Let me try one more time. It is easy to dismiss Joe the Plumber because he is an idiot. I get that. But the sentiment here is not that different from the NRA's official stance. Any school shootings, or public shootings--none of them are important enough to inconvenience any gun owner's rights. Not one bit.
That is gun culture. That and the encouragement that guns are holy and right. That gun culture (defended by the NRA) leads morons to carry AR15s into restaurants JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN, and anyone who finds them troubling is dismissed as weak and liberal. That is gun culture.
You don't want Joe the Plumber, but he is more a part of your culture than you like to see. Just as the NRA's pure evil at the political level is yours as well. Enjoy.
Are you ok with denying some rights to people because they are stupid or do something that you don't like? Look at free speech. I can walk around all day with a shirt that bears an obscene message. I can turn on cable TV and watch a show that has nudity and violence. Should we ban these tings or set up a system that oversees what is ok and what is not ok.
I get that a lot of people don't like the AR-15 totin' idiots. A lot of gun people don't like them. I think they can be dealt with by restaurants banning them. A few already have. As an aside, can you point to any of these people that has actually done anything criminal?
Actually, what I have been begging from you is that gun rights people rachet down the anti-government rhetoric and the whole "good guy with a gun" message that the NRA loves to peddle. I have suggested numerous times that maybe you guys should be more open about the fact that not everyone should have a gun.
But no. It immediately goes to me banning certain people from having guns. I think this is why you don't understand what I mean by gun culture. You don't understand that I want responsible gun owners (if they still exist) to be much more vocal about the idiots and the people like my neighbor shooting down the street for a $50 microphone.
Nope, instead, we get Sarah Palin, Ted Nugent, and cowards at the NRA bowing and scraping to people carrying assault rifles in public.
I agree that the anti-gov't rhetoric serves no good purpose. It is one thing to have a healthy level of skepticism and question the gov't, but some of those people go too far into tin-foil hat stuff.
The good guy with a gun stuff is a little different. I am not going to to do a what if and say that some concealed carrier would have saved the day. The two nut cases that went on a spree at a WalMart killed some guy that tried to intervene. On the other hand, two school shootings in the last 6 months were stopped by an armed guard in the school.
As for the OCers, how many have you seen? I am not trying to be a smartass, I just don't think it is all that common, nor do I think it will ever be common.
My point is that the "good guy with a gun" thing encourages a lot of people who are pretty sure they are good guys. But they don't have the ability to make decisions under fire, or believe the guns give them certain privileges.
Put it this way. I read a piece the other day that suggested that drivers drift closer to people wearing helmets than they do to those without. I assume that is all subconscious. Why would we not think that impacts people with guns?
As I keep saying, the OCers are not my big concern. It is the culture that spawns them. And like it or not, your NRA is encouraging all three of these things. They are encouraging the anti-government rhetoric (thank you for acknowledging that is destructive, btw), and they are certainly (at least now) encouraging the others.
I don't doubt that some people harbor some type of Walter Mitty fantasies, but the majority of classes offered in the private sector heavily discourage people from playing the hero. Most of them emphasize being a good witness and taking cover.
I have been pretty clear that I am not talking about the classes or training and have acknowledged that there is good work done in those classes. That isn't the message coming from the NRA politically, however. Surely you can acknowledge that.
Then give me an example. I get the sense that you equate minimal laws with irresponsible ownership. If that is true, it is kind of like saying that the fact that we don't have mandatory parenting classes for all parents encourages child abuse.
No. You haven't gotten my approach to gun culture at all. This is about encouraging more guns and more macho-anti-government sentiment. You agreed that the anti-government part was irresponsible. Do you really think that the NRA isn't part of that? Or encouraging the macho idea that a "good guy" with a gun can take down a mass shooter? Do you think those idiots in the OC consider themselves good guys?
I can understand the beef with the anti-gov't sentiment. I do think they go overboard, though they have toned it down since the mid 1990's and now it is mostly stuff related to confiscation and registration. As for encouraging people to get guns, what do you expect them to do? That is like complaining about the National Library Association encouraging people to read. I know we are talking about two different activities, but c'mon.
