Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 6 votes

'Culture war' more than gun rights

gun control nra

  • Please log in to reply
138 replies to this topic

#76    Myles

Myles

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,513 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 May 2013 - 05:52 PM

View PostCorp, on 06 May 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

Don't NRA members make up a clear minority of gun owners? I've seen people who are very much pro-gun but think the NRA are nuts.


Though they are right about how deeply linked the gun control debate is linked to America culture. There are many in the US who seem to link gun ownership with freedom and view any suggestion of possible gun law reform as a direct attack on their freedom. That they need a gun to fight off the government and each other. That the slightly gun reforms will lead to a 100% ban on all guns. That gun rights tump every other political issue out there.

You are right that there are some gun owners who feel this way.   Not the majority though.  
I could say that there are many anti-gun folks who want to take every gun away from every American.   No guns needed for hunting or anything else.


#77    Michelle

Michelle

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,025 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee

  • Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 05:55 PM

View PostKowalski, on 06 May 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

Wow. Why don't you try to sound a little bit more condescending...

Except for the last sentence I agree with you.

When people are so condescending they are usually unable to grasp the meaning of what you are saying. It causes them confusion, uncertainty and frustration so they resort to sarcasm and belittling.

Psychology has always fascinated me and I've studied it extensively.

Edited by Michelle, 06 May 2013 - 06:02 PM.


#78    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 06 May 2013 - 07:21 PM

View PostMichelle, on 06 May 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

Except for the last sentence I agree with you.

When people are so condescending they are usually unable to grasp the meaning of what you are saying. It causes them confusion, uncertainty and frustration so they resort to sarcasm and belittling.

Psychology has always fascinated me and I've studied it extensively.

Thanks. I just get tired of the stereotyping. They think all people who like guns or who are pro-gun rights are uneducated hicks. It's insulting! And frustrating, too. They think we are SO stupid and simple minded, but that couldn't be further from the truth.

Edited by Kowalski, 06 May 2013 - 07:26 PM.


#79    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 07:33 PM

View PostMyles, on 06 May 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

You are right that there are some gun owners who feel this way.   Not the majority though.  
I could say that there are many anti-gun folks who want to take every gun away from every American.   No guns needed for hunting or anything else.

View PostCorp, on 06 May 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

Don't NRA members make up a clear minority of gun owners? I've seen people who are very much pro-gun but think the NRA are nuts.


Though they are right about how deeply linked the gun control debate is linked to America culture. There are many in the US who seem to link gun ownership with freedom and view any suggestion of possible gun law reform as a direct attack on their freedom. That they need a gun to fight off the government and each other. That the slightly gun reforms will lead to a 100% ban on all guns. That gun rights tump every other political issue out there. As an outsider who has never owned a gun and has no real desire to get one, while still having freedom, not being afraid of my government, or my fellow citizens, and sees plenty of gun owners even with various gun reforms this all strikes me very odd. But again it's a cultural thing.

However it does appear that the US does have a real problem with gun violence and that will need to be dealt with in some fashion, and I don't think the suggestions that the NRA has put out are going to work. Because if you need to turn your schools into armed camps either you're living in a horrible war zone or there's something seriously wrong with your society.

Quite accurate in your assessments. It seems nuance has been neglected far too long but it is the quiet and sensible voices you two offer that offer the best chance of dialogue between the two extremes.

The US does have a frontier mindset when it comes to guns, they needed them in their homesteads to defend against hostiles, help could be days away. Also the mistrust for the British who confiscated weaponry is another factor. The second amendment was the result.

Still the principle of the second amendment was based in the era of muskets when an armed citizenry could match a government. Today, not so much, our citizenry is no match for a government, they are much too lazy and unaccustomed to the rigors of battle or the frontier life. In this day and age firearms are being pumped into society at record levels and any society with such an influx of arms will use them somehow, as of now it has been on each other, including the most innocent of our citizens.

The appetite for the frontier mindset is spoiled by the fact that some profit as others suffer. The spirit of self reliance and roughing it out has been mythicized but serves no real application in our postmodern era.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


View PostKowalski, on 06 May 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

Wow. Why don't you try to sound a little bit more condescending...

Your response is satisfying and addressing only this portion out of the whole rebuttal that you were offered is revelatory.

