To me, being not a member of the shooting community, it is exactly that foreign, and seems quite strange. Sitting here, I cannot imagine ever wanting to do so, so far outside of my world it is, and I find myself trying to unravel my initial reaction of surprise and fear.
Commenter APB responding to Caleb's statement that "the concept of carrying a firearm is as alien as little green men.”
I understand APB's reaction completely. I'm a relative noob to the gun world and I still remember some of the reactions I first had that now seem so strange. When I bought my 1st gun I was nervous. Not because I was doing something wrong or didn't trust myself, but because I hadn't grown up around guns. I'd previously had no positive exposure to guns. Instead, everything had reinforced the "guns are bad, guns are taboo" image that many people have. At the time, I felt like I was doing something wrong. Why? because it was strange and foreign to me.
I was completely pro-gun on principle and yet I still feared them, despite knowing just how unfounded and irrational that fear was. Fear is a strange thing. We fear what we've been conditioned to fear, particularly when that fear is borne out of ignorance.
I still remember my 1st range trip. Going in I couldn't shake the feeling that what I was doing was somehow wrong. There was no rational reason for it, and yet there it was, a purely emotional response. Then, after the 1st few shots I realized what nearly every new shooter does. This was FUN.
After bringing my mom to the range for the 1st time, she said to me that she now understood what I meant when I said there's a difference between fear and healthy respect. It's amazing how even a little exposure to guns can change a persons reaction from surprise and fear to healthy respect. Once you've learned to respect rather than fear firearms the idea of carrying one won't evoke the same reactions that it does now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I remember the picture of when you brought your mom to the shooting range.
Do you think someone can be anti-gun and have arrived at that position with good intentions, not out of fear or ignorance?
MikeB,
I think someone can be anti-gun and have arrived at that position with good intentions.
However, when the evidence is examined, the law understood, the rights clearly defined, the statistics validated and comprehended; I don't think anyone can stay "anti-gun" with good intentions.
Regardless of your position on firearm related violence, continuing to call for the removal of our rights, the confiscation of our firearms, the implementation of laws that impact the legitimate owner more then the criminal.....those are actions that are diametrically opposed to the values of freedom, liberty and self determination that defines our country.
MikeB, seeing as you can't discuss a firearms-related issue without : #1. Telling a Lie, #2. Citing a Debunked Study, #3. Denying Reality, #4. Inventing statistics out of thin air: I'd say you've answered your own question quite well.
MikeW: I was there too. I was deeply pro-gun and considering buying my first for a good 3 years before the first one came home....the first dozen weren't very far after that. Was like a DAM broke!
MikeB
someone can be anti-gun, arriving at that position with good intentions based on information presented to them- however, I have yet to meet an anti-gun person who had any positive gun exposure in their life, or even neutral exposure.
Many of my friends who were anti-gun have become pro-gun after firearms exposure. One of the most significant comments I get repeatedly is 'wow this is so different from what I've seen in the movies/ heard on tv'
now I'm not suggesting some cultivationist approach- However I am saying that media does not present guns in a neutral or pro gun light.
Rare is the day that the news does what I think the fourth estate has an obligation to do with regards to firearms.
Weer brings up a great point. Your insistence on erroneous assertions, blind accusations, and general slander would show a malicious example of an anti-gun person who has a personal vendetta against law abiding citizens.
Your response to Mike's post about the holocaust shooting a few days ago is a prime example. You tried to draw parallels between gun owners and drunks, felons, and wife beaters.
To respond to your suggestion in another way- I have yet to meet a pro-gun person who arrived at their assessment with bad intentions, or based on fear and ignorance- which is the other half of the suggestion your making.
Do I think that someone can start out as anti-gun, having arrived their with the best of intentions? Sure.
Do I think that someone can stay anti-gun after examining the rights, implications, statistics, realities, stories, anecdotes, data, exlanations, an everything else that there is out there concerning the debate, and still do so "with good intentions, not out of fear or ignorance"? Well, at that point, ignorance would be excluded, as would good intentions, so you are pretty much reduced to fear, authoritarian desire to control other people, or outright idiocy.
Take your pick.
Bob said, "the removal of our rights, the confiscation of our firearms, the implementation of laws that impact the legitimate owner more then the criminal.....those are actions that are diametrically opposed to the values of freedom, liberty and self determination that defines our country."
If it takes all those things to correct the gun violence problem in the U.S., then I suggest they aren't "diametrically opposed to the values of freedom, liberty and self determination that defines our country."
You say they are "diametrically opposed," I don't. I'd say if guns are causing as much trouble as they are, yeah I know they're inanimate objects, then some changes need to be made in what we call "freedom" and "rights."
mike's spot said, "Your response to Mike's post about the holocaust shooting a few days ago is a prime example. You tried to draw parallels between gun owners and drunks, felons, and wife beaters."
