Trying to understand gun rights supporters...

[Harshaw]

To own an object that can instantly end human life with so much as a pull of your little finger...you should have to go through a fair amount of gun training, and safety training, as well as psychological testing, along with every year or so, going for more training and another psychological review to renew what should be a permit to even own the gun at all. you can say thats restricting gun rights etc, but, again, its one of the most destructive forces every invented in the history of mankind, so yes, all of the above, and maybe more, should be how we deal with guns. for crying out loud, even well trained policemen make mistakes and accidentally shoot civilians from time to time.

There are millions of things far more dangerous than guns.

You could do more damage and kill more people with a gallon of gasoline than you ever could with any gun. You can run dozens of people down with your car before anyone could stop you.

The idea that a gun is somehow a singularly, spectacularly-dangerous thing is a kind of phobia.

 

[LaMidRighter]

There are millions of things far more dangerous than guns.

You could do more damage and kill more people with a gallon of gasoline than you ever could with any gun. You can run dozens of people down with your car before anyone could stop you.

The idea that a gun is somehow a singularly, spectacularly-dangerous thing is a kind of phobia.

Or rare earth metal poisoning like Thalium, Mercury, etc. if someone really wanted to ruin a party they could use Thalium in any way they wanted. It's colorless, tasteless, odorless, and can be absorbed through the skin, by the time people would figure out what happened there would be critical damage done to anyone exposed, and it has legitimate use in electronics and some medicinal testing so it is somewhat available. Sheesh, I mean, a person could spike the afternoon tea with stryhcnine(rat poisons, pesticides), and natural flower extracts.

If someone has ill will they will figure something out.

 

[H. Lee White]

To own an object that can instantly end human life with so much as a pull of your little finger...

In a free country, you don't need to take a test, set against some arbitrary standard, before the government will allow you exercise your rights.

Guns scare you. We get it. But, your fear is irrational and certainly not a sound reason to limit the rights of the law abiding.

 

[Maenad]

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.

You aren't trying to understand anything. You just wantd to start another god damn America thread! How many does this make for you, now!

 

[Canadian Joe]

Canadian Joe. I've been experiencing some culture shock over the last couple months since returning from Afghanistan. Over there, we carried loaded belt-fed weapons and 40mm explosive rounds into Federal post offices, all around living quarters, the cow hall, around densely populated civilian arias to include many children. I slept with AT4 missiles and hand grenades under my bunk and I slept well at night. Our engineer unit always bought our own security element. We had the 82nd Airborne with us but we wanted something under our direct control, so we usually bought our own gun truck. When I wasn't assigned to a piece of construction equipment, I was in that security element. i was trusted to carry my loaded belt-fed weapon around, to not have an negligent discharge, to not shoot anyone unless it was absolutely necessary....

...but I come home and people flip **** when I want to carry the above pictured very small 5-shot .38cal pistol in my pocket.

Sir I sincerely mean no offence with the passion in my question here, but do you have any idea how petty your 'concerns' sound to me?

It frustrates me to the point of insanity that a given person would trust me implicitly while in uniform yet treat me with extreme suspicion when I take that uniform off. (sidebar: That is why I wear clothing with the US Army logo. It's not because I want everyone to look at me, it's because I want them to treat me with the respect and trust that I have earned).

Jerry,
You put your life on the line in the service of your nation in a war zone. Compared to that, of course my concerns on this thread sound petty to you. They ARE petty compared to that!!
I intended no disrespect to those who have served in uniform when I created this thread. I appreciate the sacrifices of those who serve, and I should say that I am not one of the turncoats who changed their mind on the Afghanistan mission (I supported it originally, and believe we should see it through). I know you probably couldn't care less about my opinion on this, but I still want to be clear that not all liberals are painted with exactly the same colors.

I created this thread because I realized it was hypocritical of me to criticize people I've never talked to. I have long been an opponent of gun owners' rights. In many senses, I am the person that many of those on this thread would normally be opposed to. But I came on here to ask an honest question about something I did not understand before. Out of respect for the people who disagree with me, I thought it was stupid of me to keep on criticizing without actually talking. That's the only reason I'm here.

