The “Gun Nut” Gap

How do we reconcile the apparent contradiction that many of those who believe in preserving the life of fetuses are just as passionate about the right to own weapons that kill human beings after birth?

The same could be asked of those who believe it's OK to kill a fetus, but not OK to kill a person who murdered someone. People are pretty good at holding many seemingly contradictory beliefs based on their personal narrative.

A person who grew up with guns may see a gun being used against them as less likely than they themselves using the gun to defend their home (see also the risk analysis of flying vs driving, and people's perception of the risks).

On the other hand, a person who's against a gun in their house because a kid may accidentally fire it may also have a swimming pool in their backyard (200 times more likely to drown than to accidentally shoot themselves).

And let us not forget who allowed the VT shooter to get the guns, the state of Virginia. Because they did not place his name into the system, he was allowed to purchase them.

I am not a gun person. From what I have observed I have some vague disconnected dots that need to be connected to give whole the idea or my explaination for our weird need for guns.
I know that it has to do with macho and manhood. With intelligence and education. And some kind of romance of the frontier - especially on the right - in much the same way they romanticize WWII.
Maybe some of it has to do with that insecurity of the white male. The need to feel powerful.
I do know until we connect whatever dots and understand this stupid need for a gun and the culture of it being a good and acceptable thing, we will never be able to control them.
And our society will never get past a certain stage of growth until we learn to live without that security blanket.

The 'right to bear arms' covers a lot of different situations and a lot of different people.
A better question would be: ''Do you want to own a gun for it's own sake, or do you feel you need to own one in some circumstances or for some special purpose?

A lot of people who really hate guns, might buy one if they were a shop ownver in fear of being robbed, for instance. Some only want to hunt, etc.

I don't like to be around guns and I don't want t to kill animals for my supper, but if I were to live in an isolated house, far from help, I might consider buying a weapon.

We have a hyge problem with guns being in the wrong hands, however, and those who oppose restrictios on gun ownership, on principle, are playing with my life.
Ii resent that and I hate that.

False argument:
"a person who's against a gun in their house because a kid may accidentally fire it may also have a swimming pool in their backyard"

Pools can be fenced in. Alarms can be installed to go off if somoene falls in.
Other people can respect others' private properrty and not tresspass , thus avoiding the dangers of a neighbor's pool.
By simply looking, you can establish whether a neighbor's pool is safe.

Without a search warrant, however, you can't estblish whether a neighbor's'gun collection is safe or if the neighbor is safe when in posession of a weapon.
You can't avoid his gunfire by simply staying off his property.

As an enthusiastic supporter of our 2nd Amendment rights, I'm always torn between being amused or offended by the only slightly veiled insults and condescending attitude of gun opponents, such as is on display here.

"our weird need for guns. I know that it has to do with macho and manhood. With intelligence and education."

Were I less interested in rational debate, I could just as easily toss out comments about "weak spined, vegitarian navel gazers who are mysteriously frightened by loud noises" but I don't think it would move the conversation forward much.

If you truly believe that guns themselves are the problem and have no place In "civilized society" then there is a clear path for you to take. Put forward a consitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd. If the majority of America is with you, it will succeed. If you are in the minority, youmay need to deal with the idea of being in the minority.

People keep and use guns for a wide variety of legitimate purposes. The ones who commit crimes with guns are, in fact, CRIMINALS and since the guns are already available all across the world, they probably won't be moved to give them up simply because they're breaking one more law by having them. In Canada, there is a higher per capita gun owership than in the United States and yet they have a significantly lower per capita instance of gun violence. The problem is with society, not with the machines being employed. If there were no guns and somebody wanted to harm you they would use a knife or a baseball bat or a shovel. You're not going to operate our society with all objects made out of Nerf foam.

Our world is filled with many, many potentially dangerous objects. The solution to any of these perceived problems is in how we responsibly handle those objects. I'm sorry that we can't child-proof the world for you, but welcome to the industrial age. Neanderthals were killing each other with clubs long before we discovered how to work with metals. These are symptoms of the nature of man, not the latest crop of tools in our toolbox. If you want to change violence, change the people engaging in it.

