Is Firearms Ownership in the US becoming a Cult?

[a1derful1]

Really? You clicked on a link on the internet and read their comments. At what point did they force facts on you or to force people to comply with their thinking? If starting a thread like this is considered "forcing" their thoughts upon you I would be scared to see how you react when someone actually forces something on you.

So petty. It's been nothing but propaganda anyhow and won't change anything....unless she's Russian, then it could rig one of our elections according to some people in our government.

Some of us like to have conversations with people even if they don't believe in everything you do.

When you constantly spam the same garbage over and over, it's not a conversation. At some point, you have to understand that a person is going to be who they are, despite your overzealous efforts to change their thinking and move on.

It is really eye opening to listen and understand the other side of the argument.

It hasn't opened mine at all. Some people like to be ruled, while others live their own lives how they see fit. Those that like to be ruled can't stand other people being free. That mentality has been prevalent for thousands of years.

Guess its easier to live a sheltered life and only associated with people who reinforce your own pillars of belief.

You got me! I have been sheltered and needed acceptance by other gun owners to feel better! Ten points to Gryffindor!!

[Ghostpanther]

So petty. It's been nothing but propaganda anyhow and won't change anything....unless she's Russian, then it could rig one of our elections according to some people in our government.



When you constantly spam the same garbage over and over, it's not a conversation. At some point, you have to understand that a person is going to be who they are, despite your overzealous efforts to change their thinking and move on.



It hasn't opened mine at all. Some people like to be ruled, while others live their own lives how they see fit. Those that like to be ruled can't stand other people being free. That mentality has been prevalent for thousands of years.



You got me! I have been sheltered and needed acceptance by other gun owners to feel better! Ten points to Gryffindor!!

He is not a she. He uses his avatar which I think is his wife or girlfriend. She is pretty.

I agree with your points made. Well said.

[a1derful1]

He is not a she. He uses his avatar which I think is his wife or girlfriend. She is pretty.

I agree with your points made. Well said.

lol...fair enough. It was a flip of the coin. Had to use some pronoun and it felt weird to refer to someone as an it.

[Masark]

Gun Ownership is an American right and practically an American duty, it is engraved into what it means to be "American" gun ownership and the act of "being American" are one in the same.

Which is why half the guns are owned by 3% of the population and only a quarter own any at all.

[Spiffums]

Well I'm against most forms of gun control and you know what... I'm not even slightly worried in this country. The NRA has Fox News paid off and that's all they really need lol. I just like to poke fun at people and make observations that trigger insecure manlets on the internet. Like most people I have to hold my tongue and be polite all day at work, this forum is where I can be blunt and honest and I love it. Especially when it makes people mad.

There is that evil Civil Rights Organization the NRA making all those evil guns!!!

If the ACLU defended ALL the rights of the Constitution there wouldn't be a need for the NRA.

- - - Updated - - -

lol...fair enough. It was a flip of the coin. Had to use some pronoun and it felt weird to refer to someone as an it.

Yeah like that is accurate at all! If someone called me asking me if I owned guns I'd tell them to go get F'd. I'm pretty sure most gun owners would too.

[Ghostpanther]

Which is why half the guns are owned by 3% of the population and only a quarter own any at all.

And? This is bit like saying only 25% of the people in the US believe in a religion. It is still a Constitutional right to. And I have read other stats which stated US gun ownership by percentage is 35 - 40% of households own at least one firearm. It really is not a stat they know for sure.

[shadowmouse]

[Quote=A dot Ham]So then according to your checklist... gun owners don't actually qualify as a cult. So you make salacious claims for no other reason than to draw attention to your post... click bait... like I said. [Quote]

Do you really read that poorly, or is this just part of your posing? I laid out factors that I find to be similar to cult behavior. I then asked a question, clearly posted at the end: "Are enough of the factors there that at some point fear will cross the line into cult behavior?" Nothing clickbait about it. I was also reasonably clean in the thread title to ask if it was becoming a cult, I did not state that it has reached that point yet.

The problem you like to claim is becoming a cult here in the US, if it is true ( which it is not ) would not be possible if the citizens did not have the right to possess firearms. Common logic may be hard for some.