Yes, I did say the content of that other thread was kind of "scary" to me. Maybe that was a poor word choice on my part. (And no, I don't plan any imminent home invasions!!) But from the perspective of someone who doesn't own a gun, reading descriptions of six or seven guns stored all around the home is totally foreign to me. Until I read some of the replies on this thread, that type of arsenal sounded to me like a preparation for some type of coming insurrection. (Speaking honestly here...) I just didn't see what rationale could be behind that level of gun ownership.

However, a number of people on here have given a range of answers to that. Family culture from their own childhood passed down, the fact that not all the guns serve the same purpose for some people, an appreciation for the symbolic right of owning the gun, having a psychological sense of security even if there is no imminent intent to use the weapons, etc. And then your comment about the fact that you don't believe in having loaded weapons beyond your immediate range of control added another perspective. The point is, I can see that different people are giving a number of different explanations, and that no-one on here is expecting armageddon tomorrow, or 'waiting for the intruder to come in' as I suggested in my initial post.

Your reaction might be that I shouldn't have needed this thread to understand where gun owners are at. To clarify, I have never laid eyes on a handgun that wasn't in a police officer or a soldier's holster. Not ONCE. Sheltered existence? Not really. I once had a rifle pointed at me by an East German soldier near Checkpoint Charlie (long story, I spent some time in East Berlin while that city was still divided in the 1980's), and I had an uncomfortable run-in with an armed paramilitary soldier in the Gaza Strip on another occasion about 12 years ago. So, yes, I've been places and had some experiences. I just have never known a soul who owns a handgun (that I'm aware of, at least), so reading people talking about having multiple weapons in their home was incomprehensible to me.

As I've mentioned already, my opinion on how Canada should handle this issue moving forward has not really changed. HOWEVER, the replies I have gotten on this thread have changed my opinion in two ways:

1. I can honestly say that I have shifted my perspective from "strongly anti-gun" to "moderately anti-gun". You still might say "WTF, you're still anti-gun". True, but before, I might have been the guy who would piss you off on another thread. I'll think twice before doing that now. Out of respect for the people I've communicated with here. I think that respect is worth something.

2. Before, I would have stated that I cannot possibly understand why someone would want to own a handgun. I would not make that statement now. I would still say I don't want to own one, and I don't want to change Canadian laws on this, but I accept the justification that many have put forward here for the weapons they own.
I hope that clarifies.

-Joe

PS- The correction on the use of the term "assault weapon" is noted. I've avoided the term above.

 

[Kr1ll1n]

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.

This may help in understanding the preparedness argument, and is recent enough (<70 years ago) to warrant a gun right advocates' concern;

Battle of Athens (1946) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jerry]

However, a number of people on here have given a range of answers to that. Family culture from their own childhood passed down, the fact that not all the guns serve the same purpose for some people, an appreciation for the symbolic right of owning the gun, having a psychological sense of security even if there is no imminent intent to use the weapons, etc. And then your comment about the fact that you don't believe in having loaded weapons beyond your immediate range of control added another perspective. The point is, I can see that different people are giving a number of different explanations, and that no-one on here is expecting armageddon tomorrow, or 'waiting for the intruder to come in' as I suggested in my initial post.

I wanted to highlight this one real quick, because upon returning from over seas there's about a dozen of us who feel naked when we don't have a gun on our person. I would directly attribute that to the combat zone.

Our last post-deployment event was held at a high-school, and firearms aren't allowed on high-school grounds as per state law. A few of us kind of hung around each other in silent understanding that we each knew the anxiety the other was feeling. We would constantly force awkward small talk because we didn't associate that much during the deployment. We weren't in the same units, but we knew the behavior instinctively. We didn't want to be in a crowd, but we couldn't leave, so we gravitate to a corner...and if you take the time to notice, that corner is near an exit, and has a view of the main entrance....there's always something in our hands, like a drink we constantly sip from, or a pen we just can't stop fiddling with.