There are some instances where some kind of person with a gun stops a mass shooter. Most public and private security experts say that a quick violent response is the best way to stop a shooter. Do you have a better idea or are all these people wrong?
I think the OC people are a mixed bag. I am sure that some do consider themselves "good guys," but I also think that some are just doing it as some kind of political statement.
wow. I really don't see the anti-government talk receding. And yes, books are different from guns. Surely you can acknowledge that some people shouldn't be gun owners. They don't have the maturity or sensibility to make good decisions with them. Most of them will never harm another, I have no doubt, but they will be careless and irresponsible.
I am guessing that the security experts are talking about someone with some training. I have seen some pretty good discussions that note that the average gun owner is not prepared for the life and death decisions necessary in that kind of firefight. Perhaps some will be able to. Back to your discussion of schools as free-fire zones, the only alternative appears to have more armed people at schools. The NRA wants to arm teachers, or allow them to carry. We really sure that is a good idea?
My point about the OC is that, like most people with legal guns, they don't see themselves as dangerous or bad. That isn't how most people want to see themselves anyway--in issues of race or gender or other issues. People like to believe they are good, and I find it hard to believe that the typical gun right's person doesn't consider themselves one of the "good guys" the NRA is talking about. Even if they are rage filled and have bad conflict resolution skills.
I agree that some people shouldn't have guns, but that begs the question of how do we decide? Just as some people shouldn't be pet owners, parents, or drivers, we don't usually know until after they have done something. The problem with this is that some of them may end up hurting someone, so I can understand that there is no easy answer. I think the current list of prohibited classes is too broad.
I agree that training helps a great deal. It is hard to take into account every kind of scenario. Obviously, a person armed with a handgun and minimal training isn't going to stop a group of people armed with long guns. That being said, the average mass shooter is not exactly SEAL team 6. That guy out in Washington was stopped by some unarmed student that tackled him when he was fumbling with his reload.
I would certainly advocate that people get training, but a surprising number of average gun owners do fairly well in stopping criminals, especially when they are in their own homes.
As for arming teachers, I am fine with that. I think it should be completely voluntary. It will likely be a hard sell, but I have heard of a few districts that are doing it. The best way to make it more acceptable would probably be to give the teachers training.
As for the OC people, I just don't know enough to really say.
As I have said, I really am pushing (at least in this thread) for the gun rights people to stop pretending that everyone should arm themselves. Not talking about legislation that decides who should have a gun or not. Seems to me that is a reasonable thing to do, but gun right's people resist anything that is anti-gun. They should be anti-gun in the wrong hands.
Sorry, but I hate the idea of putting more guns in schools. As much as I hate the school shootings, I fear the friendly fire and accidental shootings almost as much.
As for the OC people, you have some psychological training. How many people do you think are self-aware enough to know they are not good people?
How would you promote gun ownership and keeping out of the wrong hands?
Guns in schools is not going to happen overnight, if at all. I think there are a few states that already allow it and a handful of districts that are trying it. It may be that if it is shown to either be helpful or not dangerous, then other schools will follow. Regardless, I don't think it will be very common.
As for OC, I am reluctant to speculate because I just don't know.
My question was a general one. How many people in the general population do you think are self-aware enough to know they are not good people? Obviously, we are generalizing here. My point is that most people conceptualize that they are doing life the best they can and that they have good intentions--even if completely deluded about it. Throw in a gun there, and you have a great combination.
Personally, I don't think the gun right's people need to troll for new gun owners. Our culture has done a good job of that. Maybe gun right's people could simply promote good ownership, protect gun rights, and stop with all the bullshit about getting ready to attack our government.
20 comments:
Yes, because if there is one person that speaks for the gun culture, it is Joe the Plumber.
No thanks, we are stuck with Ted Nugent, but we aren't taking him.
I have tried to explain what I mean by gun culture. Evidently you don't even try to understand it any longer.
