Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Kowalski

'Culture war' more than gun rights

139 posts in this topic

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.
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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

Correct in that the whole of what you quoted is opinion. The qualifiers were the use of the term "assessments" and phrase "it seems" that began the top portion of that post and extended to everything above the double lines.

The second point in bold, the opinion expressed there, is bolstered by the fact that there is a decline in the population of rural America, and an increase in most urban areas. This is an ongoing trend. Rural flight is well documented.

The United States Agricultural Department (USDA) has more information including an easy to understand graph. [link]

The WSJ offers a more nuanced narrative but all roads still seem to lead to metro areas. [link]

Carsey Institute based in UNH Durham offers a contrasting picture based on metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas (not the same as urban vs rural) indicating the trend of out-migration from nonmetropolitan areas reversed in the 1970s but if we take a look at the graph they offer it puts it into perspective: the nonmetro areas are outmatched (population wise) by the metro ones.

(I also wonder if they accounted for those who moved into non-metropolitan areas 10-20 years ago, have since not moved, but have since been annexed or absorbed into a neighboring city's metropolitan area.)

An Overview of Demographic Change

Historically, rural places have lost population. However,since the rural rebound of the 1970s, the story of migration into and out of rural areas has become more complex.

For much of the 20thcentury, most rural communities experienced population loss as millions of rural residents left for the opportunities in booming cities. The volume of out-migration varied from decade to decade, but the direction of the flows did not. More people consistently left rural areas than came to them.

This trend ended in the 1970s when rural population gains exceeded those in urban areas. Gains in rural areas waned in the 1980s, rebounded in the early 1990sand slowed again in the later 1990s. Rural growth picked up again after 2001, although recent gains remain smaller than in the early 1990s. Currently, 17 percent of the population (50million people) and 75 percent of the land area of the United States is nonmetropolitan.

1ftoo1.jpg

Carsey Institute - Reports on Rural America

According to the USDA National Resource Conservation Service, currently in Ohio about 3/4s of the population is urban while a little more than 1/4th (26%) is rural. [link] (You probably think those are fair odds.) q:

To better explore this topic of rural vs urban, there is an ongoing discussion (Red vs Blue is really Urban vs Rural values: Exploring the political divisions in America) on this other thread.

As for the last point in bold: "The appetite for the frontier mindset is spoiled by the fact that some profit as others suffer." That is capitalism but we are a mixed-economy in all honesty and the temperament of the profit motive, through regulatory measures, is clearly in demand as indicated by the polls and surveys where the majority of our citizenry and the member body of the NRA favors universal background checks (all sources have been adequately added in this very thread to corroborate that claim).

As for the final portion of the last point: "The spirit of self reliance and roughing it out has been mythicized but serves no real application in our postmodern era."

It is also opinion but more based on our neighbors, disgruntled urbanites who claim they will take to the country in an armed rebellion, that is all it was speaking to.

It was a gross generalization that did ignore your neighbors, which you would be better assessing, so thank you for pointing that out. Rural folks are still severely outnumbered, again you probably find those even odds since the assumption would be that we are lazy while you guys are not. Take note, we are cycling, running, jogging, zumba-ing, and taking to the outdoors in ever increasing numbers...we love our urban bike and hike trails here!

Thank you for strictly discussing the topic with me and allowing me a chance to clarify. For trivia's sake your opinion on whether the rural pop can actually outmatch us city folks on the field is appreciated but hopefully you are not advocating the irrational view of secession. Opinion, I know...

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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).

Your view regarding the, "odds are that a firearm in a home will cause harm to someone in that home," is a claim, "that has been debunked countless times on this forum," is not an adequate argument.

Your view that, "That has been debunked countless times on this forum", was itself debunked on this very thread with sources from the American Journal of Public Health, the American Journal of Epidemiology, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, The American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Of course scholarship based on the scientific method will be claimed when your view contains no sources but has been refuted by six. Just the amount necessary to carry your unsourced opinion to its grave but it is likely you have a belief in the resurrection.

Just keep in mind every time you offer that unsourced opinion it is not a savior, merely a zombie.

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.

Pointing out the anti-intellectual portions of the above statement in light gray.

What is in bold does not make a convincing argument to your claim regarding the, "odds are that a firearm in a home will cause harm to someone in that home", has been debunked.

Prove it, if you can.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Your view on the claim of the, "odds are that a firearm in a home will cause harm to someone in that home," was expressed by you stating, "That has been debunked countless times on this forum," is not an adequate argument.