This is a recent development in my life and is not why I started carrying a gun years ago, but it does play a part in my response to people on this topic. When it's even suggested that my gun should be taken from me, yes, there is a part of me that jumps into panic mode because of having to share a small base with the A&A who were shooting US troops.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There are millions of things far more dangerous than guns.

You could do more damage and kill more people with a gallon of gasoline than you ever could with any gun. You can run dozens of people down with your car before anyone could stop you.

The idea that a gun is somehow a singularly, spectacularly-dangerous thing is a kind of phobia.

Of the three four* biggest mass murders in the U.S. within the past generation, only one involved guns in any way.

And of the one that did involve guns, most of the victims were burned to death rather than shot.

* I remembered after the fact, that the 9/11 attacks probably count as a mass murder, bigger by more than an order of magnitude than the other three of which I thinking combined. I was originally thinking of the following three…

• I only know vague details about some attack in which a nightclub somewhere in or near New York was set on fire, killing about eighty people. I'd long heard this referred to as the biggest mass murder in the history of the U.S., and it remained so until…
  
• The murder of eighty-something members of the Branch Davidian cult—including many women and children—in 1992, at the hands of our own government. This is the one in which guns were involved, though the vast majority of the victims were killed when the government forces set their compound on fire.
  
• The bombing of the government building in Oklahoma City, two years to the day after the Branch Davidian massacre, in a rather badly-conceived attempt to avenge the massacre of the Branch Davidians; in which about a hundred sixty people were killed.

 

[TurtleDude]

To own an object that can instantly end human life with so much as a pull of your little finger...you should have to go through a fair amount of gun training, and safety training, as well as psychological testing, along with every year or so, going for more training and another psychological review to renew what should be a permit to even own the gun at all. you can say thats restricting gun rights etc, but, again, its one of the most destructive forces every invented in the history of mankind, so yes, all of the above, and maybe more, should be how we deal with guns. for crying out loud, even well trained policemen make mistakes and accidentally shoot civilians from time to time.

given many lefties think carrying a gun for protection is the sign of insanity I think I should oppose your silly demands on our rights. Indeed, one of the reasons I advocate people being well armed is in case people who have your sort of views on our rights get too much power

 

[Rocketman]

Have you by chance been keeping up with the city of Chicago this year? Their murder rates are the highest they have ever been, by coincidence they also have some of the strongest gun laws in the country. The result, criminals have guns and honest citizens do not, it is a free for all. I am glad I live in a state the supports gun ownership even if I never have to use it for protection.

 

[Jerry]

Have you by chance been keeping up with the city of Chicago this year? Their murder rates are the highest they have ever been, by coincidence they also have some of the strongest gun laws in the country. The result, criminals have guns and honest citizens do not, it is a free for all. I am glad I live in a state the supports gun ownership even if I never have to use it for protection.

I would like to take I90 from SD to OH and back to visit my children, but I can't because I90 passes through the heart of Chicago and I can't get a permit there.

So I'm going to start flying with my gun.

It's strange to think that it's easier to fly with a gun then drive across a given city, what with TSA being what it is.

 

[PirateMk1]

Hm, an unbreakable bat. Pretty cool... with one of those in hand I'd take on any thug who didn't have a gun.

One of my nieces was (well, still is really) a serious softball player and pitcher. She was distinctly feminine but hard-muscled and solid, very fit and quick. I often thought that I'd feel sorry for the fool that bothered her if she had anything to hand remotely like a ball-bat... or anything to throw for that matter. I'd previously had no idea you could throw a softball underhand fast enough to break bones, but she could do it.

The girls around here could could give some minor league batters some serious fits they get some good velocity going with those pitches, we had some girls clocking low to mid seventy mile an hour pitches with a fricken softball. That is a world of hurt if you get hit.

 

[PirateMk1]

I would like to take I90 from SD to OH and back to visit my children, but I can't because I90 passes through the heart of Chicago and I can't get a permit there.

So I'm going to start flying with my gun.

It's strange to think that it's easier to fly with a gun then drive across a given city, what with TSA being what it is.

You dont have to fly if you dont want, I can help plot a good detour that wont get you into trouble with Chicago I used to pull tractor and stuf full the Caterpiller and other plants down there.