The start of this thread exemplifies the (real) schizophrenia (and obscession and paranoia) about firearms and gun rights in this country.

If you don't like the Second Amendment, seek to get it repealed through the amendment process or a new constitutional convention. I.e., the right way.

run, it would be a false argument if I was looking at the issue of how the gun affects things, but I was rather looking at people's perceptions of risk, and how, if they have some illusion of control or lack there of, they tend to assume some things are less safe than they are, and some things are more safe than they are.

Another false argument:
If "somebody wanted to harm you they would use a knife or a baseball bat or a shovel."
Knives, baseball bats, and shovels require that the attacker be there, in person, close enough for the victim to have a chance to fight him off. Bystanders would not get hurt, unless they choose to join the fight. The approaaching knife wielder could be seen coming, and the intended victim could even avoid harm by simply running away.
A gun can be fired from a safe distance and indiscriminately. A gun can be used to pick off scores of victims, before anyone has figured out where the attacker is.

---------------------------------
Yet another false argument:
"If you don't like the Second Amendment, seek to get it repealed"

Prior to now, laws were based on another SC ruling, one stating that the 'militia' interpretation was correct, This ruling has been in effect for DECADES, yet the pro gun faction never sought to get the 2nd amendment repealed, amended or replaced. They had every chance to lead by example, but instead have always chosen to rely on getting an ideologically amenable court membership. Talk about calling the kettle balck!
______________________________

Like Jazz, I'm also torn between being amused and offended by "the only slightly veiled insults and condescending attitude" of, in this case, the pro gun group.
Mostly, I'm offended.,because of the vacuous nature of their arguments.
I'm sick and tired of the 'my rights' arguments on a whole host of issues.
No right is limitless, and if we were intellectually honest, we would debate where those limits should rightfully be set, instead of using this kind of absoluitst, ''me and my rights agaisnt the world' ' approach.
No man is an island. and few live on an island for only one. One man's rights affect another's. We would be better off discussing how to live together, in the same neighborhood, accomodating each other's rights as best as possible, rather than trying to impose ourselves, with our rights, on everyone else and their rights.

bellisaurius,

Yours appeared to be an example of a very popular form of gimmicky argument: pick out what someone in the opposition gets wrong, and then interpolate from that to imply,or state outright, that everything the opposition believes is wrong.

Simply typing the two words 'False Argument" does nothing to document your point nor make it magically shift from opinion to fact. You don't like the knife or shovel analogy? Fine. I have a crossbow that could kill you from 100 yards if there's not much wind. If you're driving your car down the freeway at 65 mph and I drop a bowling ball through your windshield from an overpass, you're going to die. The examples are endless and eliminating guns does nothing but make it more difficult to do violence, not impossible or even improbably. So your argument, I'm afraid, is the one that is "false."

The "militia interpretation" such as it was never ruled out individual ownership, so there was no need to amend the 2nd unless you wanted all guns removed from society. And by the way, you are correct in one point. You do NOT live on an island alone. There are lots of other people on the island, some of whom will choose to have guns. It's the nature of the country you live in, as has now been once again affirmed by the Heller decision. Your next best option is to move to England. If we live in the same neighborhood and I lawfully own a gun and I don't shoot you with it or even bring it outside (in most cases) I'm not infringing on your rights. If I DO shoot you with it, then I'm a criminal and we're on to another entire conversation.

The arrogance of the anti-gun crowd thinking they should determine the rights of law abiding citizens around them is simply staggering. If you're just angry with the criminals, work for better law enforcement.

