-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Emotional ties toward gun control need to be reconsidered
- Thread starter Mitchell
- Start date
Raggs
Regular Member
Ok, I know that anti-gun folks don't get it, what i don't know is why they don't get it. I do not think they are bad people, just sadly misguided. It saddens me that we can't discuss this in a rational manner, and i agree some people on the anti side are irrational I can't help but to think that some pro-gun folks are as well.
Shadow Bear
Michigan Moderator
What the 'deep thinkers' are not thinking, is quite simply- no law prevents crime from happening.
No amount of 'drug control' has stemmed the flood of drugs entering (or being manufactured) in this country.
What would be different about gun control? What's the magic in gun control that will make it fool proof? If we knew, we could apply it to illegal drugs, etc. and all live in a Utopian society, singing Kumbahyah.
Violence is a basic part of the human condition. Take away guns, and then you'll have to take away knives, then clubs, then pillows and rope. No amount of law will stop it. A bullet will, absolutely.
Down deep, all criminals are cowards; the prowl the edges of the 'flock', looking for the weak, sick, distracted. They have absolutely no interest in going after members that are able to defend themselves (and the flock).
Think of me as a well armed sheepdog. There's some deep thinking for you......
No amount of 'drug control' has stemmed the flood of drugs entering (or being manufactured) in this country.
What would be different about gun control? What's the magic in gun control that will make it fool proof? If we knew, we could apply it to illegal drugs, etc. and all live in a Utopian society, singing Kumbahyah.
Violence is a basic part of the human condition. Take away guns, and then you'll have to take away knives, then clubs, then pillows and rope. No amount of law will stop it. A bullet will, absolutely.
Down deep, all criminals are cowards; the prowl the edges of the 'flock', looking for the weak, sick, distracted. They have absolutely no interest in going after members that are able to defend themselves (and the flock).
Think of me as a well armed sheepdog. There's some deep thinking for you......
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
I think the reason that the gun-control crowd has not used rational discussion to further their cause is... because they can't.
Perhaps some of us here were raised in a pro-gun household, but I think for most of us we weren't. Most of us have evolved in our thinking regarding firearms. Personally, I never had an interest in firearms as a child. A firearm was a tool to be used for hunting or, in extreme circumstances, for protection of a home from people who intended to hurt those inside.
Using pure, unemotional logic to consider everything I once believed, I've definately made a change regarding firearms:
I once thought people should have to have a license to own a firearm, thought there should be training, thought that certain people should under no circumstances have a firearm in their possession, ever. But, eventually, all of these emotional suppositions fell under the power of rational consideration. If a person begins to consider all of the presuppositions that one may have regarding firearms, I think that eventually they will fall. Furthermore, I have never had someone with whom I've discussed the issue rationally walk away saying that there should be more laws to further limit firearm possession.
In regards to people who support strict gun laws, since I work in an environment in which I have been exposed to many such individuals, I suggest the following:
- Acknowledge that bad people do bad things with firearms and resolutely denounce those who use firearms inappropriately.
- Inform them that you once also believed "X", much like the person you are talking to.
- avoid 2A cliches
Then, use TIME as your greatest asset. Whenever appropriate, bring the fact that you carry a firearm into otherwise mundane conversations. But, don't do this in a 10 minute diatribe of 2nd Amendment cliches.
Most importantly, show yourself to be a calm, rational person who happens to carry a firearm. I think just the fact that they know you carry, and they consider you friendly will begin to work in your favor. Also, what I always try to show people is something that I have found to be exceedingly true: people who carry TEND to be the calmest, most welcoming people you will ever meet. Having met most of you, I can say without reservation that NO ONE here has ever displayed any tendency to violence... in fact, quite the opposite.
One example:
A new employee this year was assigned to work with me. Some know where I am employed, so you will immediately understand. Seeing a J&G catalog on my desk one day, this employee informs me that she is fervently an anti. I accept that and say that we will have to agree to disagree on the issue. As the year goes on, I interject a little "gun talk" into my conversations... I talk about guns just as I would talk about golf, bowling, etc. I say that I went to the range with my kids, that I went to a gun show, etc. I try to show her that I am just like most people... I just happen to carry a gun.