 

[PirateMk1]

Of the three four* biggest mass murders in the U.S. within the past generation, only one involved guns in any way.

And of the one that did involve guns, most of the victims were burned to death rather than shot.

* I remembered after the fact, that the 9/11 attacks probably count as a mass murder, bigger by more than an order of magnitude than the other three of which I thinking combined. I was originally thinking of the following three…

• I only know vague details about some attack in which a nightclub somewhere in or near New York was set on fire, killing about eighty people. I'd long heard this referred to as the biggest mass murder in the history of the U.S., and it remained so until…
  
• The murder of eighty-something members of the Branch Davidian cult—including many women and children—in 1992, at the hands of our own government. This is the one in which guns were involved, though the vast majority of the victims were killed when the government forces set their compound on fire.
  
• The bombing of the government building in Oklahoma City, two years to the day after the Branch Davidian massacre, in a rather badly-conceived attempt to avenge the massacre of the Branch Davidians; in which about a hundred sixty people were killed.

Notice that two of those involved the government once attacking the other getting attacked in revenge for the previous attack. Ive noticed our goverment doesnt advertise their indiscretions anymore. I wonder why?

 

[LaMidRighter]

The girls around here could could give some minor league batters some serious fits they get some good velocity going with those pitches, we had some girls clocking low to mid seventy mile an hour pitches with a fricken softball. That is a world of hurt if you get hit.

I remember doing a double check on one softball pitcher. It was on the old "Pros vs. Joes" show, one of the ladies softball pitchers was hitting iirc 110 m.p.h. on the gun.

 

[PirateMk1]

I wanted to highlight this one real quick, because upon returning from over seas there's about a dozen of us who feel naked when we don't have a gun on our person. I would directly attribute that to the combat zone.

Our last post-deployment event was held at a high-school, and firearms aren't allowed on high-school grounds as per state law. A few of us kind of hung around each other in silent understanding that we each knew the anxiety the other was feeling. We would constantly force awkward small talk because we didn't associate that much during the deployment. We weren't in the same units, but we knew the behavior instinctively. We didn't want to be in a crowd, but we couldn't leave, so we gravitate to a corner...and if you take the time to notice, that corner is near an exit, and has a view of the main entrance....there's always something in our hands, like a drink we constantly sip from, or a pen we just can't stop fiddling with.

This is a recent development in my life and is not why I started carrying a gun years ago, but it does play a part in my response to people on this topic. When it's even suggested that my gun should be taken from me, yes, there is a part of me that jumps into panic mode because of having to share a small base with the A&A who were shooting US troops.

I used to be a very heavy sleeper, couldnt even get a bomb to wake me. Now if its even slightly out of place I am up and on high alert. I would have thought it would have eased up more than a bit after all its been six years. I still keep an eyeball on people, and exits and the like. Its weird really. Sometimes I feel like I am paranoid or something. I have to remind my self occasionaly that I am in civilzed society. Whats even weirder is when you do it and observe yourself doing it sort of in the third person as if you were apart from what you were doing concously. It like autopilot or something. That ever happen to you?

 

[LaMidRighter]

I used to be a very heavy sleeper, couldnt even get a bomb to wake me. Now if its even slightly out of place I am up and on high alert. I would have thought it would have eased up more than a bit after all its been six years. I still keep an eyeball on people, and exits and the like. Its weird really. Sometimes I feel like I am paranoid or something. I have to remind my self occasionaly that I am in civilzed society. Whats even weirder is when you do it and observe yourself doing it sort of in the third person as if you were apart from what you were doing concously. It like autopilot or something. That ever happen to you?

You just have a heightened situational awareness. I wasn't LEO or Military but trained myself for years to be aware of my environment at all times, it becomes automatic but much better than being caught off guard in a life or death situation.

 

[PirateMk1]

I remember doing a double check on one softball pitcher. It was on the old "Pros vs. Joes" show, one of the ladies softball pitchers was hitting iirc 110 m.p.h. on the gun.

