Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumWhy the NRA wins. (1)
Last edited Fri Jan 31, 2014, 11:48 AM - Edit history (5)
Part 2Part 3
Part 4
There can be little doubt that without liberal ideology we would be living in a dystopian nightmare. Liberals have given the United States the greatest advances in social equality and cultural progress in the history of the nation. Furthermore, given the events of the last thirty years, the inadequacies of conservative ideology have been made painfully obvious. I shouldn’t have to belabor that point here.
So if the benefits of liberalism are so obvious how does the NRA, which overwhelmingly supports conservative politicians, enjoy the success that it does? Policies that the NRA supports have enjoyed legislative success even in light of the tragedy at Sandy Hook. If any event could galvanize support for liberal positions, from the political center if not from the right, the grisly murder of children by a mentally unbalanced young man wielding an AR15 should have done it. It didn’t. While liberal policy initiatives moved forward in traditionally liberal bastions of the nation (with the notable exception of Illinois), on balance across the country policy initiatives supported by the NRA have shown considerable success. And even though there are reports of shootings in the media with depressing regularity, the sale of firearms has continued unabated.
As I understand it, scholarship on ideological morality divides liberalism and conservatism, in the very broadest of strokes, between nurturing and authority. Given the fact that liberal policies have proven to be beneficial to our society have at their base been an effort to nurture people through the expansion of material, educational, and social support, the validity of that dichotomy seems to be borne out by events on the ground. And of course the dangers of excessive authoritarianism are equally obvious.
Human lives can be understood as a series of events that occur over time. Those events are governed by relationships with others within the context of a range of variables that have changed little for most of human history. Those variables can be managed by the way our culture is designed and, generally speaking, positive reinforcement by nurturing people is preferable to authoritarian negative reinforcement.
But there is one type of human event where that preference does not hold true. That event occurs between the period of time between the manifestation of a genuine threat to one’s survival and the elimination of that threat. That event occurs after all the preventive measures to avoid it have been taken and failed. Whether that threat is some guy in a dark alley with a knife or an invading army, you’re not going to nurture your way out of that mess.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)bad guy. Fear and authority are the hallmarks of the right.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)most CC types are what I would describe as casual gun owners. For example, my FIL carried a .32 when he had a business when he dealt with a lot of cash, something I would not encourage in FL. Wyoming yes, not Florida. When he retired from it he gave the pistol to one of his daughters and let his CCW expire.
Wiki defines gun culture as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_cultures_in_the_USA
What you describe could have been the 1967-2005 rise and drop. During this time, people bought guns put them in the sock drawer for 30 plus years until discovered by adult children. The ones still in good shape land up in pawn shops while some are sold to the cops during PR stunts. When my in laws lived in Detroit, before moving to Florida, they had a .38 for 50 years that was only discovered after they both died.
If the 33 percent of households is true, it is going back to 1950s levels.
People carry a gun with the thought in their head that they will use it against another person to save their life.
You have to have thought about it in your mind that you will have to kill someone.
You have to have thought that the person deserves to be killed because they threatened you.
It is like a fantasy. You actually think the chances are so good that a bad guy is going to try and attack you that you carry a gun just for the purpose of saving your life.
It is a constant thought. You have to be ready. You live in fear of that guy!
And you feel you have the right and authority by the second amendment to kill in self defence. Fear and authority are on your mind. It drives the right and the gun culture. You repeat 2nd A and self defence.
That the wsy it looks to me.
spin
(17,493 posts)If not, what background do you have that enables you to describe the mindset of a person who does carry one?
I have had a concealed carry permit for well over 15 years and I carry on a regular basis. Having little to do today, I will take a little time to review your post and point out some of the fantasies that you have imagined.
You state:
"People carry a gun with the thought in the head that they will use it against another person to save their life."
I would change this to: People who carry a gun on a regular basis carry it because they realize that while slim, there is a chance that they will find themselves attacked at some time in their future by a person who intends to seriously injure or kill them. If that were to happen, they prefer to be prepared with a good tool to use for self defense. They do not feel that it will happen but merely that it may.
"You have to have thought about it in your mind that you will have to kill someone."
Not really. The reality is that most likely an attacker will flee when he realizes that you are armed. Even if you do shoot an attacker, there is an excellent chance that he will survive. Handguns are not as lethal as they seem in movies.
"You have to have thought that the person deserves to be killed because they threaten you.
Wrong again. The object of using a weapon for self defense is to stop the attack not to kill the attacker.