I did nothing of the kind. I said on that occasion and many others that among the gun-owning public there are "drunks, felons, and wife beaters."
We've got the percentages down to approximately 90% / 10% now. If you're not among the 10%, what's your problem? Do you deny they exist? Are all gun owners somehow immune to the ills that afflict the regular folk?
"If it takes all those things to correct the gun violence problem in the U.S., then I suggest they aren't "diametrically opposed to the values of freedom, liberty and self determination that defines our country.""
Well they ARE at #1, and #2, every place where such controls that you advocate have been implemented gun violence goes UP.
Other forms of violence go UP MORE!
It's called Reality, MikeB, I'm pretty sure you live there too!
I'd say if guns are causing as much trouble as they are, yeah I know they're inanimate objects, then some changes need to be made in what we call "freedom" and "rights."
False. And, thankfully, the old farts who founded this country of ours knew better.
If you're not among the 10%, what's your problem?
My problem is someone who has already professed to being incapable of determing fact from fiction pulling numbers out of his ass. My problem is someone using those made-up numbers as supposed leverage for castigating all firearm-owners. My problem is stereotyping, discriminating, intolerant bigots.
Any other questions?
We've got the percentages down to approximately 90% / 10% now.
Who is this we? You're the only one throwing around random, unsubstantiated crap and trying to pass it off as fact.
You literally pull these percentages out of your rear as if somehow throwing out random numbers gives validity to your position.
We deal in reality here at Another Gun Blog. You have a position? Great, back it up with something substantive. You've got accusations? Great, but you'd better prove it
back up what you say Mike
MikeB
I have no idea what your 90/10 thing is- also, you made no mention to the rest of my post. If you feel that its completely inaccurate fine, but your refusal to address full arguments and instead try to focus on fragments of statements just doesn't make sense to me.
Mike's Spot, Sorry for not addressing "full arguments." But, maybe you do the same thing sometimes, no?
When you said, "Weer brings up a great point. Your insistence on erroneous assertions, blind accusations, and general slander would show a malicious example of an anti-gun person who has a personal vendetta against law abiding citizens," I wondered if you're taking Weer'd's word for that or if you've seen it for yourself in my writing.
I have some pro-gun friends who are capable of arguing without resorting to name-calling and incivility. I'd invite you to be one of them.
The 90 / 10 idea is this: 90% of the 50 million or so gun owners are responsible safe people. 10% are not. It's just a theory of mine, which I realize none of you guys subscribe to. But if you had to guess, what do you think those percentages should be?
MikeB,
We don't have to guess....the statistics show the highest possible percentage!
The FBI reported 500,000 firearm related violent crimes.
For the math impaired 500,000 divided by 80,000,000 firearm owners = 0.625%
A far cry from your 10%.
So, if you think that the number is higher, there is a simple way to convince us --- PRESENT EVIDENCE.
Show us any data that would support your ideas.
Now, that 0.635% is if every firearm related violent crime was committed NOT by a GANG BANGER, NOT committed by someone SELLING DRUGS, NOT committed by a criminal in the commission of YET ANOTHER CRIME, NOT BY SOMEONE ILLEGIBLE TO OWN A FIREARM.
We, the pro-freedom, pro-KNOWLEDGE, Pro-RIGHTS folks don't have to guess, we use the EVIDENCE.
In order of your 10% to be right, there would have to be 7,500,000 unreported firearm related crimes A YEAR. Does that sound reasonable?
(10% divided by 0.625% = 16 then multiple 16 by the reported number of firearm related crimes - minus the number of reported crimes
[{500,000*16}-500,000] = 7.5 Million)
So, I've provided the EVIDENCE to show your idea isn't reasonable, doesn't pass a common sense test.
Can you provide anything close to evidence showing it is closer to 10% than it is closer to less then 1%?
mike b,
long time reader, first time to comment.
good info on the holster...i've been CCW since FLA adopted the rule. soon, you will get dressed and along with your wallet, keys, and pocket gear, your holster will be donned ever day. with no thought, you will look about you and be the" observant" one. you will walk taller, react slower and more deliberation and be comfortable with your new-found place in the system.. welcome to the sheepdog set, my friend.
keep up the good blogging,
rainman in daytona
Can you provide anything close to evidence showing it is closer to 10% than it is closer to less then 1%?
But MikeB does not care about evidence! MikeB does not care about statistics either! MikeB believes what MikeB believes, and because MikeB believes it, it must be true!
Gods. This guy is like the Mr. T of the hoplophobic community, only nowhere near as intimidating/entertaining/amusing.
I pity the fool....
Frank - Thanks for the comment. Hope you find my ramblings here interesting enough to keep reading and commenting.
MikeB
I have been civil with you up until you equated me to drunkards and felons. Every prior comment thread we had was civil on my part.
You sir, are very short with your memory.
As for taking weer's word-
Also referencing your short memory- I have tried to discuss this with you with civility for months. You have always had a consistently erroneous and accusatory tone.