Little by little she became less hostile to the whole notion that someone would carry a firearm. In fact, when a group of us all went out for drinks in June, upon leaving the establishment she asked if I had my gun with me because we were in a "bad" part of town. I informed her that I had not brought it in with me since I was going to be drinking... and that there was a state law against doing so. She actually said, "That's a stupid law, you only had 2-3 beers over 3 hours. You aren't drunk." I laughed and said, "Wow, a confirmed ANTI stating that a gun law is stupid..." lol.
About 2 days after this, she asked me where she could take an introductory firearm course as she was considering purchasing one for home protection. ChaChing!
Perhaps some of us here were raised in a pro-gun household, but I think for most of us we weren't. Most of us have evolved in our thinking regarding firearms. Personally, I never had an interest in firearms as a child. A firearm was a tool to be used for hunting or, in extreme circumstances, for protection of a home from people who intended to hurt those inside.
Using pure, unemotional logic to consider everything I once believed, I've definately made a change regarding firearms:
I once thought people should have to have a license to own a firearm, thought there should be training, thought that certain people should under no circumstances have a firearm in their possession, ever. But, eventually, all of these emotional suppositions fell under the power of rational consideration. If a person begins to consider all of the presuppositions that one may have regarding firearms, I think that eventually they will fall. Furthermore, I have never had someone with whom I've discussed the issue rationally walk away saying that there should be more laws to further limit firearm possession.
In regards to people who support strict gun laws, since I work in an environment in which I have been exposed to many such individuals, I suggest the following:
- Acknowledge that bad people do bad things with firearms and resolutely denounce those who use firearms inappropriately.
- Inform them that you once also believed "X", much like the person you are talking to.
- avoid 2A cliches
Then, use TIME as your greatest asset. Whenever appropriate, bring the fact that you carry a firearm into otherwise mundane conversations. But, don't do this in a 10 minute diatribe of 2nd Amendment cliches.
Most importantly, show yourself to be a calm, rational person who happens to carry a firearm. I think just the fact that they know you carry, and they consider you friendly will begin to work in your favor. Also, what I always try to show people is something that I have found to be exceedingly true: people who carry TEND to be the calmest, most welcoming people you will ever meet. Having met most of you, I can say without reservation that NO ONE here has ever displayed any tendency to violence... in fact, quite the opposite.
One example:
A new employee this year was assigned to work with me. Some know where I am employed, so you will immediately understand. Seeing a J&G catalog on my desk one day, this employee informs me that she is fervently an anti. I accept that and say that we will have to agree to disagree on the issue. As the year goes on, I interject a little "gun talk" into my conversations... I talk about guns just as I would talk about golf, bowling, etc. I say that I went to the range with my kids, that I went to a gun show, etc. I try to show her that I am just like most people... I just happen to carry a gun.
Little by little she became less hostile to the whole notion that someone would carry a firearm. In fact, when a group of us all went out for drinks in June, upon leaving the establishment she asked if I had my gun with me because we were in a "bad" part of town. I informed her that I had not brought it in with me since I was going to be drinking... and that there was a state law against doing so. She actually said, "That's a stupid law, you only had 2-3 beers over 3 hours. You aren't drunk." I laughed and said, "Wow, a confirmed ANTI stating that a gun law is stupid..." lol.
About 2 days after this, she asked me where she could take an introductory firearm course as she was considering purchasing one for home protection. ChaChing!
Last edited:
Maine Expat
Regular Member
I do agree with part of that article. There ARE some people who just shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Those who are already restricted still manage to find guns, but there are many folks who aren't restricted that really shouldn't have firearms.
I was asked in my local paper's forum if I was proposing that EVERYONE should be armed (in reference to Aurora), while I was making a case against GFZs and my reply was absolutely not! Many folks just won't, while some people just shouldn't. But lets stop trying to hobble those who ARE responsible LACs who chose to carry and defend their families (and any innocents in the area).
I also ALWAYS point out the many (unreported/under reported) cases where an ALAC defended home/family/folks and took down armed thugs to counter the few, but sensationalized, Aurora type cases.