It is like a fantasy. You think the chances are so good that a bad guy is going to try and attack you that you carry a gun just for the purpose of saving your life."
I realize that the average person has a good chance of being attacked once or maybe twice in his entire life. My mother is an example. She lived to be 89 years old. Once when she was in her 20s she was walking home from a bus stop. A man who was hiding behind some bushes rushed her. Fortunately she had her hand on a small revolver in her purse and was able to fire two shots over the man's head. He ran.
It's a constant thought. You have to be ready. You live in fear of that guy."
Years ago I learned a very effective self defense technique in a martial arts class. It's called situational awareness. To simplify, it merely means that you are alert to your surroundings and do not walk around with a cell phone glued to your ear. A predator is mainly looking for an easy victim and the weakest member of the herd. He will usually notice that you are walking confidently with your head up in an alert manner and will wait for another victim. Using this technique will enable you to avoid 95% of violent encounters. Situational awareness also means that you listen to your sixth sense. If for some reason you suddenly feel uncomfortable in an environment, leave. The best way to avoid getting hurt or killed in a violent encounter is simply to avoid getting into one.
Practicing situational awareness can be a fun game when you become skillful. People are fascinating and when you are observant you notice a lot more about those around you.
And you feel that you have the right and the authority by the second amendment to kill in self defense. Fear and authority are on your mind, It drives the right and the gun culture. You repeat 2nd A and self defense."
It is true that in our society we have the right to use lethal force for legitimate self defense. However self defense laws are not granted by the Second Amendment but are entirely separate.
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms regardless of service in a militia. The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[1] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The self-defense laws of modern legislation build on the Roman Law principle of dominium where any attack on the members of the family or the property it owned was a personal attack on the pater familias.[16] In Leviathan (1651), Hobbes argues that although some may be stronger or more intelligent than others in their natural state, none are so strong as to be beyond a fear of violent death, which justifies self-defense as the highest necessity. In his 1918 speech Politik als Beruf (Politics as a Vocation), Max Weber defined a state as an authority claiming the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within defined territorial boundaries. Modern libertarianism characterizes the majority of laws as intrusive to personal autonomy and, in particular, argues that the right of self-defense from coercion (including violence) is a fundamental human right. In this context, note that Article 12 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Combined with the principle of the state's monopoly of legitimate force, this means that those authorized by the state to defend the law (in practice, the police) are charged with the use of necessary force to protect such rights. The right to self-defense is limited to situations where the immediate threat of violence cannot be prevented by those authorized to do so (in practice, because no police force is present at the moment of the threat). The right to self-defense granted by law to the private citizen is strictly limited. Use of force that goes beyond what is necessary to dispel the immediate threat of violence is known as excessive self-defense (also self-defense with excessive force). The civil law systems have a theory of "abuse of right" to explain denial of justification in such cases. Thus, in English law, the general common law principle is stated in Beckford v R (1988) 1 AC 130:
"A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense
You and many other gun control advocates go off the track when you claim and anyone who legally carries a firearm must be extremely paranoid and fearful. The truth is that we simply prefer to be prepared for whatever life throws at us. I seriously doubt that I will ever have to use my concealed weapon for legitimate self defense as I try to avoid situations that might turn violent. I don't go looking for trouble but if it comes my way I will do my best to survive and I feel I have the tools and skill to do so. If I fail, so be it.
The last thing I would hope to do in the world is to kill another person. It really doesn't matter if I am totally in the right. Killing another person is a life changing event that can haunt you for the rest of your life. I currently sleep well with pleasant dreams. I have absolutely no desire to live through the trauma that taking a life can cause.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 28, 2014, 07:44 PM - Edit history (1)
to figure out why people do.
It is this simple. To kill before being killed.
That is the way we fought in Vietnam.
I find the verbiage by the gun lobby to have two purposes. First to help carriers to live in denial and secondly to try and make the rest of us live there with you.
spin
(17,493 posts)The mindset of soldiers in Vietnam which you describe as "To kill before being killed" has nothing to do with the mindset of a person who is legally carrying a weapon on the streets in America today.
I am not sure why you feel people who carry are living in denial. We realize that there is a small chance of our being attacked by a person who intends to seriously injure or kill us and has the ability to do so. That doesn't mean that we view every person that we encounter on the street as a potential threat as would be common in a war zone.
