Fireside Chat: Guns and a Culture of Violence?

[Jonathan Hanson]

A few years ago a friend of mine traveled to Guam on business. While wandering around a town he heard what sounded like smallbore gunfire. He wandered over to look and found a shooting gallery. The place was packed with Japanese businessmen who were paying one dollar per shot to shoot .22 rimfire rifles at pop-up ducks and things. The businessmen were going absolutely nuts, blazing away down range, then laughing hysterically and waving the rifles around at each other. Meanwhile the range owner stayed out of the line of fire as best he could, and raked in money.

No comment needed, I think.

 

[robert]

Speaking of the Japanese fascination with guns, have you seen how crazy they are with the airsoft stuff? We're talking thousands of dollars for bb guns along with major funds tied up in equipment.

 

[navara-au]

See my note above - I just don't agree you can make such a grossly blanket statement about any one culture or nation's citizens. Also, using such a word as "wrong" to describe something we all are clearly informed and passionate about is just inviting trouble (and then you duck and run)!

Yes your right it was very gutless of me to make a passing statement like that and I apologize.
Yes from my little contact I have of genuine American citizens (opposed to what I get from media) is that you are very polite, courteous, moral; bunch of folk..... Which makes it even harder for me to see such broad range acceptance of guns IMHO.

I am a member of another American 4x4 forum, which someone started show us your guns type thread. Expecting to see a few hunting rifles, shot guns and the odd pistol (which was the main type of gun on the thread), but there were people proudly showing off there full on assault type weapons and enough ammo to do a lot of damage. Now my reaction was BLOODY HELL! are they legal?,why would you want to own guns like that? To which I got the usually its part of our constitutional right blah blah we dont subscribe to liberal views blah blah (Sorry there was a little more than that but you get the picture).
OK do you now the thing that disturb me the most was that no one and I mean no one seemed to see a problem with those types of weapons, it was all just a lot of "cool", "that's a nice (insert what ever type of gun that was)". Also I see other people in various poses (not unlike the way that maniac in the campus masica posed) showing off there guns.
Then I see someone post do you carry a gun when you go camping thread here. Again there is what seems to be the total acceptance that when you go somewhere in America you pack a gun. The only one who seem to question this philosophy seems to be the foreigners??
Look I'm 42 years old have a wife and 4 children. Left school when I was 15 and worked as a plumber in the construction industry ever since(that explains my poor grammar.....thank god for spell check)). Ive always been an outdoorsy bloke (much rather be sitting on a beach somewhere with a beer in one hand and a fishing rod in the other than a 5 star resort). When I was in my teens and early twenties a lot of my mates had guns for hunting. (and that is all we ever used them for. Never for self protection, if we weren't going hunting we didnt take the guns).........Now the point I'm trying to make is that I'm just an average citizen who if I lived in the states probably would think the same as you do about guns.....but I dont, sure I could buy guns if I wanted to there is a gun shop several blocks from my house and a shooting range 1 mile away and its not that hard to get a gun license, but I have no desire to own one and would have to say most of my neighbors and friends think the same.

Does that make any sense???....probably not I guess what I'm basically saying is that why there is still violence in my society its for the most part avoidable. I cant see how having a gun would change anything for the better.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

I guess what I'm basically saying is that why there is still violence in my society its for the most part avoidable. I cant see how having a gun would change anything for the better

Sorry; I understand what you're trying to say, but this naive statement is what everyone says who has not yet had violence visited upon them. The attitude reminds me of someone who doesn't carry vehicle insurance because "I've never had an accident." You have failed to understand the utterly random nature of violence and the pro-active nature of self-defense.

How could Roseann have "avoided" the pervert when she was hiking? Would you tell her she shouldn't have been hiking? Or not hiking alone? Is your response to such incidents to place blame or responsibility on the victim? Many do. Do you honestly think your society is devoid of such individuals, or that you can "avoid" them?

Would you suggest that she should have used physical self-defense? That a 120-pound woman should fight hand to hand with a 180-pound assailant?

That answer might be obvious, but would you suggest that I, a 150-pound male, have a duty to physically close with a 150-pound assailant? Is there some twisted sense of fair play that I should only meet aggression with equal (or lesser!) aggression? Many believe in this doctrine, and again, they have usually not experienced a random assault carried out by someone with absolutely no corresponding sense of fair play.

Criminals invariably choose as victims those they believe to be helpless. Most people realize this at some basic level. It's not surprising that very few anti-gun advocates put up signs in front of their houses proclaiming something like "We are a proudly gun-free household."

