pistol, English claymore, etc. and everything within has a reason to be there. Another aspect is that it is an inaliable right to defense and the means thereof, surrendering any ground on one right means inviting infringement on all rights, I am a second supporter because it's a right, but I also enjoy the shooting sports as well. There are some out there who have hero complexes, but they are a small minority.

I am a second supporter because there is much I care about, I have women in my family, elderly family members, and friends as well. I can defend myself in a fair fight, some of them can't and if they chose to even the playing field against those who would harm them by using a gun I commend it and advise it. Another point is that I don't believe in giving government any more power than the bare minimum to make decisions for me, I shouldn't have to beg them to exist, asking them to leave my rights alone is not enough, I demand they do so.

When we say "at the ready", we aren't ready to do anything harmful or illegal but have readily accepted that should the choice of life come between ourselves and an assailant we will do whatever is possible to survive. This is just a natural facet of life, there are always people who will victimize and kill. The statistical argument is something I would suggest you avoid, it's not as favorable as it seems, many stats are horribly skewed by control groups, not all crime is reported by the same standard, and realistically none give the entire picture.

 

[Lutherf]

OK, I've been warned that I'm walking into the lion's den by entering this part of the forum, but another thread I started elsewhere began to take on a gun debate theme, and I was told this is the place for it.

So, I come in here, yes, as a liberal, but I am bearing flowers and goodwill!!

My ONLY purpose is to better understand those who have a different opinion than I do, and I am truly SINCERE about saying that!!! The other thread featured a debate about statistics, which I will NOT include here. My mission is only to understand. I think my statistics-based approach on the other thread was the wrong way to engage people in talking about this meaningfully, so I am trying a more open-ended approach.

So, here it is... viewed from afar, those who passionately support the right to bear arms are difficult to understand by those of us who don't. It is true that I am a liberal, and where I come from, guns are used for hunting deer and ducks (which I fully support!), but when I go into the thread entitled "Do you know where your gun is?", I get honestly frightened. I am not trying to be insulting here, I am genuinely baffled and a little bit scared to read that thread. Very few people there seem to be talking about hunting, but everyone is super-enthusiastic about having their guns (MULTIPLE guns for many of them) loaded and "READY TO GO", in the words of one person.

My question is, "Ready to go" for WHAT exactly? Are those of you who feel this way expecting an intruder to break into your house at any moment? Do you spend years waiting for that intruder, or do you live in a place that you actually get people breaking in regularly? Or are you "ready" for something else? Some people in that thread talked about having one of their guns on their person at all times, even inside their home, which they might be able to use (if I understood correctly) to fight their way to get to another gun in the case of need. Have I understood that correctly, or am I missing something? Do some of you actually live every moment walking around your home with a gun on you 'just in case'?

And my related question is what inspires your passion for guns? Many great American leaders (Reagan, Roosevelt, Truman, and others) who certainly proved their toughness as leaders also spoke very eloquently on the issue of pursuing peace. To me, guns are weapons, and weapons are tools that should only be used to maintain peace when necessary. When all is peaceful and the guns are silent, I would personally call that a GOOD thing. Would you agree with that statement? Or are you actually hoping for the opportunity to use your guns against another person? As gun lovers, would you also say you are equally passionate about having a peaceful society around you? (Knowing the answer to that would truly help me to understand you better.)

Comments from any gun-loving person, conservative or liberal, are welcome!! But please don't write me off by saying, "You're just a dumbass Canadian, you'll never understand" or "You liberal nutjobs will never take my gun away from me". I am opening this thread to sincerely try to understand you better. If you take the question seriously, I will listen with an open mind. If you blow me off with dismissive insults, I will come to the conclusion that you can't explain your position.

Every sane person wants peace. It makes no sense whatsoever to crave mayhem which is why we tend to remove those who act that way through legal means. Unfortunately there are times where the level of mayhem requires extrajudicial means to get it to stop and that is the key reason to be prepared and to be armed. See, the idea of self defense is that when peace gets disrupted there may well not be a conveniently available government approved arbiter of justice at hand.

 

[Canadian Joe]

Joe. The reasons people support the second are varied, the complex machine part is one aspect. Weapons have a certain deadly artistic aspect to them, whether it's the Katana, Halberd, rifle, pistol, English claymore, etc. and everything within has a reason to be there. Another aspect is that it is an inaliable right to defense and the means thereof, surrendering any ground on one right means inviting infringement on all rights, I am a second supporter because it's a right, but I also enjoy the shooting sports as well. There are some out there who have hero complexes, but they are a small minority.

I am a second supporter because there is much I care about, I have women in my family, elderly family members, and friends as well. I can defend myself in a fair fight, some of them can't and if they chose to even the playing field against those who would harm them by using a gun I commend it and advise it. Another point is that I don't believe in giving government any more power than the bare minimum to make decisions for me, I shouldn't have to beg them to exist, asking them to leave my rights alone is not enough, I demand they do so.

When we say "at the ready", we aren't ready to do anything harmful or illegal but have readily accepted that should the choice of life come between ourselves and an assailant we will do whatever is possible to survive. This is just a natural facet of life, there are always people who will victimize and kill. The statistical argument is something I would suggest you avoid, it's not as favorable as it seems, many stats are horribly skewed by control groups, not all crime is reported by the same standard, and realistically none give the entire picture.

Thanks for that answer. Certainly, I'm on the same page with the "not giving too much power to the government" logic. (Yes, I call myself a "liberal" on my profile, but I actually wanted to find a profile label that said "It's complicated", because for me it is). I am a social liberal in some respects, but I am also completely opposed to government over-regulation. So arguing for defending your rights against a government that might seek to take them from you is totally understandable to me. As is your explanation of defending yourself and your family against a potential assailant.

That argument is in fact the one thing that has made me think about getting a gun in the past. However, the reason I have not done so is simply because the chance of my home being invaded is so remote, and the relative risk of a gun-related accident seems that much greater to me. The only person I have personally ever known who was killed by a gunshot was a teenager who was killed when he and his brother were playing around with their Dad's hunting rifle. I know, it should have been stored properly. But it seems to me that proper storage renders a weapon useless in the case of a need for self-defense (ie- home invasion), which then brings me back to the question of relative risk between a home invasion and a tragic accident.

What are your thoughts on that?

 

[H. Lee White]

What are your thoughts on that?

In the US, where we have ~300,000,000 guns, home invasions outnumber accidnental gun deaths by at least two orders of magnitude.

 

[Canadian Joe]

In the US, where we have ~300,000,000 guns, home invasions outnumber accidnental gun deaths by at least two orders of magnitude.

OK, fair enough. What about the question of storage? My issue of thinking that the gun is almost useless for self-defense if it's stored properly -- is your opinion that it should be more accessible, or does that increase the accident risk too much?

 

[LaMidRighter]

Thanks for that answer. Certainly, I'm on the same page with the "not giving too much power to the government" logic. (Yes, I call myself a "liberal" on my profile, but I actually wanted to find a profile label that said "It's complicated", because for me it is). I am a social liberal in some respects, but I am also completely opposed to government over-regulation. So arguing for defending your rights against a government that might seek to take them from you is totally understandable to me. As is your explanation of defending yourself and your family against a potential assailant.

That argument is in fact the one thing that has made me think about getting a gun in the past. However, the reason I have not done so is simply because the chance of my home being invaded is so remote, and the relative risk of a gun-related accident seems that much greater to me. The only person I have personally ever known who was killed by a gunshot was a teenager who was killed when he and his brother were playing around with their Dad's hunting rifle. I know, it should have been stored properly. But it seems to me that proper storage renders a weapon useless in the case of a need for self-defense (ie- home invasion), which then brings me back to the question of relative risk between a home invasion and a tragic accident.

What are your thoughts on that?

I think you are being honest with yourself, you've done the assessments and came to a personal decision. I have no problem with that and commend you on looking at the risk/reward evaluation. Some people come to the decision to buy but do not learn safety(not hard) and that it is a responsibility and to be honest they concern me every bit as much as the gun control advocates. You can always change your mind and look again..........your choice but if you do there are safety classes and really a lot of it is using common sense. Those teenagers were put in a bad situation, they obviously were not taught to respect firearms(one doesn't have to love them, but respecting them is essential) and the fact that they are ultimately capable of lethality(capable being the operative word, their function is not to kill but to send a projectile at a target).

As for storage, if there is a chance of a child being around a firearm that child must either be a known factor, i.e. that the child knows not to touch them unless there is an adult or their lives are in danger, or the gun should be secured. My firearm is always in either a locked room or a locked vehicle when not in use and I am not going to be in it's general area, basic safety. Children aren't the only factor though, irresponsible or unsafe adults too, guns at the end of the day aren't toys.

 

[H. Lee White]

What about the question of storage? My issue of thinking that the gun is almost useless for self-defense if it's stored properly

"Properly" is a relative term and takes into account a great many factors.
Certainly, "proper" storage of a weaoon intended for immediate defense is different than that for a weapon that is usually stored and used only occasionally.
There's nothng inherently "improper" about storing a firearm in a "ready" condition.

 

[Canadian Joe]

In the US, where we have ~300,000,000 guns, home invasions outnumber accidnental gun deaths by at least two orders of magnitude.

Sorry, I have to add a comment with a smile... :2razz:

There are REALLY 300,000,000 guns in the U.S.? My GOD... at that rate, the people of Duluth, Minnesota could invade all of Canada by themselves!! And the invaders would still be home by dinner. I'm going to be doubly-careful not to piss off anyone on this thread!!!

(That was intended as a joke, everyone!!!)

 

[LaMidRighter]

"Properly" is a relative term and takes into account a great many factors.
Certainly, "proper" storage of a weaoon intended for immediate defense is different than that for a weapon that is usually stored and used only occasionally.
There's nothng inherently "improper" about storing a firearm in a "ready" condition.

Absolutely. Always assume a gun is loaded, and always assume any gun left casually laying around is a temptation. Defensive weapons have a different standard, my pistol is always at the ready and typically close. Rifles and shotguns are stowed.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Sorry, I have to add a comment with a smile... :2razz:

There are REALLY 300,000,000 guns in the U.S.? My GOD... at that rate, the people of Duluth, Minnesota could invade all of Canada by itself!! And the invaders would still be home by dinner. I'm going to be doubly-careful not to piss off anyone on this thread!!!

(That was intended as a joke, everyone!!!)

I've heard an account that during WWII Hirohito was trying to devise a way to hit the U.S. mainland and one admiral told him it wasn't possible stating "behind every blade of grass will be a rifle".

 

[H. Lee White]

Absolutely. Always assume a gun is loaded, and always assume any gun left casually laying around is a temptation. Defensive weapons have a different standard, my pistol is always at the ready and typically close. Rifles and shotguns are stowed.

We have 2 handguns and a shotgun in the bedroom, unloaded, but ammo ready at hand. I also keep an AR in the closet, but it is cased w/ the mags in a secured ammo box. All the other guns are in the safe.

 

[LaMidRighter]

We have 2 handguns and a shotgun in the bedroom, unloaded, but ammo ready at hand. I also keep an AR in the closet, but it is cased w/ the mags in a secured ammo box. All the other guns are in the safe.

Cool. That's pretty much what I meant, if a weapon will be used in defense it must be ready, whether that is a one step or two step process. Best advice my dad gave me was always assume a gun is loaded.

 

[Canadian Joe]

I've heard an account that during WWII Hirohito was trying to devise a way to hit the U.S. mainland and one admiral told him it wasn't possible stating "behind every blade of grass will be a rifle".

Yes... I'll concede this historical argument. I actually teach history, and indeed, confronting a well-armed populace would have been a daunting task for any country in WWII trying to occupy the United States.

 

[Harshaw]

Yes... I'll concede this historical argument. I actually teach history, and indeed, confronting a well-armed populace would have been a daunting task for any country in WWII trying to occupy the United States.

It's also daunting for any domestic government with an eye toward oppression, and I think that speaks for itself.

 

[H. Lee White]

It's also daunting for any domestic government with an eye toward oppression, and I think that speaks for itself.

As do the actions of those who would reduce that power held by the people.

 

[haymarket]

OK, I've been warned that I'm walking into the lion's den by entering this part of the forum, but another thread I started elsewhere began to take on a gun debate theme, and I was told this is the place for it.

So, I come in here, yes, as a liberal, but I am bearing flowers and goodwill!!

It will not help you in the least . Note that the first post after yours admonished you informing you of this

The 2nd Amendment to the US constitution, at its root, is about people killing other people whenever such a thing may be necessary
Thus, any discussion regarding huniting has no relevance whereas discussion regarding preparedness to exercise the right in its root is.

You see my friend, nobody had invented hunting yet in 1789. And while there were firearms, they were never ever used to kill animals for food or any other reason. So get rid of any delusions who may have treasured that guns and hunting have anything to do with each other. :roll:

And good luck to you. You are gonna need it.eace

 

[Canadian Joe]

It will not help you in the least . Note that the first post after yours admonished you informing you of this


You see my friend, nobody had invented hunting yet in 1789. And while there were firearms, they were never ever used to kill animals for food or any other reason. So get rid of any delusions who may have treasured that guns and hunting have anything to do with each other. :roll:

And good luck to you. You are gonna need it.eace

Thanks for the cautionary words. However, I have to say, the response to this thread so far is better than I'd expected. I didn't know if anyone would answer me sincerely. I was certainly ready to get bombed on this thread, but the people who have answered me, I feel, have given me legitimate opinions and treated my initial questions respectfully.

I'm not saying I've been persuaded to flip sides on this issue, but I'm gaining more respect for why some of you take the approach you do. I didn't know if that would be possible on this thread, but there you have it.

But in the spirit of friendly open discussion... I've got to take issue with one small point of what you wrote... I'm pretty sure hunting was invented pre-1789. Not sure how frequently guns were used in the hunt, but again, pretty sure rifle hunting goes a long way back. I'm not suggesting this has anything to do with the American love of the gun as a weapon (I'm not American, I cannot comment on that, I'll leave that to Americans to say), but I'm just saying I think gun hunting has been around quite a while.

 

[haymarket]

But in the spirit of friendly open discussion... I've got to take issue with one small point of what you wrote... I'm pretty sure hunting was invented pre-1789. Not sure how frequently guns were used in the hunt, but again, pretty sure rifle hunting goes a long way back. I'm not suggesting this has anything to do with the American love of the gun as a weapon (I'm not American, I cannot comment on that, I'll leave that to Americans to say), but I'm just saying I think gun hunting has been around quite a while.

Yes - i was using sarcasm on that issue. The Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I strongly suspect and would bet lots of money on it that more guns were used to kill animals in 17th and 18th and even 19th century America than were used to kill humans in that same time period. So the idea offered in post #2 that hunting is an issue that has nothing to do with the Second Amendment is simply ridiculous.

from White

Thus, any discussion regarding huniting has no relevance

The only thing the reality of guns and hunting has to do with irrelevance is that it does not figure into the far right narrative that they are badly trying to create.