If you are suggesting that I feel that everybody needs a firearm for self defense, you are definitely wrong. Firearms are NOT for everybody.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But the possibility of taking a human life in self-defense or defense of others is a philosophical exercise not limited to the carrying of firearms.
You are massively over-simplifying. And casting aspersions.
I don't think it highly likely my home will ever catch fire, but I bought the best wifi interconnected smoke detectors, and shit them across every room and hallway of the house, and put fire extinguishers in every room. Why? Fear? I suppose you could try and paint it as fear, but you know what? I don't actually fear a home fire. I sleep very well, because I perceived a potential threat, and a course of action to prevent it, and ta-da. Done. All good.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)You speak of killing before being killed. I too have been in combat and know what it is like to be, shall we say proactive, in the use of force. Even in that environment I and my companions made it a point of honor to capture as many enemy alive as possible. The civilian world is nothing like a combat environment.
spin
(17,493 posts)I legally carry a concealed handgun but I seriously doubt that I will ever have to use it for legitimate self defense.
I learned to practice "situational awareness" many years ago in a martial arts class designed to teach effective techniques for stopping an attacker. A simplistic definition of situation awareness is that you don't walk down dark streets with your cell phone glued to your ear. You are merely alert to your surroundings and if you notice something suspicious or if your "sixth sense" causes the hair on the back of your neck to stand up -- you leave the area. Using this tactic will enable you to avoid at least 95% of violent encounters. Of course you NEVER go looking for trouble as it WILL find you.
Before I ever decided to get my concealed weapons permit, I had to seriously ask myself if I could actually shoot someone who was attacking me with the intention of putting me in the hospital or six feet under and had the ability to accomplish his wish. Obviously if I would hesitate in such a situation, the attacker could take my weapon from me and use it against me. Owning a firearm for self defense and being unwilling to use it is in, my opinion, foolish. I advise those who ask me about getting a firearm for self defense to ask themselves the same question and to honestly answer. Many people would never shoot another person even if it meant they would die and perhaps they are better people than I am. I don't feel superior to them or braver than they are in any way. People differ and I except this.
However if attacked I may never have to shoot my attacker. If I reveal that I am armed and impress my attacker as confident and competent enough to use my weapon, there's an excellent chance that he will turn and run. If so, any danger to my life or health is no longer present and I no longer have any reason to shoot him. To me that would be a good result as all that ends well, ends well.
I also realize that using my legally concealed handgun for what I consider to be legitimate self defense will be questioned by the authorities. Unless there is absolutely no question that I acted just as a reasonable man standing in my shoes would have, I will face legal proceedings and a trial that will probably bankrupt me. Even if a jury finds me not guilty, it is possible that I might also face a civil trial.
But that's just the financial and legal aspects of shooting another person in self defense. The psychological aftereffects may be even more serious. Even police officers who shoot another person in order to stop him from endangering others or in self defense often have to undergo counseling to help them overcome issues resulting from their entirely justified action.
I currently sleep well at night and have absolutely no desire to have to suffer nightmares about an incident where I had to injure or kill another person. PTSD is a serious disorder and can ruin your life.
Justified to kill: Experts say the psychological aftermath of a self-defense homicide can be profound
By John Agar | jagar@mlive.com
Follow on Twitter
on June 14, 2012 at 5:00 PM, updated June 15, 2012 at 4:04 PM
***snip***
Researchers on killings by otherwise law-abiding people - whether soldiers, police or civilians - have found the aftershocks can include conflicting emotions: elation at surviving, and guilt at having to violate an ingrained aversion against killing another human.
Left unresolved, this "cognitive dissonance" can lead to anxiety and depression, according to research by Massad Ayoob, a nationally known firearms and self-defense instructor.
Another nationally known self-defense expert, author David Grossman, coined the term “killology” for his brand of research focusing on healthy people in killing circumstances.
Grossman, a former Army Ranger and retired lieutenant colonel, wrote, “On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society.” While much of his focus ison police and the military, experts say untrained civilians are even less prepared to deal with the aftermath of such events.
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/experts_the_psychological_afte.html
You sit in front of your computer tapping on your keyboard and fantasize about the motivations of those who legally carry with only what you have learned on sites that advocate strong gun control and most likely knowing few people who do actually do so.
I have legally carried a concealed firearm in Florida for well over twenty years and personally know a good number of people who have concealed weapons permits.
Who should the reader believe? Here on DU most might agree with you but the majority of citizens in our nation might agree with me.