Another misconception being tacitly accepted here is that using a gun in a defensive situation necessarily means you're going to shoot someone. That is very rarely the case. In the overwhelming majority of instances - such as Roseann's - the display of the weapon and the obvious readiness to use it is enough to gain control of the situation.

And that is what carrying a weapon for self-defense is all about: Control of your own situation.

 

[kcowyo]

And that is what carrying a weapon for self-defense is all about: Control of your own situation.

Agreed.

More than a culture of violence, I feel most of the fascination with firearms, in any culture, is about control.

From the first shot fired in this country against the Indians, to the 7 violent crimes that occurred while you've been reading this post, it's all about someone trying achieve control over someone else.

I don't believe we live in a culture rooted in violence. I believe we live in a society driven by fear to consume, to achieve more than our neighbor & the previous generation and to be in control of our rights. However warped a person's interpretation of those rights may be.

Violence, to achieve control, is a by-product of that mindset. :REOutShootinghunter

 

[Ursidae69]

The internet really brings the world together, how else could we have exchanges like this? :friday:

I see navara-au's point about the "show me your gun thread" on another forum where it must look really odd from a foreigner’s perspective to see people posting poser shots with their legal assault rifles the same time when the photos of the killer from Virginia Tech are all over the news with pictures of himself posing with his legal firearms. There is no other way to explain it other than that is America… We are unique. Where else do you have the amount of gun violence from the citizenry than we do and yet an issue like gun control is taboo?

I own many guns and I often discretely take them on trips, but I also advocate for a little bit more gun control. That automatically makes me un-American in many people’s eyes in this country. That is the “gun culture” that this thread keeps bringing up. The way all types of guns are protected by all means no matter the situation. Why not have a little bit of gun control? Why should a foreigner be allowed to legally buy a handgun here in the USA like this ************ at Virginia Tech did? Seriously? How is passing that little bit of gun control a bad thing? I know, 2nd amendment, blah, blah, it’s a rhetorical question…

The bottom line is that guns are never going away, especially here, so we have to deal with it and I deal with it by taking my gun on trips in case I meet a nut job who has one too. In 1992 I actually had to pull my Ruger P89 on a guy that refused to leave my campsite and was threatening me and my ex-wife. Had he taken another step towards us that day, I would have ended him for sure without hesitation. This was near Childs Arizona and even though it is a beautiful place, I have never been back.

Where does that leave me? A legal gun owner, trained and willing to use my weapons, who thinks guns are part of our culture and doesn’t want the government taking my guns, but thinks a certain amount of gun control is not necessarily a bad thing. Clear as mud like every other issue out there… :smilies27

 

[calamaridog]

Does that make any sense???....probably not I guess what I'm basically saying is that why there is still violence in my society its for the most part avoidable. I cant see how having a gun would change anything for the better.

I understand what you are saying. Why does an american citizen need an AR15 semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine? It's a fair question, I believe.

The answer however is a bit more complex than the common sense question. There are many Americans who believe wholeheartedly that NO American citizen needs to "bear arms", however, the founding fathers of our Nation, who did not trust government very much, felt otherwise.

The intention of the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution was that the Militia, aka armed citizens, would have access to the same weapons as the standing army.

People are so passionate about this idea, that the Democrats have, for the most part, abandoned "gun control" as an issue that is, quite frankly, political suicide. Even in the wake of these recent murders at Virginia Tech, most politicians are NOT calling for "gun control".

The prevelance of violence in our society is the product of a huge combination of COMPLEX issues, having nothing to do with the right of free citizens to bear arms. The catch 22 is that the shear number of firearms available makes it relatively easy for criminals to aquire the firearms as well.

As a law enforcement officer, I have no problem with the concept of legal firearm ownership. There are too many cases of honest people defending themselves for me to think otherwise.

The problem with your logic is the random nature of violence in this (and many other) society. While much of the violence is directed from one criminal to the other, a good portion is directed towards random persons or targeted persons, usually persons who appear to be helpless.

In my opinion, the right to "self-defense", is the most important right a human being has. And as far as defending oneself goes, you should always bring greater force to bear on your attacker than they are bringing upon you.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Chuck, the shooter in Virginia obtained his gun illegally, and if existing laws had been enforced he would not have been able to buy it from a retail dealer. He had been involuntarily committed for psychological observation at one point, and lied about it on his application. If records had been properly up to date a red flag would have been raised, and not only would his application have been denied, but authorities would have been alerted that someone with a record of restraining orders and anti-social behavior had tried to purchase a weapon with a false application, a crime in itself. So existing laws might have prevented the slaughter.