It is a "spelling mistake" that you've made more than once, leading me to wonder how much you really pay attention to the Second Amendment rather that just repeating things.

I'd like a clear explanation, with lucid writing and not canned comments about ducks, wolves and sheep, explaining how (let me point you at the First Amendment for this) challenging this nebulous threat you keep going on about is somehow attacking the Second Amendment? I don't seem to be having a quarrel with @supertony51, he has explained what threat he sees and how his gun ownership relates to it. We may not see eye to eye, but we have left it at that. Others here are mainly indulging in whatabouts, while not addressing statistics. The Second Amendment does not trump the First, but trying to shut down discussion (which I clearly asked not to be derailed to gun control) is one of the things a cult does.

Buy a gun, carry it with you, something might try to get you! That's largely fear mongering, verified statistics don't seem to support the existence of a threat at the reported levels used to advocate guns for self defense, nor do they show guns as a particularly effective defense. Somehow, most of the rest of the developed world in particular manage to get through their lives quite well without every day carry. You skip right over that point every time I make it, the NRA doesn't want that discussed (but you will bring up that people could let themselves be indoctrinated by taking NRA safety classes).

Really? You clicked on a link on the internet and read their comments. At what point did they force facts on you or to force people to comply with their thinking?

Thank you for pointing that out.

If there is a world war or if China's internal security breaks down due to catastrophic economic collapse or government infighting then you're going to wish you did have guns.

If that's your fear, that works for you. I'm OK with that, but it isn't a compelling fear for me. What would happen if everybody had guns and something like that happened? We'd end up with armed mobs. Mobs would become bands, bands would generate a series of warlords, that kind of thing has happened here before. Me, as one guy with a gun, I'm not going to influence that much at all because numbers will count far more than guns. I don't see a gun as an answer there, life isn't the Walking Dead.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Needed for what though?

Guns in the house? Fine, I get that some people like to collect, to hunt, or to shoot for sports. I get that there are situations, like living in the countryside next to a railroad and having to deal with the people that are playing hobo. But beyond that? Look at @a1derful1 On one hand, he says someone breaking into his home would steal guns, so he keeps them spread out. OK. But in the same paragraph he also specifies that he keeps them hidden around the house for ease of access, while he later talks about having a daughter in the home. Easy access + kid isn't a particularly good formula: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/par...7dbab186b2564c

I get that you're having multiple discussions simlutaneously here, but if you're going to say something after one of my quotes, please address points I'm making, not those someone else is making. I have multiple guns in my home, but all the long guns are locked up in a cabinet, and the handguns are in biometric safes near the bed. Now, CCW means exactly that, concealed carry. If the gun is on your hip, it's not available to your kids. As to your question, people carry so they can defend themselves in public. The number of violent attacks, robberies, and other crimes that were either prevented or stopped outright by private citizens with CCW permits are numerous and well documented. Now if such scenarios are too rare for you to feel the need to carry, then fine, don't carry. Nobody is asking you to. Just understand that if the guy buying a cup of coffee next to you at the gas station happens to have a pistol under his jacket, it doesn't mean he's a threat to you. Statisticly, he's more likely to defend your life than do it harm, as law-abiding CCW holders far outnumber violent criminals.

[Theinquisition]

I get that you're having multiple discussions simlutaneously here, but if you're going to say something after one of my quotes, please address points I'm making, not those someone else is making. I have multiple guns in my home, but all the long guns are locked up in a cabinet, and the handguns are in biometric safes near the bed. Now, CCW means exactly that, concealed carry. If the gun is on your hip, it's not available to your kids. As to your question, people carry so they can defend themselves in public. The number of violent attacks, robberies, and other crimes that were either prevented or stopped outright by private citizens with CCW permits are numerous and well documented. Now if such scenarios are too rare for you to feel the need to carry, then fine, don't carry. Nobody is asking you to. Just understand that if the guy buying a cup of coffee next to you at the gas station happens to have a pistol under his jacket, it doesn't mean he's a threat to you. Statisticly, he's more likely to defend your life than do it harm, as law-abiding CCW holders far outnumber violent criminals.