And you know that of the 39 million guns in this country, only about 1 in 3 people own or use them. And you know this how? I have lived in many states over my 60 years, and I never registered my guns(except when required when they were purchased), as I don't think that it is anybodys business but my own how many-or if any-guns I own. I now live in Texas where there is no registration requirement. Those who hate guns seem to have a sense that they are morally superior to gun owners-this has come out in several of the comments here-as does the total closed mind that the *superior* person also has. But to speak practically, if all guns that are legally owned were taken away(as you would so obviously like), then who would protect all of you sheep from the criminals? The police? Don't think so. Their job is not to protect you from a crime that has not yet happened, but to protect society from those who would break the laws that the society wants. If someone has broken into your home-because he knows that you have no means to defend yourself-and you call 911, then what do you do while waiting 5, 10, 15, 30 min for the police to show up? Also, it might just be a good idea for all of you handgun haters to go back to when you said that any state(34 that I know about) that issued concealed carry permits to anyone who legally could carry a handgun would have the streets running with blood very soon. Ahhh....didn't happen did it? However what did happen, and this is backed up by the FBI crime stats, is that muggings and car jackings went down. A college prof, from I think the U of Chicago, did a county by county study over several years and found that CC laws in that state made several catagories of crime go down. Hmmmm. Here in Texas, a law was passed that a homeowner can shoot anyone who breaks into his home or a neighbors home, or who breaks into his car. It is called down here, the castle doctrine, and guess what. Since it came into effect here on jan 1st 2008, home invasions have gone down. Cause and effect? NAH, that couldn't possibly be true. So, be a gun hater, and if someone breaks into your home be sure and inform them that you don't believe in guns, and that you have called the police, I am sure that you can then sit down with the home invader and have a stimulating conversation about how guns are bad until the police arrive to pick him up.
and runasim, just how does my having either 1 gun or a collection of 20 guns either help or hurt or even effect you? You say that my having guns infringes on your rights, but your kind of gun haters making laws that restrict what I can do in my own house and infringe on my rights are ok. Typical. Which is one reason why I moved to Texas. BTW, the PPO's that people go to court and get against a person that they think might attack them. Not worth the paper they are written on as the police will not enforce them. And I know this how you ask? In Co a woman called the police many times to say that her ex husband had violated her PPO, and she even told them where he was. Result. 12 hours later, after the police had declined to do anything, he crashed into the police station, with both his kids, who he had killed earlier. Mi. A woman was kidnapped, in her car, by a man that she had a PPO on, she was able to let a friend know what was happening, the police were called, they declined to do anything, and when the woman was found dead the next day, attempted to justify themselves by saying that the police do not involve themselves with PPO's. So, lots of luck on your sheep attitude, hope it works out for you.I, on the other hand, have had my apartment broken into while I was asleep when I was living in Sacremento Ca in the 70's. I woke up to find someone leaning over the bed with a baseball bat in his hands. I shot him with the handgun that I kept under my pillow. No harm no foul. No charges by the police as my door was broken off its hinges, and the man was standing over me with a weapon. Self defense. In WaDC, again in the 70's, a man broke into my hotel room while I was sleeping, and once more, I shot him. Now in those cases, what would you, the gun hater have done? 2 people that I did not know, 2 different times, in 2 different years, broke into my living space and threatened me. In neither case did the police jail me, or in fact even take me to the police station, nor did they confiscate my handgun. I should have just threatened them you say, not shot them. Well bubba, threats don't usually work, unless its a pump shotgun, and you have just put a shell in the chamber-pumpshotguns make a very distinctive sound, most people who are in the wrong place, will freeze when they hear it.

Jazz, Excellent post! I have also noticed the smug attitude of the gun haters. But if the sheep think that the police will protect them from all the bad people, then so be it. Darwin, and natural selection will win out in the end.

Jazz,
If you'd bother to read ALL of what I say, you'd know that I'm not against gun ownership. I'm against unrestricted gun ownership.
More than that, I'm opposed to your cheap-shot argument that anyone who doesn't agree with you is , by definition, arrogant. Arrogance is the failure to recognze that an issue can be seen and interpreted in more than one way.
In fact, this is exactly why I support Obama: his understanding that people of all viewpoints deserve to be heard and understood.

I understnad your viewpoint.
Do you understand anyhing except your viewpoint?

Do you understand how the mayor of Wahington, DC., concerned whith heavily armed kids in high-crime areas sees this ?
Do you understand that the environment one lives in can affect how gun ownership is viewed, and that living in a different enviornment may lead to different viewpoints?
Do you inderstand anything except what pertains to you and your circumstances?

If so, I'd like to hear about it.

Owning a hand gun in Canada is a difficult proposition. The guns per capita are mostly rifles and shotguns. And the gun ownership is more prevalent in isolated rural areas, I doubt if gun ownership is big in Toronto, Montreal, Windsor or Sarnia.