How long would you like me to wait before I make an assessment on your character? Would a full year be necessary?
You don't even have the courtesy to recall previous comment threads. Either you disrespect the people you dispute that much, or your so set on your superiority that you ignore dissenters with such disregard as to be impressive.
as for your 90/10 theory-
A theory, good sir, is based on some assertion- either by observing behavior or by postulating behavior and conducting tests for validity.
I will go out on a limb and say you have not tested your theory at all, as you never reference anything that could be considered fact.
As such, yours is not a theory, but instead is a 'hunch'. One which you have based on some bias that you harbor.
If you recall, I even offered to take you shooting to show you the gun culture first hand earlier in our back and forth conversations some months ago-
that offer still stands.
I will also say this- you should consider that when you accuse others of slander or name calling- that they will be more likely to do so because your comments so often contain thinly veiled derogatory remarks at gun owners.
Would you prefer we sit here, and let you blindly accuse us? saying we should take responsibility for the actions of mad men, as you have suggested in the past?
No. Ask not of others that which you cannot deliver yourself.
Furthermore- at no point did I ever call you a name in this comment thread. I checked it again to be certain.
Why are you so insistent on making unsubstantiated claims against a group of people who evidence shows are less likely to be involved in any kind of criminal action?
citation:
Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau, reported in San Antonio Express-News, September, 2000
An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Carry Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population, William E. Sturdevant, PE, September 11, 1999
National Association of Chiefs of Police, 17th Annual National Survey of Police Chiefs & Sheriffs, 2005
Now if you want to dispute the analyzes or samples of the above mentioned works- then we can get somewhere. If not- then you will probably go back to insulting us again and suggesting we all take responsibility for the actions of crazed people who probably have arrest records dating back several years.
Mike's Spot, Sorry for not remembering your invitation to go shooting. Was that on my blog or yours, or one of the others'? I couldn't see it. But I swear my not remembering that or failing to reference previous threads is not out of disparagement or superiority.
The 90/10 thing shall be called a "hunch" from now on. I've actually been compiling some links and sources to back it up a little, which I plan to post one of these days.
I have to warn you though, it won't add up to proof, even in my eyes. The reason for that is the statistics for much of this stuff are just not available. We can see how many murders there were and how many non-fatal shootings. But how can we count the number of brandishings which resulted in neither injury nor police report? How can we count the number of unstable people who own guns and who, over the next years will be responsible for thousands of incidents.
These things are difficult to quantify, but I'll do my best.
"I have to warn you though, it won't add up to proof, even in my eyes. The reason for that is the statistics for much of this stuff are just not available."
Oh hell, there are PLENTY of statistics available. I KNOW, I've cited them numerous times.
I think what you mean MikeB, is that the statistics required to back up your position are "just not available." Ever wonder why that is Mike?
The 90/10 thing shall be called a "hunch" from now on.
Why beat around the bush? Be a man and call a spade a spade - your specious "10%" is nothing more than a made-up lie, fabricated out of whole cloth, and intended to discredit firearm-owners without the benefit of facts, evidence, or supporting information.
This conversation would go a lot faster and be a lot more useful if you would at least be honest with yourself, much less everyone else.
Linoge - MikeB, like other anti's is incapable of intellectual honesty, ESPECIALLY with himself.
See my post "Sad But Predictable."
MikeB
The offer was on Mike's blog here- Another gun blog.
When you compile your post, please let me know. I will never turn down a reasoned discourse. Even if we never agree, at least I'll hopefully better understand your position.
As for the proof- Proof is relative. Very few things in this world are 'proved'. However, if your argument is compelling and well formulated, I promise I'll give it an honest read.
The statistics you reference are difficult. They require scaling of such subjective, qualitative things that it would be tough apply it in a manner most people can understand.
Think of it like getting into a fight with your boss. If he makes you 'seven units of angry' on an arbitrary scale, how does one rectify it? Are 'seven units of happy' equivalent? Complex constructs represent one of the most difficult tasks that social scientists have to try to address.
Fundamentally though- I see what may be the biggest divergence in our philosophies. You look for these numbers as evidence of the negative consequences of guns, I would look at the data about brandishing as potentially deterred crimes. Without a police report for each incident, its tough to code them.
On the data available though- Like that about incidence rate for the arrest of Concealed carry permit holders, I find it compelling that they are less likely to be involved in crimes.More to the point, when you look at the conviction rate of CCP holders, they fall way below the average. (arrests are nice, but really anyone can be arrested for mistaken identity, convictions are a much better assessment of character I think)
So we have an x factor at work. There is something about people who have a permit that keeps them out of as much trouble as other demographics. Is it socioeconomic status? is it an age gap? gender? No one knows- but something about it seems to suggest that gun owners can be less likely to be criminals. That at a minimum I think should warrant further exploration, and expansion, of gun ownership.
Post a Comment