View PostKowalski, on 06 May 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

I don't have time to troll through the internet to back up my claims. It was just my "humble simplistic" view. For your information, I am just as smart, as you are, (Perhaps even smarter) I just don't feel the need to constantly keep emphasizing that. I find that people, who do do this, are not nearly as smart as they claim to be.

In other words, you cannot backup your original claims with academic and unbiased sources. Also satisfactory in my estimation.

View PostKowalski, on 06 May 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

I am hardly "anti-intellectual" after all I read Rousseau. You don't know me, or anything about me for that matter. I really take offense in the way you think you are so much more enlightened and smarter then the rest of us.
You cite these studies as "scientific proof" when in fact, for every study you post, I can find one that contradicts it!

The statement that for every study an equal and opposing study could be produced is another form of fostering mistrust in scholarship. Very few issues are controversial where it remains undecided. Most have considerable academic consenus one way or the other. To portray science and scholarship in this manner is anti-intellectualism.

For example, when it comes to climate change, a few diehard conservatives will claim the issue has scientists from both sides offering evidence, but that is simply not true. An overwhelming majority of scientists have formed a consensus.

On the other hand some will claim that the overwhelming majority of scientists are simply mentally enslaved...which is again, anti-intellectualism on their part to reject the whole of modern scholarship.

Your claims that the NRA does not represent gun manufacturers, that the NRA represents gun owners of America, have no support when statistics using the scientific method are introduced.

You can repeat them but most will recognize those claims as rhetoric based on the false consenus bias and not on statistics.

The other wild fantasies of armed rebellion are just that, wild fantasies based on fear that guns will be confiscated and a desire, or at least a willingness, to see blood, which itself is not very rational.

View PostKowalski, on 06 May 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

If you ask me, science and logic, are just another way of enslaving the mind.



#80    CRYSiiSx2

CRYSiiSx2

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 667 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 06 May 2013 - 07:34 PM

View Postitsnotoutthere, on 06 May 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

Over 50,000 homicides and suicides occur each year in the United States (1), making them among the leading causes of death, particularly for young people. In 2001, homicide was the second leading cause of death and suicide the third for persons 15–24 years of age (2). Approximately 60 percent of all homicides and suicides in the United States are committed with a firearm (2).

link :- http://aje.oxfordjou...160/10/929.full

America has one of the highest firearm ownership figures in the western world, American has one of the highest homicide rates due to gunshot in the western world. Is anyone really trying to argue that the two are not related?

And yet once again you guys decide to blatantly leave out the fact that almost all homicides are done by handgun.  So why are they trying to limit magazine sizes to 10 on rifles?  Oh wait, I remember now.  You people who don't like guns don't have the knowledge to know that guns like the AR-15 fire a round just a little bigger than a .22.  You think because it looks intimidating that therefore it's more dangerous.

Gets annoying when people think they are informed by visiting Wikipedia and biased websites that cater to their own agenda, yet have no real first hand experience at all.

Edited by CRYSiiSx2, 06 May 2013 - 07:35 PM.

Posted Image
NRA - PROTECT THE 2ND AMENDMENT
my twitter @sktm06

#81    Sweetpumper

Sweetpumper

    Heatseeker

  • Member
  • 10,637 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Avengers Tower

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:00 PM

They're like the atheists who preach more than Christians.

"At it's most basic level, science is supposed to represent the investigation of the unexplained, not the explanation of the uninvestigated." - Hunt for the Skinwalker

"The ultimate irony of the Disclosure movement is that it deeply distrusts officialdom, while simultaneously looking to officialdom for the truth." - Robbie Graham Silver Screen Saucers

#82    Michelle

Michelle

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,025 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee

  • Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:09 PM

I read a paper called Guns and Violence: A Summary of the Field by criminologist Gary Kleck. It's a very long read, but interesting if anyone is so inclined to look it up and read it.


#83    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:12 PM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 06 May 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:


In other words, you cannot backup your original claims with academic and unbiased sources. Also satisfactory in my estimation.


What I said was very simple. I don't have time to go through the internet to back up what I say and refute your "academic" studies. There have been several posts that have pointed out the flaws in these studies or that refute them entirely in other threads, and I don't have the time or inclination to post them. I have life.