Let me try one more time. It is easy to dismiss Joe the Plumber because he is an idiot. I get that. But the sentiment here is not that different from the NRA's official stance. Any school shootings, or public shootings--none of them are important enough to inconvenience any gun owner's rights. Not one bit.
That is gun culture. That and the encouragement that guns are holy and right. That gun culture (defended by the NRA) leads morons to carry AR15s into restaurants JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN, and anyone who finds them troubling is dismissed as weak and liberal. That is gun culture.
You don't want Joe the Plumber, but he is more a part of your culture than you like to see. Just as the NRA's pure evil at the political level is yours as well. Enjoy.
Are you ok with denying some rights to people because they are stupid or do something that you don't like? Look at free speech. I can walk around all day with a shirt that bears an obscene message. I can turn on cable TV and watch a show that has nudity and violence. Should we ban these tings or set up a system that oversees what is ok and what is not ok.
I get that a lot of people don't like the AR-15 totin' idiots. A lot of gun people don't like them. I think they can be dealt with by restaurants banning them. A few already have. As an aside, can you point to any of these people that has actually done anything criminal?
Actually, what I have been begging from you is that gun rights people rachet down the anti-government rhetoric and the whole "good guy with a gun" message that the NRA loves to peddle. I have suggested numerous times that maybe you guys should be more open about the fact that not everyone should have a gun.
But no. It immediately goes to me banning certain people from having guns. I think this is why you don't understand what I mean by gun culture. You don't understand that I want responsible gun owners (if they still exist) to be much more vocal about the idiots and the people like my neighbor shooting down the street for a $50 microphone.
Nope, instead, we get Sarah Palin, Ted Nugent, and cowards at the NRA bowing and scraping to people carrying assault rifles in public.
I agree that the anti-gov't rhetoric serves no good purpose. It is one thing to have a healthy level of skepticism and question the gov't, but some of those people go too far into tin-foil hat stuff.
The good guy with a gun stuff is a little different. I am not going to to do a what if and say that some concealed carrier would have saved the day. The two nut cases that went on a spree at a WalMart killed some guy that tried to intervene. On the other hand, two school shootings in the last 6 months were stopped by an armed guard in the school.
As for the OCers, how many have you seen? I am not trying to be a smartass, I just don't think it is all that common, nor do I think it will ever be common.
My point is that the "good guy with a gun" thing encourages a lot of people who are pretty sure they are good guys. But they don't have the ability to make decisions under fire, or believe the guns give them certain privileges.
Put it this way. I read a piece the other day that suggested that drivers drift closer to people wearing helmets than they do to those without. I assume that is all subconscious. Why would we not think that impacts people with guns?
As I keep saying, the OCers are not my big concern. It is the culture that spawns them. And like it or not, your NRA is encouraging all three of these things. They are encouraging the anti-government rhetoric (thank you for acknowledging that is destructive, btw), and they are certainly (at least now) encouraging the others.
I don't doubt that some people harbor some type of Walter Mitty fantasies, but the majority of classes offered in the private sector heavily discourage people from playing the hero. Most of them emphasize being a good witness and taking cover.
I have been pretty clear that I am not talking about the classes or training and have acknowledged that there is good work done in those classes. That isn't the message coming from the NRA politically, however. Surely you can acknowledge that.
In all of the messages coming from the NRA, I don't hear them saying to act stupidly or impulsively.
Then I don't think you are listening, Steve.
Then give me an example. I get the sense that you equate minimal laws with irresponsible ownership. If that is true, it is kind of like saying that the fact that we don't have mandatory parenting classes for all parents encourages child abuse.
No. You haven't gotten my approach to gun culture at all. This is about encouraging more guns and more macho-anti-government sentiment. You agreed that the anti-government part was irresponsible. Do you really think that the NRA isn't part of that? Or encouraging the macho idea that a "good guy" with a gun can take down a mass shooter? Do you think those idiots in the OC consider themselves good guys?
