Gun Culture?? Many here do not realize Guns are a Hobby and a Tool and a Collectors item.

[Logical]

Some people tend to try to use the "gun culture" tactic to try to make it seem like all gun owners are in love with their guns or obsessed with them.

Some people treat guns like seat belts or a smoke detector. You have one in case you need it to protect yourself. That is fine, for many gun owners that is all they are. They carry them for protection or keep them in the house for protection or for hunting.

But then there are people who collect them and they are a hobby for them. It is not more odd of a hobby than collecting stamps or coins or Beanie Babies or old radios or swords or railroad spikes. Yes, gun do kill and in the hands of criminals they are used to kill people. That does not mean that gun collectors increase the crime rate or cause more murders.

Yes, some people are fascinated with guns and love them. What is the problem with that? I think collecting Happy Meal Toys is an odd hobby. There are as many collection hobbies as there are people. That does not make anyone wrong or right.

I for one read gun magazines and do not get the attraction to buying old replica guns or historic guns. But in the same magazine I see ads for old coins or old stamps. I see nothing with people collecting any of those things. just because I don't want to does not make it wrong.

Bill Maher, who I think is a great liberal, does not understand guns are a hobby. Some people love them and love holding them and love shooting them. I know old book collectors who have got teary when finding an old book in a 2nd hand store that they have wanted for years. The love the smell and the texture of the book. Not my deal but I understand it being theirs.

Shooting guns is a fun activity. If you hate guns that sounds silly I know. I think square dancing boring as hell but the people who do it enjoy themselves. Who cares?

What makes this hard for people is that they tend to think of guns only as something to shoot someone with. That is like thinking about stamps as only something to mail a letter with and not understand the attraction of collecting them. I don't collect anything at all. But I can see why people love it as a hobby.

I doubt this will go over well here with some people. That is OK. I hope it makes at lease a few people think about it.

[the other one]

1. Guns are stolen for the purpose of committing crimes.

Unlike coins or stamps or string guns can be used to kill. There is really no comparison.

[Logical]

3. Yes there is. You might not like it but they are still collecting it.

[TheWraith]

4. So are cars.

Some people need to get over the fact their moral outrage over something, be it guns or gays, doesn't give them the right to legislate that morality.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

2. Personally, I like to build early American long guns. Here are a couple.

[DonP]

52. Very nice work. Looks like a lot of patience went into those. (Ntxt)

[rwiliff]

98. What are those?

Vincent and Lancaster?

Warmest Regards,
Robert

[OffWithTheirHeads]

99. Exactly! The lower one is a flintlock modeled on a Lancaster Pennsylvania gun

built approximently in 1770. It took me three years to build it but I was working at the time. The upper rifle is a re-creation of a Vincent, circa 1830 to 1860 and took about 5 or 6 months to build. Both of them shoot well and I can't wait to buiild the next one though nobody I know has any interest in my hobby.

I wish I knew some people who are into this sort of thing because I have no one to ask about it but I love buildinhg these guns
I have some problems shooting them but there is no one about to answer my questions.

[oneshooter]

100. check your PM's

[tridim]

5. I will admit I liked shooting guns when I was a kid.

But I grew out of it.

I guess I can understand why some adults like them, but I've known people who are way over the top with their gun lust. It scares me.

[Logical]

18. I know people like that also. It is scarier when someone seems obsessed with guns I will admit.

[iverglas]

6. and that right there:

Some people treat guns like seat belts or a smoke detector. You have one in case you need it to protect yourself.

is gun culture.

A majority of the world does not share the "culture" that looks at firearms this way.

[Logical]

8. Well, if you find a good way to disarm criminals that does not violate the 2nd. Let me know and I...

will gladly stop needing guns.

Give me a realistic few ideas how you are going to disarm all criminals.

[iverglas]

10. nah, how about

you give me some reason to believe in you "needing" guns.

Pft.

[Logical]

15. So if I can prove some person is alive because of a gun I win? Wow, really?

[iverglas]

16. was this a contest?