Quote

The appetite for the frontier mindset is spoiled by the fact that some profit as others suffer. The spirit of self reliance and roughing it out has been mythicized but serves no real application in our postmodern era.

Quote

The other wild fantasies of armed rebellion are just that, wild fantasies based on fear that guns will be confiscated and a desire, or at least a willingness, to see blood, which itself is not very rational.

You get mad when people stereotype Muslims, but then you use the same stereotyping against people who are pro second amendment. The hypocrisy baffles me.
What do you have against people who live in the country and like their guns? Why is it such a problem to you if people are self sufficient? What gives YOU the right to tell me how I should live?


#84    Michelle

Michelle

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,025 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee

  • Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:32 PM

View PostKowalski, on 06 May 2013 - 08:12 PM, said:

What I said was very simple. I don't have time to go through the internet to back up what I say and refute your "academic" studies. There have been several posts that have pointed out the flaws in these studies or that refute them entirely in other threads, and I don't have the time or inclination to post them. I have life.






You get mad when people stereotype Muslims, but then you use the same stereotyping against people who are pro second amendment. The hypocrisy baffles me.
What do you have against people who live in the country and like their guns? Why is it such a problem to you if people are self sufficient? What gives YOU the right to tell me how I should live?

Haven't you heard? Republicans are the only ones who are getting into other people's personal business...oh wait... :unsure2:

Edited by Michelle, 06 May 2013 - 08:43 PM.


#85    green_dude777

green_dude777

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,047 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • When you look back in life, you don't regret what you did, you regret what you never attempted.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:39 PM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 06 May 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

Quite accurate in your assessments. It seems nuance has been neglected far too long but it is the quiet and sensible voices you two offer that offer the best chance of dialogue between the two extremes.

The US does have a frontier mindset when it comes to guns, they needed them in their homesteads to defend against hostiles, help could be days away. Also the mistrust for the British who confiscated weaponry is another factor. The second amendment was the result.

Still the principle of the second amendment was based in the era of muskets when an armed citizenry could match a government. Today, not so much, our citizenry is no match for a government, they are much too lazy and unaccustomed to the rigors of battle or the frontier life. In this day and age firearms are being pumped into society at record levels and any society with such an influx of arms will use them somehow, as of now it has been on each other, including the most innocent of our citizens.

The appetite for the frontier mindset is spoiled by the fact that some profit as others suffer. The spirit of self reliance and roughing it out has been mythicized but serves no real application in our postmodern era.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



First point in bold: The British have successfully done this, so we see where the beginnings of gun control will lead

Second point in bold:  Who do you think makes up the citizens of this country?  I agree that we have too many teet suckers and morbidly obese people, but former vets, boy scouts, general 'farm boys', and those who would defect in the case of government instability would be more than a handful.  There's more than the conventional way to win a battle, attrition comes to mind.  If we don't drop nukes on foreign enemies in the modern age, why would a government do it to it's own constituents?  Not to mention, this is not an academic opinion (as you keep holding a certain poster to, which I agree with), so please do not state it as such.  A qualifier could have been "in my opinion" or "it could be argued".

Last point in bold:  The first sentence can describe capitalism, so I guess we would have that mindset here in America and apply it elsewhere.  It has been a highly successful model for the Nation.  The second sentence is just another opinion.  In my opinion, your 'city slicker' is showing, so maybe you shouldn't speak up for our neighbors who don't live where you do.


#86    green_dude777

green_dude777

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,047 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • When you look back in life, you don't regret what you did, you regret what you never attempted.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:50 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 05 May 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

No, because, believe it or not, at that time the British already had their Bill of Rights since 1215 AD, just not for the colonies.

How does that refute my point?  The U.S. drafted their own constitution after declaring independence because of an over reaching British Monarchy.

Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by your response.  Because the British had a Bill of Rights, they weren't an over reaching monarchy?


#87    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,623 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:01 PM

View Postgreen_dude777, on 06 May 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

How does that refute my point?  The U.S. drafted their own constitution after declaring independence because of an over reaching British Monarchy.

Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by your response.  Because the British had a Bill of Rights, they weren't an over reaching monarchy?