Your view that, "That has been debunked countless times on this forum", was itself debunked on this very thread with sources from the American Journal of Public Health, the American Journal of Epidemiology, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, The American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Of course scholarship based on the scientific method will be claimed when your view contains no sources but has been refuted by many.

Merely pointing out the anti-intellectual portions of the above statement in light gray.

What is in bold does not make a convincing argument to your claim regarding the, "odds are that a firearm in a home will cause harm to someone in that home", has been debunked. Prove it, if you can.

WHAT? Odds are that a firarm in a home will harm someone in that home? Do you have any idea of many dead Americans there would be daily if that were the case? Now obviously I know thats not what was meant, but its obvious the words were twisted to give that impression. Are you honestly denying that many studies are a waste of time? Are you honestly denying that afro-centists and other less than credible people are doing great as professors in many universities? Surely you can't be this ignorant. Oh yeah, and you forgot to turn the sentence where I mentioned "marxism" light grey. Tell me why is it morally justified to persecute professors who don't fall in line with the rest of the mainstream lefty views? Freedom of speech has no place in academia? Why should I waste time proving anything to you when you refuse to acknowledge anything that contradicts you? Tell me when was the scientific method invented? I will actually start responding with facts to your posts, as soon as you prove science and liberalism are so similar that they can be associated. Not just "well my side likes science more", I want you to logically demonstrate how you can make this claim. If you do that, then yes, I will argue in an academic manner. So far from what I've seen, debating with you will be just like debating a creationists or a David Icke fan; a complete waste of time.

Edited by Glorfindel
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHAT? Odds are that a firarm in a home will harm someone in that home? Do you have any idea of many dead Americans there would be daily if that were the case? Now obviously I know thats not what was meant, but its obvious the words were twisted to give that impression. Are you honestly denying that many studies are a waste of time? Are you honestly denying that afro-centists and other less than credible people are doing great as professors in many universities? Surely you can't be this ignorant. Oh yeah, and you forgot to turn the sentence where I mentioned "marxism" light grey. Tell me why is it morally justified to persecute professors who don't fall in line with the rest of the mainstream lefty views? Freedom of speech has no place in academia? Why should I waste time proving anything to you when you refuse to acknowledge anything that contradicts you? Tell me when was the scientific method invented? I will actually start responding with facts to your posts, as soon as you prove science and liberalism are so similar that they can be associated. Not just "well my side likes science more", I want you to logically demonstrate how you can make this claim. If you do that, then yes, I will argue in an academic manner. So far from what I've seen, debating with you will be just like debating a creationists or a David Icke fan; a complete waste of time.

I think what LBA is trying and failing to say is "a gun is more likely to be used to harm/accidentally bring harm to a family member, then it is to harm an intruder or an outsider".

For example, I'm more likely to hurt myself on my bike then I am someone else" that sort of thing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think what LBA is trying and failing to say is "a gun is more likely to be used to harm/accidentally bring harm to a family member, then it is to harm an intruder or an outsider".

For example, I'm more likely to hurt myself on my bike then I am someone else" that sort of thing.

But what people like him think, we're all too stupid to use anything sharper than a butter knife. He believes we must be so stupid that the Government should regulate everything we do to keep us safe. If I decide to buy a gun I know what they can do, it's my responsibility to be safe and keep it locked to avoid accidents. I don't need the Gov. to tell me to do that.

Edited by CRYSiiSx2
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think what LBA is trying and failing to say is "a gun is more likely to be used to harm/accidentally bring harm to a family member, then it is to harm an intruder or an outsider".

For example, I'm more likely to hurt myself on my bike then I am someone else" that sort of thing.

I know thats what it meant, that does not mean the gun is your house is more likely to hurt you, then to hurt no one. Which is why I said LBA is being purposely misleading with his words (I don't think his failure in conveying the message was accidental). Which is exactly why many people view the left as dishonest.

Edited by Glorfindel
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct in that the whole of what you quoted is opinion. The qualifiers were the use of the term "assessments" and phrase "it seems" that began the top portion of that post and extended to everything above the double lines.

The second point in bold, the opinion expressed there, is bolstered by the fact that there is a decline in the population of rural America, and an increase in most urban areas. This is an ongoing trend. Rural flight is well documented.

The United States Agricultural Department (USDA) has more information including an easy to understand graph. [link]

The WSJ offers a more nuanced narrative but all roads still seem to lead to metro areas. [link]

Carsey Institute based in UNH Durham offers a contrasting picture based on metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas (not the same as urban vs rural) indicating the trend of out-migration from nonmetropolitan areas reversed in the 1970s but if we take a look at the graph they offer it puts it into perspective: the nonmetro areas are outmatched (population wise) by the metro ones.