If I show you multiple thousands of people (in the US alone) who are dead, every year, because of a gun, and the people maimed and disabled because of a gun, and the families and communities devastated because of a gun, what do I get?


edit because I meant to remind you that I wasn't talking about "somebody" any more than you were when you said

Let me know and I...
will gladly stop needing guns.

You, not somebody.

[Logical]

17. See you did not do what I asked. You antis never do......

I said tell me the first 2 steps you would do to disarm all criminals. A realistic one. Not the stupid stuff like "go door to door collecting guns" or "ban all guns tomorrow". Please be a deep thinker on this task. Please list two items that could even pass a democratic congress and house and whitehouse. Remember the SCOTUS says people have a right to own guns at home. And even liberal dems will not ban all guns.

I will be looking forward to your idea!!!

[iverglas]

21. Oh dear -- I'm sorry, but did you miss post 10?

How odd, since you "replied" to it.

Feel free to answer it. In your own time.

[Logical]

25. Let me answer for you.....

"I have no answer because there is not one, I would rather just complain about guns and not provide a solution."

[iverglas]

31. who's complaining about guns??

Not moi!

It's the people with the guns I think are sometimes problematic ...

And it's the people and families and communities devastated by people with guns that are the ones worthy of my concern.

[Clames]

34. This is where the rest of us snork...

...just snork....

[PavePusher]

59. The Jello.... It's ba-a-a-a-a-ck.......

[rl6214]

20. We gonna put you in for the Secretary of Needs Dept also?

No I guess not, you're not from around here.

[iverglas]

23. my my

Now, who was it said they needed guns, and is backpedalling away from that as fast as their legs will carry them?

[rl6214]

28. Don't think I've EVER said I "need" guns

so no backpedalling here. Maybe you are in charge of the Dept of Needs in canada?

[iverglas]

29. follow the dotted lines

Feel completely free to jump into the middle of a conversation, but do try to follow it.

[rl6214]

35. Come on, you're not that dense...

Talk about not being able to follow the dotted lines, maybe some bread crumbs for you?

[Clames]

38. Those bread crumbs...

...better be soaked in a UV visible dye and have flashing LED's on them.

[Logical]

24. Because if criminals have them then I might need them. And it has been needed many times!

[iverglas]

30. ah, you *might* need them

So you're not "needing" them as previously stated, then. Got it.

[Pacafishmate]

91. Not having to justify need is a major element of freedom.

If we could own exclusively what we needed, it would be a gray world indeed.

[iverglas]

94. welcome, and just a tip:

Read the conversation you choose to join.

This one started with a statement by a person who is not me:

Some people treat guns like seat belts or a smoke detector.
You have one in case you need it to protect yourself.

And continued from there.

I choose to address what is actually said. You could consider the same approach.

I said nothing about "freedom". The subject here is "gun culture". Most conversations actually do have subjects.

In any event, I believe that when you said:

Not having to justify need is a major element of freedom.

you meant to say "prove need".

And actually, limitations on the exercise of freedoms are an enormous element of modern societies.

You could consider that next time you want to advertise your snake oil as a cure for cancer. So much for freedom of speech, eh?

[rl6214]

19. Bullshit

The gun culture is a culture shared by people in the gun politics debate, generally those who advocate preserving gun rights and who are generally against more gun control. In the United States, the term is used solely to identify gun advocates who are legitimate and legal owners and users of guns, using guns for self defense, sporting uses (hunting), and recreational uses (target shooting).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_culture

[iverglas]

22. pft pft pft pft pft!

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

That's from your link, and about says it all.



The Talk page is infinitely more enlightening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gun_culture

How that bit of tripe has been allowed to stick around on the venerable wiki I just don't know.

[rl6214]

27. Yada, yada, yada

You can always pick out a part you like and ignore the main body you don't.

[iverglas]

32. hahahahaha

The "main body" was a stupid pile of vanity-published crap not even full of much sound or fury, but saying pretty much nothing anyhow.

(Lest anyone be concerned, I refer to the wiki article linked to earlier, which I assume was not written by this poster.)

The neutrality is in dispute because what you quoted, precisely, is an opinion. Big duh.

[rl6214]

36. What you've stated is an opinion

"The "main body" was a stupid pile of vanity-published crap not even full of much sound or fury, but saying pretty much nothing anyhow."

and really dosen't mean ...


By the way, how's your eye(s) been since your surgery. You did have surgery recently iirc?

[iverglas]

37. and what I quoted was the wiki consensus opinion

Eye, I have optic nerve damage from the steroid-induced glaucoma and my own negligence. Not debilitating, but annoying.

Leg, I am on my third cast in as many weeks (pre-op, post-op and semi-final, finally fibreglas). Thinking of moving from wheelchair to walker, but not eager to wear out my unbroken leg and shoulders and hands hopping back and forth to the bathroom, so sticking to the wheelchair for now. Speaking of the bathroom ... just the highlight of my hours, those trips are, and one beckons now.

Displaced fracture of the right fibula, that was the question, right?

[rl6214]

42. Damn, sounds like you are having a rough time...

I am about to have (next week) my fourth operation for, you'll laugh at this one, trigger finger. Described below:

Trigger finger, trigger thumb, or trigger digit, is a common disorder of later adulthood characterized by catching, snapping or locking of the involved finger flexor tendon, associated with dysfunction and pain.[1] A disparity in size between the flexor tendon and the surrounding retinacular pulley system, most commonly at the level of the first annular (A1) pulley, results in difficulty flexing or extending the finger and the “triggering” phenomenon.[1] The label of trigger finger is used because when the finger unlocks, it pops back suddenly, as if releasing a trigger on a gun.

I've had the operation on the index finger and thumb on the left hand, the index finger on the right hand and next thursday will have the thumb on the left hand done. Seems to be a little more common in diabetics from what I read and I have been type 1 for 30 years.

Best of luck to you and hope you have a speedy recovery.

[pipoman]

82. That shit made me laugh..

I'm thinking our friend from the North is near comatose with laughter about now..

edit,, Not laughing at your pain..you've got to admit, the irony is hilarious in the context of this exchange..

[iverglas]

95. I won't say you made that up ;)

So, one more thing I have to watch out for with the diabetic co-vivant. As if him nearly dying of DKA twice in a weeek wasn't enough.

Hope your op goes well too, and thanks for your and other well wishes at this end.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. Hope your recovery is quick :) n/t

[ellisonz]

41. That's a really sociologically inadequate definition. n/t

[rl6214]

43. In your opinion, to the rest of us it is just right.

[Remmah2]

47. A sign that other countries "culture" does not embrace liberty.

Other world cultures that do not embrace liberty.

[img][/img]

[iverglas]

48. disgusting

but, of course, not unexpected.

[Remmah2]

50. So is death by machete. nt

nt

[DWC]

66. Now THAT picture is powerful!

Where is it located?

Semper Fi,

[Remmah2]

86. Rwanda

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1288230.stm

[DWC]

56. Guess that makes me a member of the fire extinguisher culture, and

smoke detector culture, and seat belt culture, and first aid kit culture, and the common sense culture, and...

Semper Fi,

[iverglas]

58. well, do you hang around the internet

expending many pixels about smoke detectors, write to your legislators about first aid kits, wear your seat belt to the grocery store ... ?

Now, if you were to take, say, prisms as your comparable, the analogy might be more accurate. One just never knows when that prism around one's neck is going to ward off an evil spirit.

Hm, I'm thinking maybe it should really be called the gun subculture. Because not everybody, even in the USofA, shares its believe in the "need" for those powerful talismen of yours.

[DWC]

79. iverglas wrote:

"well, do you hang around the internet expending many pixels about smoke detectors, write to your legislators about first aid kits, wear your seat belt to the grocery store... ?"

Actually, I do. My company works with electronic alarm systems (including fire) and handles OSHA required first aid items and kits. Further, in Texas, it is required by law to always wear the seat belt while driving or sitting in the front passenger seat when the vehicle is moving on public roads and going anywhere; even to the grocery store.

Semper Fi,

[iverglas]

80. I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear!

You never know, eh?

You can read this:

well, do you ... wear your seat belt to the grocery store... ?

as meaning this:

well, do you ... wear your seat belt INto the grocery store... ?

But then I think you knew that!

Now if you can just find somebody with no business/employment interest in smoke detectors and first aid kits who is as active in their devotion to them on line and in real life as some are to guns, you'll have said something useful!

[DWC]

87. Oh, you were clear. Clearly Wrong - Again.

You really meant "into the grocery store" ?!?!

Now THAT really is a Load of B.S.

Concerning the other points addressed: You know virtually nothing about me or any other person in this group whatever their stated position on the issue. Your continued assumptions concerning others really do devalue your input to zero minus a bunch.

Semper Fi,

[saras]

7. More fair and honest to compare gun collectors to collectors of medieval torture equipment...

Guns are killing tools. Pistols are human-killing tools. Someone who fetishes over a people-killing tool and DOESN'T UNDERSTAND why other people are uncomfortable with that??? Someone who loves machining can find plenty of other machined things to admire, that don't have the primary purpose of killing people, and all the emotional connotations that come with that.

It's probably the idea of someone who spends a lot of time thinking about guns and DOESN'T think about killing with them that seems unbelievable and bizarre - who could trust someone capable of that kind of denial?

It just seems really stupid to pretend that they are pliers or something, and that they don't, to the vast majority of humans on earth, have a powerful set of emotional connotations, almost none of which have anything to do with hunting and almost all have to do with military oppression.

[Logical]

9. So you think gun collectors want to kill someone?

[saras]

83. If you're going to lie that grossly about my clearly visible post, how do you expect a sane debate?

If, for you, "thinking about" and "wanting" are indistinguishable, you personally have no business with a gun, a car, or a space outside a mental institution. To the rest of us, they are profoundly different and unmistakably separate.

No, my point is that NOT wanting to kill, while fetishing over a killing tool, is NOT COMPREHENSIBLE TO OTHERS. It's not BELIEVABLE. It doesn't square with the rest of their life experience - why should guns be such a complete exception to normal human thought?

"It's probably the idea of someone who spends a lot of time thinking about guns and DOESN'T think about killing with them that seems unbelievable and bizarre - who could trust someone capable of that kind of denial?"

You can spend all day, every day, thinking about NOT wanting to kill, and HATING killing, and being REVOLTED by killing. You're still spending the day thinking about killing. Maybe you're a prison warden, maybe you're a soldier. But you're still spending all day thinking about killing.

[Remmah2]

90. Don't think about elephants.

Last edited Fri Mar 2, 2012, 01:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Seriously.

Seems you spend you day thinking about killing people.


PS: Do people who own fire extinguishers think about arson all day?

[ileus]

12. My SD firearms are people saving tools.

Some are just plain target tools
Some are hunting tools
Some are for collecting, same as coins or stamps. I have 7 that I have never shot...one dating back to 1986 when I acquired it. Several that I haven't shot but a handful of times.



No gun for civilian use is designed to kill....that's not their purpose.

[Straw Man]

14. You win the hyperbole award.

Medieval torture equipment? Sure, why not? As long as you're not actually torturing people with it.

It's probably the idea of someone who spends a lot of time thinking about guns and DOESN'T think about killing with them that seems unbelievable and bizarre - who could trust someone capable of that kind of denial?

Well, it's not quite like what you think. People who deal with guns have to think about the fact that guns can kill because if they don't, they run the risk of handling them carelessly. Denial? No, denial would be dangerous. It's the same with motor sports and the like.

But what the hell, if you really believe in the mental strain of the "denial," maybe you could start a support group for recovering biathletes.