You kidding me? 110mph with a sofball? She gonna have to register the arm. When are the majors gona call her up? I knew girl who could sling dishes like fricken Nolan Ryan, when she was pissed. I dont think she ever got quite to 110 though. Wow. A 110, best not to let that girl get mad at me.

 

[PirateMk1]

I would like to take I90 from SD to OH and back to visit my children, but I can't because I90 passes through the heart of Chicago and I can't get a permit there.

So I'm going to start flying with my gun.

It's strange to think that it's easier to fly with a gun then drive across a given city, what with TSA being what it is.

Your permit good for Illinois?

 

[LaMidRighter]

You kidding me? 110mph with a sofball? She gonna have to register the arm. When are the majors gona call her up? I knew girl who could sling dishes like fricken Nolan Ryan, when she was pissed. I dont think she ever got quite to 110 though. Wow. A 110, best not to let that girl get mad at me.

I know man. That was what the show had recorded her at, that is scary velocity.

 

[PirateMk1]

I know man. That was what the show had recorded her at, that is scary velocity.

Nolan Ryan in his prime could only just keep up barely with that kinda heat. A 110mph heater is a fricken flamin fireball, that major league hitter would quail at. With a softball no less. If shes not undefeated in her league, they need to get the batters from that league and bring them into the majors too.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Nolan Ryan in his prime could only just keep up barely with that kinda heat. A 110mph heater is a fricken flamin fireball, that major league hitter would quail at. With a softball no less. If shes not undefeated in her league, they need to get the batters from that league and bring them into the majors too.

To be fair to major league pitchers though, a hardball is thrown in a single motion, softballers have that windup to build momentum and she'd probably lose 10-15m.p.h. in a similar circumstance. It all evens out but that's still ridiculous.

 

[PirateMk1]

To be fair to major league pitchers though, a hardball is thrown in a single motion, softballers have that windup to build momentum and she'd probably lose 10-15m.p.h. in a similar circumstance. It all evens out but that's still ridiculous.

Really, 95mph is still a bigtime major league heater. The girl has got a cannon for an arm. Hell she should be starting pitcher for some of these teams seriously. Especially if she has any ball placement at all. She dont need a firearm she already got a built in cannon that takes pretty much whatever you feed it. She could litterally kill ya by beaning you with a rock. :blastem:

Side note: If she has a boyfriend, if he pisses her off, he should be aware of flying saucers. They could be deadly.

 

[Canadian Joe]

You aren't trying to understand anything. You just wantd to start another god damn America thread! How many does this make for you, now!

If you read everything I've written throughout this thread, and still don't believe I am sincere about wanting to have an open, respectful conversation, then I doubt anything I say will persuade you. But I came on this thread (the 2nd one I've participated in, to answer your question), openly admitting that the first one had not gone as I would have wanted. This one has. I was transparent about my position, but genuine in saying I wanted to hear the other side. Nobody has thrown their arms open and given me hugs here (wasn't asking for that), but I count at least 12+ people who have given me really good responses to my original post.

I have admitted on here that my original position has been shifted slightly but importantly. In effect, in doing so, I am admitting that my initial position was, in my eyes now, "wrong" in some ways. The only reason I've been persuaded to soften that position is because of the answers I've received from so many here. They've given reasonable opinions in a totally respectful manner. I don't have to agree totally with someone to respect them. Those folks are welcome by my campfire any day.

You obviously have no belief in the sincerity I was bringing to this conversation; if you've read this entire thread and everything I've posted on it, then I would have hoped you'd see my intent was genuine (and that my admission that I've changed my position would be clear evidence of that). This thread has now been read by quite a few people -- I doubt I'm the only one whose opinion has been shifted a little by this exchange. I think that's worthwhile, and I hope you might agree with that.

 

[haymarket]

given many lefties think carrying a gun for protection is the sign of insanity I think I should oppose your silly demands on our rights. Indeed, one of the reasons I advocate people being well armed is in case people who have your sort of views on our rights get too much power

How does you or anybody else being armed have anything to do with people whose views you object to being elected into positions of power?

You and a crowd of others carrying guns does not negate the power nor responsibility of an elected official.