(I also wonder if they accounted for those who moved into non-metropolitan areas 10-20 years ago, have since not moved, but have since been annexed or absorbed into a neighboring city's metropolitan area.)

1ftoo1.jpg

Carsey Institute - Reports on Rural America

According to the USDA National Resource Conservation Service, currently in Ohio about 3/4s of the population is urban while a little more than 1/4th (26%) is rural. [link] (You probably think those are fair odds.) q:

To better explore this topic of rural vs urban, there is an ongoing discussion (Red vs Blue is really Urban vs Rural values: Exploring the political divisions in America) on this other thread.

As for the last point in bold: "The appetite for the frontier mindset is spoiled by the fact that some profit as others suffer." That is capitalism but we are a mixed-economy in all honesty and the temperament of the profit motive, through regulatory measures, is clearly in demand as indicated by the polls and surveys where the majority of our citizenry and the member body of the NRA favors universal background checks (all sources have been adequately added in this very thread to corroborate that claim).

As for the final portion of the last point: "The spirit of self reliance and roughing it out has been mythicized but serves no real application in our postmodern era."

It is also opinion but more based on our neighbors, disgruntled urbanites who claim they will take to the country in an armed rebellion, that is all it was speaking to.

It was a gross generalization that did ignore your neighbors, which you would be better assessing, so thank you for pointing that out. Rural folks are still severely outnumbered, again you probably find those even odds since the assumption would be that we are lazy while you guys are not. Take note, we are cycling, running, jogging, zumba-ing, and taking to the outdoors in ever increasing numbers...we love our urban bike and hike trails here!

Thank you for strictly discussing the topic with me and allowing me a chance to clarify. For trivia's sake your opinion on whether the rural pop can actually outmatch us city folks on the field is appreciated but hopefully you are not advocating the irrational view of secession. Opinion, I know...

I appreciate the response, and I say "fair enough". I may have either misread the qualifiers, or forgot them by the time I arrived to that portion of the post, to that I apologize.

I also completely agree with the sentiment and statement directed at the disgruntled urbanites. Where I feel survival skills and knowledge of the world outside of our concrete jungles is important and should be more common place, I feel a lot who use that threat are the same who threatened to leave the country if Obama were re elected.

Also, it is a fair point that the urban population is outweighing the rural population.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

WHAT? Odds are that a firarm in a home will harm someone in that home? Do you have any idea of many dead Americans there would be daily if that were the case? Now obviously I know thats not what was meant, but its obvious the words were twisted to give that impression.

In the 2008 landmark Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller (does the Second Amendment allows a state or local government to outlaw the private possession of handguns?) [link] it was noted that the D.C. council committee had testified before the "Hearing and Disposition before the House Committee on the District of Columbia, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., on H. Con. Res. 694, Ser. No. 94–24, p. 25 (1976)" that "[f]or every intruder stopped by a homeowner with a firearm, there are 4 gun-related accidents within the home." [link]

Now that is pretty outdated information, from 1976, and we might both agree that it is not accurate, up-to-date, or corroborated by any other source, even if they sourced it in 2008 in front of the SC.

This might be a more accurate answer to your question:

According to the CDC, there were about 18,498 gun-related accidents that resulted in death or an emergency room visit during 2001.

[link]

That is further broken down into 17,696 injuries and 802 deaths in 2001. [link]

Those number seems to have gone down.

The "Unintentional Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries" in 2011 stood at 14,675, while the" Unintentional Firearm Deaths" in 2007 were 613.

Those were the last years available for each category.

If you want to view those results you will have to select the proper criteria from the radio buttons in the following web-apps: CDC Nonfatal Injury Reports, 2001-2011 and their Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2007.

Note: this does not take into accounts suicides.

The "Self-harm Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries" in 2011 stood at 3,224, while the "Suicide Firearm Deaths" in 2007 were 17, 352.

Ouch, a total reversal between injuries and deaths, which we can most likely consider them under the banner of, "odds are that a firearm in a home will cause harm to someone in that home?"

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many people hurt themselves with hammers in that time LBA? Or committed suicide via oven or jumping off their roof?

The statistics mean that if you're suicidal and have a gun you're more likely to use the gun, NOT that having a gun magically makes you want to commit suicide.

Ohh and before you call me a pro-gun nut or whatever - I'm pro-gun CONTROL and think that ownership of anything bigger then a handgun (in towns) or a shotgun (in the rural areas) is over-kill.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not the same, I am not going to call you anything, nothing personal or negative at least, because we are the same.

Quibbling over that data set is not going to interest me.

Have a nice morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.