You insinuate that I must be paranoid and expect that any day I might have to use my handgun to stop some fool who attacks me on the street. You suggest that I must constantly think about it and perhaps even look forward to the opportunity to "blow someone away."
In order to get a concealed weapons permit in Florida most people have to attend a concealed weapons class where they learn that a permit to carry does not make you a cop or James Bond with the license to kill. I fully support the requirement for such classes.
Over one million Florida residents have concealed weapons permits. If we were as bloodthirsty as you suggest, surely we would see far more shootings like the Zimmerman/Martin shooting every year. (I should point out that I support a good rewriting of the "Stand Your Ground Law" in Florida as it has been abused by the legal system.)
The reality is that probably at the most, I might be attacked one time in my life and since I am almost 68 years old, most likely I will never have to defend myself. My mother used a concealed handgun one time in her life to stop an attacker who probably intended to rape her. She lived to be 89 years old and the incident happened while she was walking home from work in the 1920s. The man who had been hiding behind some bushes rushed her and she fired two shots over his head from the tiny S&W revolver she had in her purse.He ran. My daughter stopped a guy who was breaking into our home in the 1990s by trying to force the locked sliding glass door open. She merely pointed a large revolver at him and he also ran. A burglar alarm was sounding and a 60 pound Black Lab was in the house and neither deterred him.
I have a fire extinguisher fifteen feet from where I am sitting but I've only had to use one once in my life to put out a fire. I wear a seat belt even when I drive two blocks to the grocery store but the one time a seat belt might have really helped me was when I was in a Volkswagen Beetle that didn't have them back in the 1960s. The driver fell asleep and ran into the rear end of a much larger car. My face popped the windshield out and I looked like shit for several weeks, but I fortunately was not seriously hurt. I may never have another accident in my life but the experience thought me a lesson.
The bottom line is that 99.99% of civilians who have carry permits in our nation are not excessively paranoid or spend hours fantasizing about shooting an attacker. They are far too realistic and sensible to do so. All they hope for is a fair chance to be able to defend themselves from a serious attack in the unlikely chance that it does happen.
Your argument will work well in cities like New York where only the rich or privileged will be able to afford and pass all the hurdles to obtain a firearm or concealed weapons permit. Few people in such cities or states with very restrictive gun laws personally know people who are permitted to own a firearm for self defense. Since they don't know and talk with such people, they will not understand their mindset and will agree with your view of them. But your analysis fails in those cities and regions of our nation with less restrictive laws on firearm ownership and concealed carry.
When half of the people you know and work with have firearms in their homes for hunting, target shooting and even self defense and many have carry permits, you learn that most are sane, honest and responsible individuals. Your boss who you respect, the guy in the next cubical, your attorney, your preacher, your college instructor or your real estate agent and even your next door neighbor may have a carry permit. Of course if you live in such areas and still assume that ALL these people unrealistically fear being attacked or are bloodthirsty, I will suggest that it is you who have a problem.
I realize that nothing I will say will change your views and probably nothing you say will change mine. I also understand that posting views such as yours on DU is popular as this is largely a very liberal and progressive site where gun rights advocates and supporters of the Second Amendment are fair game. That's fine.
Unfortunately we do have a serious problem with gun violence in our nation. We may make much more headway on improving our national gun laws if both sides of the issue show some respect for each other. Stereotyping all people who legally carry concealed in the manner you have will do little or no good in solving this problem. It may be great fun and make you feel better but still it is counterproductive. Of course the NRA and those who support gun ownership insult those who don't. That's largely the problem.
Many gun owners agree with me that there are sensible improvements to our gun laws that can be made. Unfortunately for the gun control movement, they strongly oppose registration of their firearms or the banning of certain firearms because they look evil. If only the 5,000,000 members of the NRA owned firearms, the gun control advocates could ban and confiscate all civilian owned firearms in our nation.
The fact is that only a minority of firearm owners belong to the NRA. An estimated 80,000,000 people in our nation own firearms and voting age members of their family use them and support the Second Amendment. Millions and millions of gun owners have carry permits or own firearms for self defense.
Strong gun control advocates have tried this approach for decades. How successful has it proved?
Please explain to me how stereotyping and insulting all these gun owners and those who legally carry will accomplish anything.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Make no mistake, when people like Kevin De Leon and (god I love ya but would you please lay off the gun shit?) Darrell Steinberg (SB374 Would have added all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines to the state's list of banned assault weapons) are in the mix, it's a small wonder why people are buying constitutionally protected firearms and supplies at an unprecedented rate.