The Calvary arrives to save the day, my homie 10th

[shadowmouse]

It probably makes more sense if you refer back to the language of that quote:

Most people who carry don't do so out of some persistant fear. They do so because they like having guns around in general, and would rather have one and not need it than need one and not have it. It's really not much more complicated than that.

Emphasis added just to highlight something, no intent to "yell" or anything.

You mentioned need. I led with "Needed for what though?" I went on to give examples, you've gone on to explain your views on them. Seems like a reasonable enough discussion to me.

I've looked at (and cited) various reviews of statistics, I haven't found the number to be particularly well documented and follow ups seem to call the reports into question. See: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/f...nse-gun-use-2/

Nobody is asking me to carry. No, but when self defense comes up, there are those who get quite aggressive about promoting guns for self defense.

Where I get uneasy about the guy buying a cup of coffee in your example is that everybody is law abiding in some sense, until they break the law.

My self defense background does include basic familiarity with firearms, but it was largely armed and unarmed combat. It involved getting struck in the head a lot. At the time, nobody thought much about it -- you get up, shake it off, and go on if you're cleared to. Now, it seems that things may have been more dangerous than we thought. Among the problems, they find head injuries can lead to an increase in violent behavior. They're still studying this, hopefully it is another storm in a teacup. But if it isn't, I don't know if that guy had a bad day at work or with his wife and be predisposed to anger issues. I don't know how clear his judgment is, or how he will really react if he thinks he has a reason to pull his gun.

Even if everything goes perfectly, accidental discharges happen. I haven't really bothered to keep up on modern pistols, I was taught you don't keep a round in the chamber. Perhaps it is safer now, but I cringe when I see someone advocate keeping a round ready to fire as some here have (that was brought up in the self defense thread). As far as I know, that increases the odds of an accidental discharge if the guy knocks his firearm loose in the manner of the Cracker Barrel incident I mentioned.

Now, this is about the point that many will claim I'm advocating gun control. Let me clear that I'm not. I'd be more comfortable if CCW had to go through certification on the same schedule as police, but I'm not even advocating that. What I am doing, is asking people to double check the facts, and make an informed decision. You seem to be doing that, and it appears you are taking steps to keep things safe. All cool by me.

@supertony51 Nah, I don't have a problem with you either.

[Kellhound]

To the person saying that how Russians could not conquer Afghanistan against hillmen wielding only sticks and thus you can now fight against modern army.
Russians lost around 15k men. Afghan losses, including civilians, were around one million.

Just because Soviets lost the political will to stay does not mean that they didn't totally obliterate any opposition. And the same would happen with local rednecks rising against "the evil tyranny".
Ok, yes, USA is an exception. No other country, which has huge population and territory has this ammount of guns available with so many wielders. True, any invader would suffer such attrition which would make German losses against Red Partisans look silly.
But never, ever believe you could defeat an actual army.

The Army National Guard is sufficient to defend the US from invasion, geography dictates that. However, invading the US and fighting another US Civil War are two very different things. Remember, the US is very very soft in the belly, our strength comes from being practically an island. The US military cannot function without secure rear areas.

[Ghostpanther]

It is a "spelling mistake" that you've made more than once, leading me to wonder how much you really pay attention to the Second Amendment rather that just repeating things.

I'd like a clear explanation, with lucid writing and not canned comments about ducks, wolves and sheep, explaining how (let me point you at the First Amendment for this) challenging this nebulous threat you keep going on about is somehow attacking the Second Amendment? I don't seem to be having a quarrel with @supertony51, he has explained what threat he sees and how his gun ownership relates to it. We may not see eye to eye, but we have left it at that. Others here are mainly indulging in whatabouts, while not addressing statistics. The Second Amendment does not trump the First, but trying to shut down discussion (which I clearly asked not to be derailed to gun control) is one of the things a cult does.

Buy a gun, carry it with you, something might try to get you! That's largely fear mongering, verified statistics don't seem to support the existence of a threat at the reported levels used to advocate guns for self defense, nor do they show guns as a particularly effective defense. Somehow, most of the rest of the developed world in particular manage to get through their lives quite well without every day carry. You skip right over that point every time I make it, the NRA doesn't want that discussed (but you will bring up that people could let themselves be indoctrinated by taking NRA safety classes).

You are just being extremely picky about spelling when you know what I meant. Trying to distract from the real discussion. :P

That the NRA does not want people to discuss the fear mongering that some go on about with firearms? They discuss it all the time and stress safety with firearms.

And for your info, the Gun Control thread is not just for Gun Control, but any discussion about firearms. It use to be just about Gun Control, but the moderators changed it to General discussions for guns. They should have changed the title too however. But the point is, this discussion should be been done in that thread to begin with.

- - - Updated - - -

It probably makes more sense if you refer back to the language of that quote:



Emphasis added just to highlight something, no intent to "yell" or anything.

You mentioned need. I led with "Needed for what though?" I went on to give examples, you've gone on to explain your views on them. Seems like a reasonable enough discussion to me.

I've looked at (and cited) various reviews of statistics, I haven't found the number to be particularly well documented and follow ups seem to call the reports into question. See: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/f...nse-gun-use-2/

Nobody is asking me to carry. No, but when self defense comes up, there are those who get quite aggressive about promoting guns for self defense.

Where I get uneasy about the guy buying a cup of coffee in your example is that everybody is law abiding in some sense, until they break the law.

My self defense background does include basic familiarity with firearms, but it was largely armed and unarmed combat. It involved getting struck in the head a lot. At the time, nobody thought much about it -- you get up, shake it off, and go on if you're cleared to. Now, it seems that things may have been more dangerous than we thought. Among the problems, they find head injuries can lead to an increase in violent behavior. They're still studying this, hopefully it is another storm in a teacup. But if it isn't, I don't know if that guy had a bad day at work or with his wife and be predisposed to anger issues. I don't know how clear his judgment is, or how he will really react if he thinks he has a reason to pull his gun.

Even if everything goes perfectly, accidental discharges happen. I haven't really bothered to keep up on modern pistols, I was taught you don't keep a round in the chamber. Perhaps it is safer now, but I cringe when I see someone advocate keeping a round ready to fire as some here have (that was brought up in the self defense thread). As far as I know, that increases the odds of an accidental discharge if the guy knocks his firearm loose in the manner of the Cracker Barrel incident I mentioned.

Now, this is about the point that many will claim I'm advocating gun control. Let me clear that I'm not. I'd be more comfortable if CCW had to go through certification on the same schedule as police, but I'm not even advocating that. What I am doing, is asking people to double check the facts, and make an informed decision. You seem to be doing that, and it appears you are taking steps to keep things safe. All cool by me.

@supertony51 Nah, I don't have a problem with you either.

It is going to depend on the firearm. A lot of improvements have been made to firearms to make them safer. For example. a revolver has no external safety. But the one big improvement was the transfer bar which prevents the hammer from accidentally hitting the primer of a round in front of it if hit or dropped. But there are older models which do not have that feature. They should never be carried with a round in the camber. But the ones with it, are safe to. Also revolvers, have a long trigger pull of about 10 pounds when using in double action. Makes it harder to accidentally pull the trigger.

Semi autos usually have various safety features. Some have the same type of trigger design as a revolver. Being double action. Others have a small slide inside the trigger itself , so it must also be compressed to fire. Some have a manual safety and others have a safety grip built in.

The most important rule however when carrying a handgun is to always have them in a holster. Never carry a firearm in your pocket or waist band without one. The holster needs to cover the trigger too. I guess one could option not to have a camber loaded. But the action of having to rack the firearm in a case when a second or two counts, can get you killed. Also, if your one arm is grabbed, you would not be able to rack it. With a semi-auto that is.

[shadowmouse]

@Ghostpanther

Please fact check yourself:

The thread is about gun control laws, mostly assault weapons laws, but all gun control discussion is fine - whatever people want to talk about that is -directly- related (i.e. not some future vague election promises).

The first post of the thread, not just the title, still states what I've quoted above. Aside from that, my question was, and still would be if you'd stop derailing, directed to a question about the behavior of gun owners.

[Ghostpanther]

@Ghostpanther

Please fact check yourself:



The first post of the thread, not just the title, still states what I've quoted above. Aside from that, my question was, and still would be if you'd stop derailing, directed to a question about the behavior of gun owners.

I have. But they have not been the answers you agree with or like. Tough shit. Several others in this thread have pointed out how you mentioned this is not about gun control, yet your answers and such make it clear it is. :P

[Deleted]

YES, oh god yes it is, just read through this thread and it should be more then obvious to anyone not part of this cult. Of course, people that are members will never see it as a cult, just like with any other cult.

[Cthulhu 2020]

A huge part of it has become a cult, yes. If you look at how they view any form of gun control at all whatsoever as a "veiled liberal attempt to take all their guns away" that has consumed many on the right, you could definitely call it a cult.

[Ghostpanther]

A huge part of it has become a cult, yes. If you look at how they view any form of gun control at all whatsoever as a "veiled liberal attempt to take all their guns away" that has consumed many on the right, you could definitely call it a cult.

They are not a huge segment of the gun owners population. I guess it would depend on what number you want to call huge. Which you more than likely do not even know.

Meanwhile this is what the FBI just did to get the a number of firearms recalled from owners. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/05...-10-years.html 4000 out of close to 300 million that exist in private citizen's hands. But I want to say, this is a good thing they did.

[LaserChild9]

There are more actions that are predatory than being shot.

There are but you were using the word predatory to justify gun ownership not me. I was just illustrating that a society can and does exist without access to guns for the general public where the 'predatory' element has not caused anarchy to reign supreme.

What you said illustrates the op's point, your reasoning for guns having a place in society because of the 'bad, aggressive, predatory people is nonsense. It's conspiratorial and cultish to assume that society is too dangerous to function without access to lethal weaponry.

Most of those "ganstas" probably have a criminal record and can't legally buy a firearm.

Not sure what country youre from, but im sure there's areas where walking around may be dangerous.

The problem is, if something is legal, it is much easier to acquire it illegally than if the item were illegal. In the UK there are approx 6.6 guns per 100 inhabitants compared to 112.6 per 100 inhabitants in the US. There are literally more guns in the US than people! How do you not see that as a problem? Guess which country is safer? Guess which country you are more likely to get shot in?

So yeah, there are dangerous areas where I live, but again, I never worry about being shot and I never wish I had a gun for protection.

[Ghostpanther]

There are but you were using the word predatory to justify gun ownership not me. I was just illustrating that a society can and does exist without access to guns for the general public where the 'predatory' element has not caused anarchy to reign supreme.

What you said illustrates the op's point. Your reasoning for guns having a place in society because of the 'bad, aggressive, predatory people. It's conspiratorial and cultish to assume that society is too dangerous to function without access to lethal weaponry.



The problem is, if something is legal, it is much easier to acquire it illegally than if the item were illegal. In the UK there are approx 6.6 guns per 100 inhabitants compared to 112.6 per 100 inhabitants in the US. There are literally more guns in the US than people! How do you not see that as a problem? Guess which country is safer? Guess which country you are more likely to get shot in?

So yeah, there are dangerous areas where I live, but again, I never worry about being shot and I never wish I had a gun for protection.

Nope do not see it as a problem, because as a individual I want the right to defend myself with a firearm. Same as I want the right to use a vehicle to travel with. Risks? Of course. But I rather take the very low risk of being harmed by one, then the low risk of being caught without one. And myself being more likely to be shot here in the US than say England, is even more of reason I want to have one. But being in England does not guarantee someone can not stab you or who is much stronger than you are. Or how gangs can. Reality does exist.

[Deleted]

The prevention of death is as of yet an unattainable goal. If you think removing guns from america will prevent deaths, you are naive. Be it the hillbillies or the intercity gangbangers or the biker gangs, or your run of the mill 2nd amendment supporter, you will have millions dead in your crusade at disarming the public, all because a a relative few do not use guns properly? Foolish.

FFS

I never said remove gun >.>