Shower Thought about Guns - I don't really care that much about them - I'm not scared of them - I've shot a few - I'm just not into them - death and destruction are not appealing to me - but its weird how many people gather around the 2nd amendment when no one uses it to stand up to gov't oppression

submitted by EndlessSunflowers from self.whatever

Am I wrong?
What am I missing?
When are all these gun freaks gonna use them for good?
Do they think just having them will stop u.s. military style tyranny? LOL
It seems guns are mostly used by kids shooting kids - what am I missing?

all 34 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Work2Death 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"It seems guns are mostly used by kids shooting kids - what am I missing?"

What are you missing? The number of times annually guns are used in self defense in the US, for one.

Per the CDC, there are between 500,000 and 3 million defensive gun uses in the US annually. The big spread is from differing methods of data collection and definitions of defensive gun use. Even using the lowest number, that's 500,000 lives saved to 13,000 gun related homicides annually.

On a related note, calling people "gun freaks" makes you sound like an asshole.

[–]sodasplash 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for the numbers.

It's "amazing" that all the times guns saved people from attack never get reported.

[–]EndlessSunflowers[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Americans might be sitting on stockpiles of guns but it's psychological warfare that they're losing.
Staring at tvs. Being told what to think. eating fast foods. drinking alcoholic poisons. popping pills.
A lot of these "patriots" are still supporting the war machine, and the hate machine, and the political machine by voting for fake leaders.
They've already been divided and conquered in their head.
What are the guns supposed to do?
Make them feel safe?

[–]sodasplash 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

OP, I think we're sort of the inverse on this one.

I've never shot a gun and hope society stays around longer enough so that I never do. I've only ever seen one or two actual guns in my life besides the ones carried by police. I've never even vaguely considered getting one.

And I'm 100% pro-second amendment and a lifetime card carrying member of the NRA. And I'm very glad that there are sensible, sane, god fearing, "gun nuts" out there carrying every day. They protect us every day in more ways than you could imagine and then some.

PS If you think guns are mostly used by kids shooting kids, get your head out of your ass and join the real world. But I don't think you're actually that dumb. I think you're a shill.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think people like the idea of it, more than the reality.

And also any real action based on this would require some sort of "tipping point" as it requires mass engagement. No one person is using the 2nd amendment on their own to change government laws.

Lastly, the gun industry in the US is HUGE. They have to maintain gun sales, and there is no hot external war going on right now, so they've switched to advertising to domestic markets. They play on people's fear as a basis to make sales. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Biggest_arms_sales_2013.png/300px-Biggest_arms_sales_2013.png

The number of guns in the US has been about constant in the last couple decades, but it has shifted from many people owning few guns, to few people owning many guns. The gun industry loves those people who stockpile 300+ guns "Just in case". That is probably their main driver of sales right now.

So, in my super-cynical take on this, the big gusto about the 2nd amendment we hear about so often in the media and forums, is actually just advertising for gun companies. And many of the gun advocates don't even realize that's the only real purpose they're serving, most of the time. They're buying guns to feed their fantasy about some scenario in the future, not because they're actually using them. And the advertising feeds right in to this sort of mentality.

[–]Drewski 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree with you to a point, many people who would "never give up their guns" would never use them to fight oppression either.

You do have a few examples though such as Waco (which ended poorly) and the Bundy standoff (which ended well).

And, I know this isn't everyone, but many people have a personal red line that cannot be crossed by the government.

[–]poestal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

a government is not sustainable without it's people. as of right now we have the right to the first amendment and the right to vote. that should be the first priority in any form of discourse within politics. as the old saying goes "the pen is mightier than the sword" still rings true.

[–]HeyImSancho 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm a large man, larger, and unfortunately by way of genetics at times can appear menacing; it's true about inadequate people wanting to prove themselves by trying to intimidate someone that others would have a little bit of hesitation in messing with. Yet, at the same time, I'm a disabled man, and hurt; my gun has saved my life.

After you've been put feet to fire in trial for your life, do you realize how nice it is to have an equalizer.

[–]HeyImSancho 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Also, on the note of 'what to do', a gun is defensive, a gun does have sporting merit; to be able to calculate out at distance, and hit the target, well anyone try it, it takes skill.

As to what to do to change, or save the world? Learn, share, and educate. Try to help others. Be the change on your own microcosmic level. A gun doesn't change the world, a voice does.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here's Solzhenitsyn the noble peace prize winner and author, Gulag survivor excerpt from a Harvard speech.

Loss of Willpower

And yet -- no weapons, no matter how powerful, can help the West until it overcomes its loss of willpower. In a state of psychological weakness, weapons become a burden for the capitulating side. To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die; there is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time and betrayal. Thus at the shameful Belgrade conference free Western diplomats in their weakness surrendered the line where enslaved members of Helsinki Watchgroups are sacrificing their lives.

Western thinking has become conservative: the world situation should stay as it is at any cost, there should be no changes. This debilitating dream of a status quo is the symptom of a society which has come to the end of its development. But one must be blind in order not to see that oceans no longer belong to the West, while land under its domination keeps shrinking. The two so-called world wars (they were by far not on a world scale, not yet) have meant internal self-destruction of the small, progressive West which has thus prepared its own end. The next war (which does not have to be an atomic one and I do not believe it will) may well bury Western civilization forever.

Facing such a danger, with such historical values in your past, at such a high level of realization of freedom and apparently of devotion to freedom, how is it possible to lose to such an extent the will to defend oneself?

[–]Intuit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I've shot a few - I'm just not into them - death and destruction are not appealing to me

Preventing my own death and destruction are why I favor them. I'm not "into" them, but neither am I into hammers yet it's a useful tool in the proper context.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Do they think just having them will stop u.s. military style tyranny?

Probably not but at least the civilians could die(?) trying to defend themselves. I think it gives a better chance at fighting PHYSICAL threats. That being said, you are right- the psychological warfare is all over the place like poison in river. How can we counter this? I think the education system needs to teach them, from a young age, to think with an open mind so that they don't grow up to be a wanna-be-patriot filled with hatred towards those who are different.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think we need to spread the word "psychological warfare" more often.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

2A people come to see gun ownership as a matter of respect and independence. If you don't already have guns, you probably see no reason to want them either, but if you already have guns and were born into a family that has them, and you admire like the fact that you have the ultimate security device. To have the government tell you that you have to give them up is like the law saying "we're adults, but you're not. We can handle guns, but you can't." If you own guns, all of the shootings and tragedies that happen to other people seem like someone else's problem, because none of it involved your guns, it involved other people's. So from your perspective, you think the gun isn't the problem. People who don't own guns, of course, don't care, since the stand nothing to lose, and everything to gain from guns being harder to acquire or keep.

Our best bet towards limiting guns is to be very generous with grandfather clauses, so that current owners feel secure, while curbing the number of new owners. I suspect a lot of current owners are fine with that, it's the firearms industry that pushes back against limiting new buyers.

[–]sodasplash 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

There's no reason to limit the purchase of new "guns." If you have specific ideas about curbing the illegal use of certain fire arms, I'm all ears.

I've never touched a gun and I feel very passionately about protecting the rights of those I don't personally agree with.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

There's no reason to limit the purchase of new "guns."

To reduce the rate of illegal activities involving guns.

I've never touched a gun and I feel very passionately about protecting the rights of those I don't personally agree with.

OK, but if you outlaw gun ownership, then it's not a right anymore, is it?

[–]sodasplash 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Rights are things we consider inalienable and beyond the law. Principled underpinnings of any free society.

Given that a reduction of the rate of illegal activity involving guns is an unlikely and unprovable outcome of limiting the purchase of guns, you are engaging in a logical fallacy.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Rights are things we consider inalienable and beyond the law. Principled underpinnings of any free society.

Well before there was a second amendment, it wasn't a right. Something can't be inalienable and temporaneous at the same time. If I disagree with a law, then I disagree with a law. If I disagree with a constitutional amendment, then I disagree with a constitutional amendment. I'm not going to defend it just because it exists.

Given that a reduction of the rate of illegal activity involving guns is an unlikely and unprovable outcome of limiting the purchase of guns, you are engaging in a logical fallacy.