If the gun-obsessed would relax a bit, the other gun nuts might ease up their purchasing.
Background-check data suggests Americans are buying firearms at an unprecedented pace.
By Bruce Kennedy Jul 19, 2013 4:47PM
Will 2013 be a record year for U.S. gun sales? There's a lot of evidence suggesting as much.
Despite stepped-up campaigns by gun control advocates in the wake of mass shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo. -- which took place one year ago July 20 -- and an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., the U.S. appears to be entering a new normal when it comes to gun purchases.
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System statistics compiled by the FBI tell at least part of the story. The system is used by federally licensed firearms dealers and manufacturers, but it doesn't distinguish between a firearms check and a firearms sale.
The number of annual background checks run in the U.S. began to jump in 2006 after plateauing at around 8.5 million in the early 2000s. There were 16.4 million checks in 2011 and nearly 19.6 million last year.
http://money.msn.com/now/post--will-2013-mark-record-gun-sales-in-us
This man has no business working on gun legislation.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)He's probably a busy man and if he doesn't have to be briefed on the particulars of whatever it is he is regulating, so be it. He knows all he has to do is hold up a scary looking gun and burble a string of pear shaped vowel sounds to inspire the faithful. He's speaking in tongues. And I have no doubt whatsoever he's a fine legislator and is doing wonderful things for his constituents.
Sometimes you just have to bring out the dogs and ponies because the people need a show.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)This presentation is embarrassing, however. Dog and pony is right, he stands there in from of LEOs as if that lends legitimacy to the thing.
It's really frightening how little electeds often know about a topic, be it the environment and energy, or guns or whatever, and when they don't bother to do a little homework it's downright scary.
spin
(17,493 posts)I would feel it necessary to learn a little about the subject it was dealing with. It wasn't as if he was making a speech in favor of the bill.
Firearm technology and terminology is not rocket science.
But I am beginning suspect that at the local, state and national levels most bills are written by people who know little or nothing about matter that they hope to regulate. If so, that helps to explain the mess we find ourselves in.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)could be written by lobbyists who don't know what they are talking about either.
Colorado's was written by MAIG lobbyists. NY SAFE Act might be another. Neither was well written. For example, the Colorado effectively banned "buy backs"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/organizers-cancel-boulder_n_3642634.html
http://nypost.com/2013/03/25/gov-faking-care-of-business-execs-fume/
Coumo passing the buck or the Post making it up? Maybe the "source" could be a political enemy of Coumo, so that may or may not be true.
If so, it isn't new or unique to them. IIRC, ALEC does the same thing.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Of course he might not have written the bill. That task gets outsourced to lobbyists with fair regularity. Wanna bet MAIG stovepiped him a package?
He's not doing public policy. He's marketing an emotion to ideological consumers.
spin
(17,493 posts)
Bazinga
(331 posts)Of a gun law that malfunctions at the most inopportune time!
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)ideologies fail to discern the legitimate role of authority (conservative) ideologies when humans are in extremis; that the act of self-defense is "just another" aspect of undersirable conservative thought.
Said another way, perhaps, the ideology of liberal nurturing is primary in all experience, even including extreme threat to ones self and community.
Last edited Fri Jan 31, 2014, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)
It seems the way liberal ideology is frequently, if not commonly, understood the need to actually fight simply cannot exist. In terms of moral belief, there is simply no way to think about it. And since there is no way to think about it, and the other side seems to think about it a lot that dichotomy increases the ingroup/outgroup dynamic. It's a wedge issue that pushes people apart not only between political parties but within them as well.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)to understanding why the NRA Wins. The belief does not ring true with most Americans. It didn't ring true with Gandhi, even though he practiced through ahimsa a personal as well as strategic non-violence; he knew his personal credo was not shared by most people, but was shared as a political movement.
The vulgarization of pacifism in the 60s, the hold-over of a "New Man" theory in some Marxist thought, the belief that government can systematically solve all problems, and the embarrassing tendency of liberals to fall back on pop-up Puritanism in its prohibitionist form, seems to have blinded some Americans to even basic forms of social and political reality. It's a witches' brew of beliefs that has taken on a religious fervor.
As I have written elsewhere, there is an air of profound frustration in the language of controller/banners, as if all the promise of liberal progress and improvement has failed, and an enemy must be found to assuage that frustration. Gun-owners serve as the scarlet letter, but the source of frustration lies much closer to home.
I'm off to read your #4!