With that said, I, a firm second amendment supporter, also would be in favor of a one-time, nation-wide competency and background test for all firearms purchasers (funded by the applicants), and an issued license for identification. Then: Hands off. Don't tell me how many guns I can own, or how many cartridges I can load in a magazine, or how long my barrels have to be, or any of the other myriad, useless restrictions that have been or are in force.

Trying to restrict how many guns a person can own, to prevent violence, is like restricting how many cars a person can own, to prevent drunk driving.

 

[Ursidae69]

Chuck, the shooter in Virginia obtained his gun illegally, and if existing laws had been enforced he would not have been able to buy it from a retail dealer. He had been involuntarily committed for psychological observation at one point, and lied about it on his application. If records had been properly up to date a red flag would have been raised, and not only would his application have been denied, but authorities would have been alerted that someone with a record of restraining orders and anti-social behavior had tried to purchase a weapon with a false application, a crime in itself. So existing laws might have prevented the slaughter.

With that said, I, a firm second amendment supporter, also would be in favor of a one-time, nation-wide competency and background test for all firearms purchasers (funded by the applicants), and an issued license for identification. Then: Hands off. Don't tell me how many guns I can own, or how many cartridges I can load in a magazine, or how long my barrels have to be, or any of the other myriad, useless restrictions that have been or are in force.

Trying to restrict how many guns a person can own, to prevent violence, is like restricting how many cars a person can own, to prevent drunk driving.

Yeah, I know about the application issues with him being committed before. My point was why do we let non-US citizens buy guns? That should be a right for the citizenry only, not anybody here. Had he not been committed, he still should not have been allowed to buy a gun. That is the gun control I'm advocating for in this case. I also totally agree with the second part of your post. That would be fine with me. That is still a form of gun control though and Wayne la Pierre would be mad. :yikes:

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Why does an american citizen need an AR15 semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine? It's a fair question, I believe.

On the surface this does indeed sound like a fair question. But in reality it is the innocuous-sounding foot in the door for those who would completely strike down the second amendment. Who needs an assault rifle? Who needs a magazine that holds more than ten rounds? Who needs a .50-caliber rifle? Or a .40-caliber? Who needs a semi-automatic pistol, when a revolver would suffice? All these questions have been asked by anti-gun activists. What such questions accomplish is to focus attention on the implement rather than the behavior.

It's almost humorous that so much attention is lavished on assault rifles, when statistically they are used in a vanishingly small percentage of crimes.

And 30-round magazines tend to be unreliable. I stick to 20-rounders in my AR15.

 

[calamaridog]

On the surface this does indeed sound like a fair question. But in reality it is the innocuous-sounding foot in the door for those who would completely strike down the second amendment.

Don't be afraid of the hard questions. They are easy to answer if you are right. And coming from a foreigner, I think it is a fair question, not a lead-in to an ambush.

Why has "gun control" fallen on its face? Because reason sometimes prevails, and people are starting to see through the b/s.

It's almost humorous that so much attention is lavished on assault rifles, when statistically they are used in a vanishingly small percentage of crimes.

Well, assault rifles are like monster trucks, they garner attention

And 30-round magazines tend to be unreliable. I stick to 20-rounders in my AR15.

This is all I need:REOutShootinghunter

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

More than enough.

A pre-64 Winchester Model 94 is high on my want list. Lever guns are the original high-capacity, ambidextrous, fast-shooting "assault rifle."

Come to think of it, who needs such a thing?

 

[VikingVince]

Chuck, the shooter in Virginia obtained his gun illegally, and if existing laws had been enforced he would not have been able to buy it from a retail dealer. He had been involuntarily committed for psychological observation at one point, and lied about it on his application. If records had been properly up to date a red flag would have been raised...

Unless there's been a change in the news and facts in the last day or so, he was never committed involuntarily. He went voluntarily to psychological treatment (when directed by a physician with the proper authority) and that's why no red flags were raised and according to VA law, he bought the gun legally.

 

[calamaridog]

More than enough.

A pre-64 Winchester Model 94 is high on my want list. Lever guns are the original high-capacity, ambidextrous, fast-shooting "assault rifle."

Come to think of it, who needs such a thing?

You ever try a follow up shot?

Ever try 30 follow up shots That means you need to practice:wings:

 

[DaktariEd]

Vince,
The shooter was sent to psychological counseling, then was petitioned to be involuntarily commited to an institution. The judge acted on the psychiatrist's report that stated he knew right from wrong and was in "control" of his faculties, and declined the institutionalization. He DID rule he was a danger to self and ordered outpatient counseling...