That 2% vs 11% wrong person stat seems to shut em up too. Thanks M-T!
I was asked in my local paper's forum if I was proposing that EVERYONE should be armed (in reference to Aurora), while I was making a case against GFZs and my reply was absolutely not! Many folks just won't, while some people just shouldn't. But lets stop trying to hobble those who ARE responsible LACs who chose to carry and defend their families (and any innocents in the area).
I also ALWAYS point out the many (unreported/under reported) cases where an ALAC defended home/family/folks and took down armed thugs to counter the few, but sensationalized, Aurora type cases.
That 2% vs 11% wrong person stat seems to shut em up too. Thanks M-T!
Shadow Bear
Michigan Moderator
Hmmmm- you may have a point, but who decides? How do we set the guidelines without requiring a psych eval everytime someone want to purchase? What about a proficiency test? We let people who have minimal skills get a drivers license. Should we have graduated licensing for drivers based on proficiency? Certain folks probably have no business on the freeway. Should we require proficiency tests for an inalienable right? By 'inalienable right, I'm talking about 1st Amendment, not 2nd. Well, why not the 2nd, also.
Be careful what you wish for; someone else will determine if you 'qualify' for a right, and you may not agree.
In a free society, there is some risk that must be accepted. Those who would trade a little liberty for some temporary safety, deserve neither (Jefferson, I think).
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
When stuff happens like Aurora it ends up that the people some believe should not have guns, have them, and they always will. Everybody should be by the constitution the right to defend themselves against such people. We will never be able to cut down enough trees to make more laws to prevent tragedies. There were far less problems when we had fewer of these laws. I wouldn't be surprised if the theater was within 1000 feet of a school. The theater itself was a GFZ, what more laws or restrictions would make any difference in these cases. Maybe the better idea would be outlaw any gathering in excess of a couple people, that would probably prevent mass murders more than these stupid gun laws.
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
I think anyone who posts on 2A websites such as this must be "crazy"... therefore... see how easy that was. I even can actually use my PhD and make it sound legit. As I understand it, the Soviet Union was very good at this tactic.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Anyone who wants to take my guns away ARE bad people IMO.
DocWalker
Regular Member
It's a slow process but changing one anti's option at a time is what it takes, are you sure you didn't use those jedi mind tricks on here....."These are the guns you are looking for......"
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
Perhaps I did... Just wanted to say "Welcome to the Michigan Section". I've enjoyed reading your posts in the ID section.
Last edited:
I do believe that the University in CO goofed but not as much as the psychiatrist. I believe that if there is a documented case of suicidal depression or schizophrenia, there should be some avenue, for a DR, to report to FBI so they have a reason to raise the red flag.
ncwabbit
Regular Member
as occurred in the VA tech case, the University has 'policies' prohibiting their counseling staff from contacting outside agency(ies) due to their perceived privacy issues which is why the psych notified the 'University' crisis team per se.
if the situation were in the 'civilian' arena, e.g., outside the University venue, the psych is mandated by APA ethics and regulatory statutes to immediately notify the authorities of his scheme, real or imagined. additionally, the psych could have put the affected individual on a 3 day hold which would have allowed the police to transport to the nearest mental ward where they would be evaluated and put on appropriate psychtropic meds.
wabbit
PS: VA tech got slapped by the government for their failure to notify the outside agencies about their handing of the suspect!! hopefully the same will occur in the CO case and universities will begin to pull their heads out when dealling w/those who are mentally unstable.
if the situation were in the 'civilian' arena, e.g., outside the University venue, the psych is mandated by APA ethics and regulatory statutes to immediately notify the authorities of his scheme, real or imagined. additionally, the psych could have put the affected individual on a 3 day hold which would have allowed the police to transport to the nearest mental ward where they would be evaluated and put on appropriate psychtropic meds.
wabbit
PS: VA tech got slapped by the government for their failure to notify the outside agencies about their handing of the suspect!! hopefully the same will occur in the CO case and universities will begin to pull their heads out when dealling w/those who are mentally unstable.
Last edited: