Is Firearms Ownership in the US becoming a Cult?

[TZucchini]

To call the entirety of firearm ownership in the US a "cult" seems like a broad generalization.

There certainly seems to be a large subsection of individuals that treat firearm ownership in a dangerous fashion, characterized by a severe lack of respect.

[McFuu]

I don't think gun ownership is a cult. Many people have many different reasons for owning, whether for home defense, target shooting, hunting, etc...

There are groups of gun owners I sort of dislike, the whole "gun culture" has gotten a bit out of hand. But that's really an effect of constant attacks against these owners. Of course they are going to huddle together for warmth.

For the vast majority of people, they own a pistol or 2 and never use it outside of a range once every 6 months, if that.

[zenkai]

Two things first. This isn't meant as a gun control discussion, we have a thread for that. This isn't meant for a discussion of religion, that goes into forbidden topics. Since this is intended to question a particular issue in American culture, can we try to avoid just flat out nation bashing too?

Apologies to the two or three people I've recently discussed guns with, this isn't intended as a poke at any of you and I realize it will come across as such. Again, my apologies this is just something that has been bothering me recently and today I decided to put it out for discussion.

I'm American. I grew up around guns. My father had guns, but they were shotguns and rifles for hunting. I was taught to shoot, including basic safety, before I could ride a bike or skate. Today it seems I was really young (no older than six), but that was presented as just one of the things one did. Guns were tools, and to a lesser degree sport, but what strikes me now is that they weren't really for home protection other than keeping a farm clear of vermin.

Now, I feel completely out of touch with the way I hear people talk about their firearms. I was happy to see someone mention in a thread that they bagged some turkeys, and they ate them -- that was the kind of thing I could understand. I don't know when it happened, but I think it paralleled the rise of "wars" on ideas that could never sit down at a table and sign a surrender. Somewhere along the way, we became afraid of shadows, and guns were the talisman that would keep them at bay. I bought into it too, in my own way, I just didn't fixate on guns.

I notice it now that I'm in China. I've spent years dialing back the defensive habits I built up. Home security for me today isn't having a house build in 1914, with a door that is mainly etched glass but being comfortable that I am adequately trained and armed. Home security is that I have solid walls, good locks, and the front door is steel. I suppose 2.1's yappy little poodle counts as extra security -- around 0400 I'll know the milk was delivered because she'll go to the door and warn of strangers. Now, when I go out the door I actually try to make sure I'm not actively armed unless there is a good reason, but at one time that wasn't the case.

I read posts that talk of shotguns beside the bed, guns with silencers on the nightstand and all the rest. I wonder what the hell happened. And that's when I find myself asking, is it because firearms ownership became a cult? The NRA and its speakers are the charismatic leader figures. Crime, terrorism, even the idea that our own government might go the wrong way -- those are the ever present and yet intangible threat. The faithful speak a particular way. There is disloyal speech.

Are enough of the factors there that at some point fear will cross the line into cult behavior?

Are there gun owner enthusiast? Of course
Does that make them a cult? No

I would call mac users a cult before I would call gun owners a cult

[breadisfunny]

Kinda like in the dark ages everyone carried a sword, but no one bat an eye

actually wrong swords back then were extremely expensive and mostly only carried by the wealthy who could afford them like knights. knights came from the nobility. the poor usually carried something like a spear or axe or schimitar in the middle east.

[Easo]

I am still fascinated by the people affraid of the evil goverment taking away their rights.
Yeah, it is a cult.
Europe can somehow live without that many guns. You can too. And please, don't argue how you are so different.

[Dystemper]

I am still fascinated by the people affraid of the evil goverment taking away their rights.
Yeah, it is a cult.
Europe can somehow live without that many guns. You can too. And please, don't argue how you are so different.

In the last 100 years, How many millions of people were slaughtered by Tyrants in Europe? How many time shave countries split apart, or vanished?
No thanks we will keep our 2nd amendment

- - - Updated - - -

actually wrong swords back then were extremely expensive and mostly only carried by the wealthy who could afford them like knights. knights came from the nobility. the poor usually carried something like a spear or axe or schimitar in the middle east.

I believve the equivalent was tthe cost of a good sword being the cost of a high-end luxury car. Something like 100K

- - - Updated - - -

The entire Cult thing is nonsense. In no way shape or form does it resemble a cult. Scientology is a cult. The moonies are/were a cult .

[Deleted]

Idiots here are bitter and raging that they dont have the rights the U.S people have, so they are trying to act like its end of world by owning a gun, whole american continent owned guns for centuries and it will continue to do so.

Shit cunts in the eu on this website are obsessed with the U.S than their own irrelevant country.

[shadowmouse]

Nope. Just pointing out your real motives.

Which, conveniently, you have no proof of and you're actually going to lengths to avoid what I've said. Really, that goes along with cult behavior.

Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships. Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may have been manipulated, exploited, even abused. The following list of social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in cultic environments may be helpful in assessing a particular group or relationship.

Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a �cult scale� or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.

‪ The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

‪ Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

‪ Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

‪ The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry�or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

‪ The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar�or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

‪ The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

‪ The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

‪ The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

‪ The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

‪ Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

‪ The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

‪ The group is preoccupied with making money.

‪ Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

‪ Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

‪ The most loyal members (the �true believers�) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

Source: http://csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm

To call the entirety of firearm ownership in the US a "cult" seems like a broad generalization.

I'm pretty sure that the post title uses "becoming" in the question. In posing an actual question for discussion, I wrote "Are enough of the factors there that at some point fear will cross the line into cult behavior?" So far, I've had a couple of people define the omnipresent lurking threat as tyranny, but that doesn't explain why one needs every day concealed carry.

I would call mac users a cult before I would call gun owners a cult

I wouldn't entirely disagree with you calling Apple enthusiasts a cult, but I don't think that clears gun owners. Look at the cult checklist above and note: "Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may have been manipulated, exploited, even abused." I think that potentially describes a large number of gun owners. My real sticking point -- and one posters such as Ghostpanther are going to lengths to address -- is what is the threat? Gun rack in the back of the pickup? Somebody could have told me "bungee, you idiot, we have snakes and varmints to deal with. I can understand that. You like to bag a deer when that season rolls around? I can understand that. I can't understand this unspecified thing that requires constant concealed carry, and maybe even guns in multiple rooms on top of that.

[Dystemper]

Why does one NEED every day conceal carry? You dont Need to. We have the right to. We dont really need Fire extinguishers, Smoke alarms or any other devices that help with safety . There are bad people out there. I live in a country that allows me the freedom to Protect my self against them. Its a simple concept. If someone wishes to do me or my family harm, then i will try to stop that with to the best of my ability.

No one is Forcing people to buy guns against their will. No one is brainwashing anyone to become a gun owner. Those things are done in Cults.
If you dont want a gun, dont get one. Simple

[ButterBeast]

Well it's something along those lines considering how many thousands die each year because of their need to have them.

[Deleted]

That age extends back to the founding of the nation. We have always limited freedoms in the name of safety. Hell, we limit the 2nd amendment for those very reasons. Hence the fact that you can't own rocket launchers.

Are you telling me now that it's not allowed?

What about Rocket Fuel?

[Ghostpanther]

Which, conveniently, you have no proof of and you're actually going to lengths to avoid what I've said. Really, that goes along with cult behavior.

Answer this then. You have made it clear you think the gun culture in the US is becoming a cult. Do you think it would be a issue if we did not have a Second Amendment?

[Dystemper]

Well it's something along those lines considering how many thousands die each year because of their need to have them.

And more lives are saved by having them .


Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives
A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]

* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."
B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime

* Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home. [9] * Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:

* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; [10] and * If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.[11]

* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."[12]

* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state. [13] FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. [14]

* Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.

1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.

2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport. [15]
C. Criminals avoid armed citizens

* Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole. [16]

* Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed. [17]

* Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes:

* Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and, * Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%. [18] Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection

* Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation. [19]

* Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful. [20] Justice Department study:

* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun." [21]

* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."[22] * 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." [23]

[1] Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164. Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. He has researched extensively and published several essays on the gun control issue. His book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993. This award is given for the book published in the past two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to criminology. Even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 188.

Wolfgang says there is no "contrary evidence." Indeed, there are more than a dozen national polls -- one of which was conducted by The Los Angeles Times -- that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. Even the Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," Research in Brief (May 1997).

As for Dr. Kleck, readers of his materials may be interested to know that he is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of the gun control debate.

[2] According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois.

[3] Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185.

[4]Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185.

[5]Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997); available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf on the internet. The finding of 1.5 million yearly self-defense cases did not sit well with the anti-gun bias of the study's authors, who attempted to explain why there could not possibly be one and a half million cases of self-defense every year. Nevertheless, the 1.5 million figure is consistent with a mountain of independent surveys showing similar figures. The sponsors of these studies -- nearly a dozen -- are quite varied, and include anti-gun organizations, news media organizations, governments and commercial polling firms. See also Kleck and Gertz, supra note 1, pp. 182-183.

[6]Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148.

[7]George F. Will, "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?," Newsweek (15 November 1993):93.

[8]Id. at 164, 185.

[9]Dr. Gary Kleck, interview with J. Neil Schulman, "Q and A: Guns, crime and self-defense," The Orange County Register (19 September 1993). In the interview with Schulman, Dr. Kleck reports on findings from a national survey which he and Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993 -- a survey which findings were reported in Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime."

[10]One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the study's findings in John R. Lott, Jr., "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000).

[11]Lott and Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns."

[12]Kathleen O'Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Neal Quitno, "Rankings of States in Most Dangerous/Safest State Awards 1994 to 2003," Morgan Quitno Press (2004) at http://www.statestats.com/dang9403.htm. Morgan Quitno Press is an independent private research and publishing company which was founded in 1989. The company specializes in reference books and monthly reports that compare states and cities in several different subject areas. In the first 10 years in which they published their Safest State Award, Vermont has consistently remained one of the top five safest states.

[13]Memo by Jim Smith, Secretary of State, Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report (October 1, 2002).
14Florida's murder rate was 11.4 per 100,000 in 1987, but only 5.5 in 2002. Compare Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports, (1988): 7, 53; and FBI, (2003):19, 79.

[15]John R. Lott, Jr., "Right to carry would disprove horror stories," Kansas City Star, (July 12, 2003).

[16]Gary Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," Social Problems 35 (February 1988):15.

[17]Compare Kleck, "Crime Control," at 15, and Chief Dwaine L. Wilson, City of Kennesaw Police Department, "Month to Month Statistics: 1991." (Residential burglary rates from 1981-1991 are based on statistics for the months of March - October.)

[18]Kleck, Point Blank, at 140.

[19]Kleck, "Crime Control," at 13.

[20]U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31.

[21]U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report (July 1985): 27.

[22]Id.

[23]Id.

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

[Daelak]

Well it's something along those lines considering how many thousands die each year because of their need to have them.

Exactly. Those American deaths are merely a blood sacrifice to the mythical status of the 2a.

[shadowmouse]

There are bad people out there.

Thanks for at least taking a shot at it. But a fire extinguisher puts out fires, we can document that fires happen and are put out with fire extinguishers, and owning a fire extinguisher does not increase risk of harm (OK, somebody will drop it on their foot but the risk is smaller than the gain). Studies like the Harvard study would seem to show that guns don't do the same. There are bad people, they may well come into your home. They will generally do it when you are not home and because you left them a path. Every day carry did nothing.

Nobody is forced to buy a gun, but people are being sold a bill of goods. It isn't going to protect them from vague bad people, but it will expose them to increased risks at home. Some of the statistics used to bolster the perception that guns provide defense appear to have been exaggerated as well.

[dumathoinn]

Despite what some ex-grunt would like to claim.

Civilians with guns are cannon fodder in today's age. Civilians don't know how to organize into 'asymmetric warfare', let alone have the training to be effective snipers. The weapons the civilians of the US are allowed to purchase and possess are ineffective against modern organized armies. and their equipment. Even the Congo's army could effectively wipe out all of the US' armed civilians without much issue, even with being severely outnumbered.

You sir are ignorant.

[Ghostpanther]

Thanks for at least taking a shot at it. But a fire extinguisher puts out fires, we can document that fires happen and are put out with fire extinguishers, and owning a fire extinguisher does not increase risk of harm (OK, somebody will drop it on their foot but the risk is smaller than the gain). Studies like the Harvard study would seem to show that guns don't do the same. There are bad people, they may well come into your home. They will generally do it when you are not home and because you left them a path. Every day carry did nothing.

Nobody is forced to buy a gun, but people are being sold a bill of goods. It isn't going to protect them from vague bad people, but it will expose them to increased risks at home. Some of the statistics used to bolster the perception that guns provide defense appear to have been exaggerated as well.

Which would not exist if it was not for the Constitutional right to keep and bare arms. Right?

[dumathoinn]

Which would not exist if it was not for the Constitutional right to keep and bare arms. Right?

Arguing gun control with the ignorant left is like watching paint dry. It's pointless their grounds and basis for the reasons they think gun control is a good idea are plain and simply wrong. Look at Australia they disarmed their citizens and their murder rate didn't really change actually had a couple of record years afterwards. Can think of many other examples countries disarmed their citizens and it back fired horribly.

[a1derful1]

It doesn't matter if you answer the question or not, they can still determine to a certain probability that you do have one in the house.

In other words, they made up their own data. Which is why I don't trust surveys.

It is interesting that you are defensive about simple questions, and it actually probably implied a lot to the doctor into what kind of environment your wife is subjected to at home.

I'd also be defensive about talking about my sex life in public. It's no one's business. A gun has nothing to do with healthcare unless someone got shot or is mentally unstable. I also take issue with her being "subjected" to anything at home. Half the guns and our sword collection are hers, thank you very much. She's not subjected to anything. She asked for them, picked out what she wanted, and had them customized as she saw fit. It's not like I put her in a burka, banned her from driving, and strangled her because a man saw her ankles.

That wasn't the reason, and polling aggregators and analysis like 538 showed a high percentage chance of her winning, not 100% chance. This silent majority shtick has gone on far enough.

Yet who won? Who was way down in the polls then made one of the biggest upsets in our presidential history? And I'm to believe that the same surveys are accurate on something else political like gun ownership, in this political climate? Keep drinking that Kool Aid. I heard the grape flavor is nice.

It's not about trust, it's just about your knowledge of how statistics and probabilities work. The reason you distrust an inanimate object like polling or a medical questionnaire shows your own vulnerability to propaganda and delusion.

So, stereotype or profile someone and make a judgment on what you think about an individual person. I thought that was a no no in this day and age, which is why airports do full body scans on wheelchair bound grannies with poopy diapers, rather than a young Arab man with a long beard chanting Allah Akbar.

My reasoning has nothing to do with propaganda. I don't have television. I'm not a member of the NRA. I read and watch a blend of various outlets. Would you believe that I actually enjoy watching Bill Maher's HBO show? I don't agree with anything he says, but the show is entertaining. Also listened to the late Alan Colmes. I didn't agree with most of what he said, but I still found the show entertaining. I don't listen to Shaun Hannity, because he's boring and always yells of gloom and doom, but I do agree with some things he says, but not to the extent he does. I occasionally watch The Young Turks, especially on election night to watch them cry throughout, as it dawned on them Trump won, but I don't agree with a damn thing the fat guy says on there. So no, I don't allow people to tell me what I think, but I'll listen to what they say and make up my own mind.

[Daelak]

In other words, they made up their own data. Which is why I don't trust surveys.

It's not making up data, it's just inference from correlation of other questions in the questionnaire. Your distrust of standard medical questions just shows your own misinformed opinion on science, facts, and statistics.

I'd also be defensive about talking about my sex life in public. It's no one's business. A gun has nothing to do with healthcare unless someone got shot or is mentally unstable. I also take issue with her being "subjected" to anything at home. Half the guns and our sword collection are hers, thank you very much. She's not subjected to anything. She asked for them, picked out what she wanted, and had them customized as she saw fit. It's not like I put her in a burka, banned her from driving, and strangled her because a man saw her ankles.

If she isn't subjected to anything, why were you there during a medical questionnaire for her? Did you need to be there just in case the questions became too liberal or that she would of came out a flaming feminazi?

Yet who won? Who was way down in the polls then made one of the biggest upsets in our presidential history? And I'm to believe that the same surveys are accurate on something else political like gun ownership, in this political climate? Keep drinking that Kool Aid. I heard the grape flavor is nice.

It was ranked one of the lowest electoral college tallies in US history. Again, your own opinion here is has been misinformed by biased sources that want to keep people like yourself deluded.

So, stereotype or profile someone and make a judgment on what you think about an individual person. I thought that was a no no in this day and age, which is why airports do full body scans on wheelchair bound grannies with poopy diapers, rather than a young Arab man with a long beard chanting Allah Akbar.

It isn't profiling, you are the one sharing your apprehension towards inanimate objects and college-level mathematics. This type of behavior was injected into you by a biased source and medium to ensure you don't think critically.

My reasoning has nothing to do with propaganda. I don't have television. I'm not a member of the NRA. I read and watch a blend of various outlets. Would you believe that I actually enjoy watching Bill Maher's HBO show? I don't agree with anything he says, but the show is entertaining. Also listened to the late Alan Colmes. I didn't agree with most of what he said, but I still found the show entertaining. I don't listen to Shaun Hannity, because he's boring and always yells of gloom and doom, but I do agree with some things he says, but not to the extent he does. I occasionally watch The Young Turks, especially on election night to watch them cry throughout, as it dawned on them Trump won, but I don't agree with a damn thing the fat guy says on there. So no, I don't allow people to tell me what I think, but I'll listen to what they say and make up my own mind.

But that's the thing, you have already been primed to believe what you are saying is independent, however the behaviors and words you are espousing show the exact opposite.