The USA was a colony, and had all the rights of a colony, just as Puerto Rico and the Philippines after the Spanish-American war, the US bill of rights had no value for them either at the time, even though they were US territories (where the Philippines ended up being independent and Puerto Rico with most (but not all) US citizenship rights. That was as much overreaching as the British monarchy in the 16 and 1700s. It was the rule of the game at the time.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#88    green_dude777

green_dude777

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,047 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • When you look back in life, you don't regret what you did, you regret what you never attempted.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:18 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 06 May 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

The USA was a colony, and had all the rights of a colony, just as Puerto Rico and the Philippines after the Spanish-American war, the US bill of rights had no value for them either at the time, even though they were US territories (where the Philippines ended up being independent and Puerto Rico with most (but not all) US citizenship rights. That was as much overreaching as the British monarchy in the 16 and 1700s. It was the rule of the game at the time.

Still not clear on what you're communicating here.  If you're equating Puerto Rico and the Phillipines post Spanish-American war to the U.S. colonies just prior to the American Revolution, ok.  They couldn't fight off their over reaching government (which as you say was the U.S.), we could, and did.  Your point (if I'm interpreting your point correctly) actually solidifies our argument that governments over reach, and sometimes need to be put back in check.  It really helps that your point is using the U.S. as the oppressor, which is the government I'm concerned about (because I'm a U.S. citizen).


#89    Glorfindel

Glorfindel

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Joined:18 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The answer to 1984, is uhhh... 1812?

Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:23 PM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 06 May 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:


4. You are free to disagree.




You both are free to disagree since not everyone has to base their view on science and academia. It is understood that for some who are more simple-minded that it is just too complicated to understand studies produced through scholarship and results obtained through the scientific method. Perhaps it is just too difficult for them to read and/or understand anything of length? We all have our limitations, and that is fine.

Just do not expect others to take you too seriously when sounding off in a simplistic manner. Maturity also requires abandoning ultimatums and masked obscenities, to interject a minor bit of opinion.

Common sense which is derived from "practical, real life knowledge" without being informed through scholarship, and when thrown in opposition against the scientific method, is purely anti-intellectualism. Standing alone, without attempting to discredit science, common sense can be and is surely valuable in certain situations but not in deriving sound policy that will guide our nation.

There is a reason why many consider the radical right as not that bright...

Youre free to your own views as well, but please try to refrain from associating science with your views. Gun rights are a political issue, a philosophical issue. These blind associations ultimately mean nothing, if you wanna prove your point, stick to the facts and statistics you are presenting. Science ≠ liberalism (or progressives, whatever).


#90    Glorfindel

Glorfindel

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Joined:18 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The answer to 1984, is uhhh... 1812?

Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:39 PM

View PostKowalski, on 06 May 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

Wow. Why don't you try to sound a little bit more condescending...

I don't have time to troll through the internet to back up my claims. It was just my "humble simplistic" view. For your information, I am just as smart, as you are, (Perhaps even smarter) I just don't feel the need to constantly keep emphasizing that. I find that people, who do do this, are not nearly as smart as they claim to be.
I am hardly "anti-intellectual" after all I read Rousseau. You don't know me, or anything about me for that matter. I really take offense in the way you think you are so much more enlightened and smarter then the rest of us.
You cite these studies as "scientific proof" when in fact, for every study you post, I can find one that contradicts it!
If you ask me, science and logic, are just another way of enslaving the mind.

Dont worry, I used to be a liberal, he is as much a pseudo-intellectual as can be. Most likely has no understanding of the conecpt of humility either. I comment on this forum for fun, I got nothing to prove to this over-educated elitest. He still hasn't even discovered for himself that there is a difference between abstract philosophy, and its applications. He also thinks just because a source comes from a university, it can't be biased. Even though we see stupid university studies these days, that point out blatant common knowledge (example, "Statistics show women prefer men with broad shoulders" "Men prefer women that are shorter than them" etc), ah but it comes from a university publication so it must be sooo intellectual. We have afro-centrists and other nut jobs publishing biased non-sense daily. We have professors being harassed and losing their jobs for presenting non-liberal views (what was wrong with that source exactly?) I mean come on, do I really have to start providing examples of bias in university publications? Because of marxist ideology, the only truly unbiased subjects in university are limited to science and math. And this guy thinks he can claim science, how delusional.






Also tagged with gun control, nra

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users