It just seems really stupid to pretend that they are pliers or something, and that they don't, to the vast majority of humans on earth, have a powerful set of emotional connotations, almost none of which have anything to do with hunting and almost all have to do with military oppression.

It just seems really stupid to pretend that a tool, which is by definition morally neutral, must necessarily be a tool of oppression when it can just as easily be a tool of liberation.

[Remmah2]

51. Sigh

[img][/img]

[ileus]

11. Guns kil people....and are scary.

[bluerum]

13. Some don't like guns. They never will. No matter what you say.

Different strokes for different folks, ya know Vern?

Now as far as the second amendment is concerned, we all have to live with and accept that. But I think some states have done a poor job at trying to control gun crime through controling gun sales.

[RevStPatrick]

26. Why are you defensive about "gun culture"?

You talk about guns as a hobby and as collectors items.
Ummm... that's pretty much the definition of culture!
Things that humans like to do, things that give us pleasure, things that we share with each other.
Keep 'em locked up when they're not being used and don't point them in your face.
Why be defensive about it?

And as far as guns being a tool, yep, that's true as well.

The problem that some of us have with "gun culture" is the few of its members who do things like bring their guns to a school polling station or a presidential event, just to prove that they "have the right" to do so. They are being dumbasses, and nobody needs a dumbass with gun hanging around.

And what about those people who feel they have to have a gun strapped to their side every time they go to the store for a pack of smokes? I don't particularly like being around paranoids, and paranoids packing heat are a never any fun.

The culture part is fine, it's the paranoid dumbasses we can live with out.

[Union Scribe]

46. Probably because the term is regularly used here

to smear all gun owners as "dumbasses" or criminals or criminals-in-waiting. One such use was in reply to you in another thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/117218481#post13

[Hoyt]

33. And those things can be done without packing in public.

Smoking is an addiction and habit, but we control it in public and discourage the heck out of it. Why not lethal weapons?

[Logical]

39. So you know how to disarm criminals? Do tell!!!

[Hoyt]

40. Oh come on. Not that "criminal" behind every tree junk.

Last edited Thu Mar 1, 2012, 08:47 AM - Edit history (1)

You usually make some sense.

[Logical]

69. Did I say that? When? But there are people out there who want to hurt you. I agree....

it is a very small chance. Extremely small. But still a possibility.

[ellisonz]

44. Don't give them the damn gun in the first place!!!

[Union Scribe]

45. That toothpaste isn't going back in the tube, though.

They have them. I'm all for keeping more out of criminals' hands, but against whatever makes it harder for the law-abiding to make it a more even playing field.

[Hoyt]

57. 90+% of general population does fine without resorting to tucking a gun in their waistband. Try it.

You guys think we should just keep pumping out more guns. So, in a decade there will be another 100 million of the things floating around. Then, you'll say, look we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. That's a pretty weak argument.

[ellisonz]

62. +1

Last edited Thu Mar 1, 2012, 11:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Thank you Hoyt!

[Union Scribe]

81. It's reality. Deal.

You really think you can turn back the clock and take it all back, and it's idiotic daydreaming. And, once again, I don't carry so take your played out gimmick lines and go beg someone to come up with something clever or at least new for you to say.

[Johnny Rico]

55. Someone's giving guns away? Where?! I've had to pay for all of mine, darnnit.

[Logical]

67. Good idea. How are you going to stop them from getting a gun?

[ellisonz]

70. Reasoned firearms regulations such as safe-storage laws, sales restrictions and the like...

All very much Constitutional.

[Logical]

71. I don't really disagree with either of those. Hard to regulate private sales though.

[ellisonz]

72. I think most gun owners want to do the right thing...

...I don't object to opening up the ability to access background checks for private sales. But I think it needs to be mandatory or people won't bother with the extra step. This isn't rocket science, and until we start taking measures to attempt to confront this problem, we have to accept that there will be a substantial level of gun violence in this country. There is no logical reason why we can't live in a safer society and still uphold the Second Amendment. Yes We Can.