I can understand the beef with the anti-gov't sentiment. I do think they go overboard, though they have toned it down since the mid 1990's and now it is mostly stuff related to confiscation and registration. As for encouraging people to get guns, what do you expect them to do? That is like complaining about the National Library Association encouraging people to read. I know we are talking about two different activities, but c'mon.
There are some instances where some kind of person with a gun stops a mass shooter. Most public and private security experts say that a quick violent response is the best way to stop a shooter. Do you have a better idea or are all these people wrong?
I think the OC people are a mixed bag. I am sure that some do consider themselves "good guys," but I also think that some are just doing it as some kind of political statement.
wow. I really don't see the anti-government talk receding. And yes, books are different from guns. Surely you can acknowledge that some people shouldn't be gun owners. They don't have the maturity or sensibility to make good decisions with them. Most of them will never harm another, I have no doubt, but they will be careless and irresponsible.
I am guessing that the security experts are talking about someone with some training. I have seen some pretty good discussions that note that the average gun owner is not prepared for the life and death decisions necessary in that kind of firefight. Perhaps some will be able to. Back to your discussion of schools as free-fire zones, the only alternative appears to have more armed people at schools. The NRA wants to arm teachers, or allow them to carry. We really sure that is a good idea?
My point about the OC is that, like most people with legal guns, they don't see themselves as dangerous or bad. That isn't how most people want to see themselves anyway--in issues of race or gender or other issues. People like to believe they are good, and I find it hard to believe that the typical gun right's person doesn't consider themselves one of the "good guys" the NRA is talking about. Even if they are rage filled and have bad conflict resolution skills.
I agree that some people shouldn't have guns, but that begs the question of how do we decide? Just as some people shouldn't be pet owners, parents, or drivers, we don't usually know until after they have done something. The problem with this is that some of them may end up hurting someone, so I can understand that there is no easy answer. I think the current list of prohibited classes is too broad.
I agree that training helps a great deal. It is hard to take into account every kind of scenario. Obviously, a person armed with a handgun and minimal training isn't going to stop a group of people armed with long guns. That being said, the average mass shooter is not exactly SEAL team 6. That guy out in Washington was stopped by some unarmed student that tackled him when he was fumbling with his reload.
I would certainly advocate that people get training, but a surprising number of average gun owners do fairly well in stopping criminals, especially when they are in their own homes.
As for arming teachers, I am fine with that. I think it should be completely voluntary. It will likely be a hard sell, but I have heard of a few districts that are doing it. The best way to make it more acceptable would probably be to give the teachers training.
As for the OC people, I just don't know enough to really say.
As I have said, I really am pushing (at least in this thread) for the gun rights people to stop pretending that everyone should arm themselves. Not talking about legislation that decides who should have a gun or not. Seems to me that is a reasonable thing to do, but gun right's people resist anything that is anti-gun. They should be anti-gun in the wrong hands.
Sorry, but I hate the idea of putting more guns in schools. As much as I hate the school shootings, I fear the friendly fire and accidental shootings almost as much.
As for the OC people, you have some psychological training. How many people do you think are self-aware enough to know they are not good people?
How would you promote gun ownership and keeping out of the wrong hands?
Guns in schools is not going to happen overnight, if at all. I think there are a few states that already allow it and a handful of districts that are trying it. It may be that if it is shown to either be helpful or not dangerous, then other schools will follow. Regardless, I don't think it will be very common.
As for OC, I am reluctant to speculate because I just don't know.
My question was a general one. How many people in the general population do you think are self-aware enough to know they are not good people? Obviously, we are generalizing here. My point is that most people conceptualize that they are doing life the best they can and that they have good intentions--even if completely deluded about it. Throw in a gun there, and you have a great combination.
Personally, I don't think the gun right's people need to troll for new gun owners. Our culture has done a good job of that. Maybe gun right's people could simply promote good ownership, protect gun rights, and stop with all the bullshit about getting ready to attack our government.
I don't have a problem with them emphasizing safety, rights, and responsibility over those other things.
Post a Comment