Can you cite the specific fallacy? In order to ask that something be made illegal, I don't have to prove anything, a mere hunch is enough. Certain activities have been outlawed for a lot less.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Rights are things we consider inalienable and beyond the law. Principled underpinnings of any free society.

Well before there was a second amendment, it wasn't a right. Something can't be inalienable and temporaneous at the same time. If I disagree with a law, then I disagree with a law. If I disagree with a constitutional amendment, then I disagree with a constitutional amendment. I'm not going to defend it just because it exists.

Given that a reduction of the rate of illegal activity involving guns is an unlikely and unprovable outcome of limiting the purchase of guns, you are engaging in a logical fallacy.

Can you cite the specific fallacy? In order to ask that something be made illegal, I don't have to prove anything, a mere hunch is enough. Certain activities have been outlawed for a lot less.

[–]sodasplash 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A lot of things can be done for a lot less. Clearly we agree to disagree.

I hope your desires to ban guns fail and I'm quite certain they will.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Well before there was a second amendment, it wasn't a right. Something can't be inalienable and temporaneous at the same time. If I disagree with a law, then I disagree with a law. If I disagree with a constitutional amendment, then I disagree with a constitutional amendment. I'm not going to defend it just because it exists.

A Right is Inalienable; The US Constitution was felt by many to be a piece of contrition, or concession of control back to England. The "Bill of Rights", were amendments, added to, in order to get the revolutionists back on board, by literally listing out Natural Inalienable Rights.

The Bill of Rights, not the Constitution, simply enumerates these 'natural world/god given rights'. Any animal in nature has all of the Rights as we know them.

Granted, we live in a controlled world, where you can, and will die in exercising those natural world Inalienable Rights.

A little side jaunt on this: Black's Law Dictionary 3rd Edition:

Definitions:

Inalienable: Not subject to alienation; The Characteristic of those things which cannot be bought, or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; e.g. liberty.

Inalienable Rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without consent of the one possessing such rights.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

A Right is Inalienable; The US Constitution was felt by many to be a piece of contrition, or concession of control back to England. The "Bill of Rights", were amendments, added to, in order to get the revolutionists back on board, by literally listing out Natural Inalienable Rights.

So by your way of thinking, if the Constitution is ammended, it can never be un-amended. I hope you can simply realize that makes no sense. Talk about a person's "rights" being beyond reproach is just rhetoric. People are deprived of these "rights" on a regular basis, for example, when someone is sent to prison.

This confusing notion of rights that you're granted by God himself is something that Americans are indoctrinated with from an early age, but most people in the world don't share in this confusion, and see things more for how they really are; defined more by what you can't do, rather than what you can.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Does a badger not have the same rights, or that of any animal?

Also, what is the difference between a right, and a privilege in your opinion?

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Does a badger not have the same rights, or that of any animal?

You've lost me.

Also, what is the difference between a right, and a privilege in your opinion?

IMO, the distinction is just rhetorical. Rights are intended to be permanent, timeless and even self evident, but ultimately they're none of those things. Legal rights are granted by a government, the same as a legal privileges. If you say you're "defending someone's rights", you're not really defending the person per se, you're defending an existing law (or constitutional provision), and never actually offering a reason as to why you're doing so. Why should someone have the right to own machines that make the taking other people's lives extremely easy?

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

You've lost me. I was explaining to you what a 'Right' is as opposed to 'privilege'. The Bill of Rights, the 1st 10, are considered to be sacred god(whatever, or none you subscribe to) given; they're simply enumerated. My usage of 'natural world rights', is simply my attempt at moving this out of the realm of 'religious' dogma, and moving it into something that can be seen.

Many of the folks named as 'Founders' made it very clear what Rights were, and where they came from by way of 'animal' comparisons.

Away from what a Right is, as it's not something temporary; let's talk guns. The 2nd Amendment is the Right to Arm yourself. Take guns away, humans have the ultimate weapon that with good nutrition, and dedication to knowledge cannot be taken away, and that's complex critical thinking skills.

To apply critical thinking skills to what you say, "Why should someone have the right to own machines that make the taking other people's lives extremely easy?", we already see adaptations with improvised munitions, and other machinery away from guns in many countries. Rights are hard to really take; especially when it's somewhat laid out by 'the law of the land/jungle'.