[pipoman]

85. This is just more of the same..

proposal of the impossible, denial of the truth, and unwillingness to budge like a child not wanting to eat their brussel sprouts..the chicken and the egg, ya know?

"I don't object to opening up the ability to access background checks for private sales. But I think it needs to be mandatory or people won't bother with the extra step."

It can not be mandatory at the federal level, that pesky commerce clause and all. This is so painfully easy it is unbelievable how often it is bandied about. The only hope for those interested, and don't kid yourself, the Brady's really aren't interested in fixing the private sale issue, is to make NICS available for voluntary use by private sellers, then lobby each state to legislate use of the already established access as mandatory. This is the conundrum used by the gun control activists to continue fund raising for a cure to an impossible problem and refusal to support or suggest anything which may ultimately lead to the stated goal. Face it, if private sale background checks were ultimately required at most or all state levels, what would the gun control orgs then use to raise money so the leaders could maintain their incomes?

"This isn't rocket science, and until we start taking measures to attempt to confront this problem, we have to accept that there will be a substantial level of gun violence in this country. There is no logical reason why we can't live in a safer society and still uphold the Second Amendment. Yes We Can."

No you can't. At least by screaming for an unconstitutional impossibility to the exclusion of all others.

[oneshooter]

73. Please explain your proposed "safe storage laws" for us.

[ellisonz]

76. Ov Vey.

[oneshooter]

88. Unwilling, or afraid?

[ileus]

49. The real criminals are legal gun owners...

[Logical]

68. See, I understand some of the Anti's points. But saying that makes you lose any....

credibility that you had.

[one-eyed fat man]

54. The only difference between

the current batch of nicotine Nazis and the originals is they had snappier uniforms.

[melm00se]

53. there are plenty of examples of firearms

as the work of highly skilled artisans:











(just to list a few)

which to some are as beautiful as the Mona Lisa.

These artisans (and their collectors) choose to express themselves in a different medium and unfortunately some view them as offensive.

[Hoyt]

61. Guns as beautiful as Mona Lisa -- are you kidding us?

[melm00se]

63. it is arrogant

to believe that everyone thinks that the Mona Lisa is beautiful.

[Hoyt]

65. Whatever you think of Mona Lisa, I would hope you find it more aesthetically appealing than a gun.

[ellisonz]

64. And Glock doesn't make any of those...

...Guns like those belong in the museum. Every gun nut in American doesn't need every single assault rifle manufactured in the last 30 years.

[oneshooter]

74. Please tell us what a "assault rifle" is, as defined by you.

[ellisonz]

75. lol

Why are you asking silly questions to which the answer is ready at hand?

double facepalm for effort

[gejohnston]

84. By that definiton

which is the correct definition assault rifles have been tightly controlled if not banned since 1934

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[4][5][6]
It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (984 feet)

as in be able to switch from semi to full auto. Under the National Firearms Act of 1934, that is a machine gun.

[Callisto32]

77. There's that "N" word again.

[ellisonz]

78. Do you realize how incredibly crass that phrasing sounds? n/t

Last edited Thu Mar 1, 2012, 11:40 PM - Edit history (1)

[oneshooter]

89. You are right. We must realise that your hoplophobia causes you to

lose control on these boards. We understand and are willing to help you get over it.

[Callisto32]

96. Do you realize how incredibly crass you are to propose to know the needs of others?

Edit: Given the racist history of gun control in the U.S. I thought it fitting that the grabbers love to throw around an "N" word, yet again.

[ellisonz]

97. I'm not the one co-opting a term like that to make a petty political point. n/t

[Paladin]

92. Nice Try.

It would be a lot easier to buy into there not being a radical, hyper-conservative, obsessive "Gun Culture"---if there wasn't longstanding, abundant, daily evidence of it, right here in the DU Gun Control/RKBA group.....

[gejohnston]

93. provide evidence of

radical, hyper-conservative, obsessive

Here. Not agreeing with you is not evidence.