The Perception of Gun Owners

[DaleA]

I heard this on a local radio show:

--------------------------
We are admonished not to judge all (insert whatever ethnic/racial/religious/gender/national group you want) by the actions of a few lunatics.

We are ENCOURAGED to judge all gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
--------------------------

And once again one of my favorite posters comes to mind, the one that says:

"With 300 MILLION guns and probably a TRILLION rounds of ammunition, if legal gun owners were the problem, seriously folks, you'd know about it."

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...=1565037154107

[Mainah]

We aren't the problem, but we could be part of the solution. A handicapped NRA makes that more challenging. Thoughts and prayers won't fix this.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Mainah

...Thoughts and prayers won't fix this.

The preservation of the RKBA has some challenges that I don't think the gun rights community has been particularly good about facing and addressing.

1. As has been discussed before, we're in a culture war.
   
   Younger urbanites just don't see guns as relevant to their lives. They're afraid of guns and people with guns and, since guns aren't important to them personally, they're inclined to vote for folks who claim to be able to remove guns from society.
   
   Is it possible to convince a portion of such folks that guns can be relevant to their live? How?
   
   
2. As we become a more urban society gun owners are increasingly looked down upon as hicks or knuckle dragging Neanderthals.
   
   Much of today's anti-gun sentiment is a byproduct of the continuing urbanization of America. California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc., are strongly anti-gun in part because the bulk of the political power in those States is in a few major cities. The rural parts of those States are much more pro-gun or neutral. And in States like Washington and Oregon which generally have decent gun laws, the urban centers area still hot beds of anti-gun sentiment.
   
   People tend to look for support and validation from others who share their tastes and values; and they distinguish themselves, often in a denigrating manner, from those who do not. The city dweller likes to fancy himself sophisticated, socially liberal, well educated, urbane, fashionable, etc.; and he wants to associate with, and have his self image validated by, people he perceives are like him. And they set themselves apart from those they find different -- such as the type of person they believe usually owns guns.
   
   The there's the question of how to make a dent in urban anti-gun sentiments. Can we challenge those anti-gun sentiments by demonstrating that sophisticated, urbane perspectives on other things aren't inexorably intertwined with hating guns?
   
   
3. We have a political packaging problem.
   
   the vast majority of people are not "one issue" voters. Each candidate has a platform -- an assortment of positions on a variety of issues such as gun control, minority rights, welfare, immigration policy, gay rights, women's issues, foreign policy, free trade, etc. To some extent a candidate's platform is defined by the platform of the party with which he's affiliated.
   
   Different voters have different core, or defining, interests. For example, someone might have a very strong interest in minority rights and will favor a candidate whose platform position on minority rights most closely aligns with his own. He will do so even though that candidate's pro-gun control position is inconsistent with the voter's [weak] pro-RKBA view.
   
   In many ways, in a number of States especially, the RKBA community has severe "packaging" problems as far as available candidates go. Too often a pro-RKBA candidate's position on various social issues make him an unacceptable choice for some voters who are pro-RKBA but also more aligned on various social issues. I see that a lot here -- where I know some shooters who just can't seem to bring themselves to go along with the one reasonably pro-RKBA candidate because of his positions on other issues.

[44 AMP]

We aren't the problem, but we could be part of the solution.

We ARE part of their solution, their Final Solution to the "gun problem".

And if you don't recognize where that term has been used in history, do some research.

I agree, while we are constantly told by "tolerant" people we should not, ever judge all by the actions of a few, we should not "profile" people because of who, or what they are or believe, we SHOULD not do it to people because of what they own, or believe.

And yet, the mass media does EXACTLY that to gun owners at every conceivable opportunity.

We are all tarred by the same brush, and they blame us for the actions of the very worst scum of humanity with a gun in their hands, because we ALSO have a gun.

This is a common tactic, used whenever the people who OWN the media wish to drive home a certain point, and reality is of no concern to them.

ALL nuclear reactions are just like Chernobyl, all men are rapists, all women are prostitutes, tec., etc., etc., because they have ONE THING in common.

The list goes on and on, and on. Pick any topic, and take a look, you will find it, people who have nothing but one thing in common all being treated as if they were all exactly the same. It's wrong, but they do it, get away with it, and promote it, because IT MAKES THEM MONEY!!

Fear sells. Sells better than good news, by a huge amount. If there isn't already a fear factor (about anything) at work, they will MAKE one!

If you had a decent education (and actually paid attention ) one of the things you should have learned about was "Yellow Journalism". The same kind of crap not only still exists today, it flourishes, it just isn't printed on yellow paper these days. It's on a screen, mostly.

[OPC]

Though the claim is that it's the "assault weapons" that must go, it's hard not to feel blamed as a gun owner.

We aren't the problem

Maybe not, but the problem isn't easily defined either. The more variables that factor into it, the more likely politicians are to settle on the easy, "we have to do something" answer.

From APNews 8/5/2019
"Mental Illness Is Not Main driver of mass shootings"

From NBC 8/5/2019
"Mass shootings: Experts say violence is contagious, and 24/7 news cycle doesn't help"

From APNews 8/5/209
Congress again weighs gun violence response

Complex thinking falls by the wayside when people are hurt.

[rickyrick]

If bans and/or restrictions were to happen going forward, it won’t be scary looking cosmetic features... it will be on the action of the rifle, semiautomatic to be precise. We were clever and found work arounds, the antis took notice. They’ve learned their lessons.

Gun owners are suffering from some cognitive dissonance right now; thinking the bill of rights or some political party will protect gun ownership.
A lot of Americans loathe gun owners, they are protesting and marching in the streets. Even gun owners are on different pages as to exactly what we should be allowed to own.

I myself have grown sick of the shootings.

[44 AMP]

Maybe not, but the problem isn't easily defined either.

I disagree. I think the problem is easily defined. The problem is people who are all too willing, and perhaps even eager to shoot other people because they feel like it.

That part is simple.

it's the rest that gets hyper-complicated. First there is the "how did we get here?" with all it's variables and their possible effects, and then there is the "what do we do about it?".

further complicating things is the general belief that if we don't understand how we got here, we can't do effective things to fix the problem.

And then...and then.. and among those "and then(s)...are those pesky things that include not only the law but also personal liberty, our rights, Constitutionally enumerated or not, and free will.

All we have to go on is recorded history, and theories people put together to explain how we got to where we are.

Studies are done, some right and some wrong conclusions are drawn, we argue, every side of the argument behaves as if all the other sides are deliberately lying. Some, I believe, are, some aren't.

And, we have a problem, unique to our modern age, one that almost nullifies the benefits of a democratic republic. Instantaneous transmission of information, true and untrue all over the nation and the world.

and oh, did I mention the difficulty having a calm rational discussion with yammerheads who just tick you off?? (and on any side of the issue?)

Blaming gun owners for all the evil done with guns is simplistic and foolish, and worse, it is LAZY.

and being lazy will NEVER solve the problem

[rickyrick]

If you had a decent education (and actually paid attention ) one of the things you should have learned about was "Yellow Journalism".

I was taught about yellow journalism in high school and how to recognize it. I was taught the history of America including the good and the ugly truth; I’m shocked about the things many Americans are just finding out. I was taught comprehension skills and understand what a message is even when the person conveying the message gaffs. I see a country full of people who lets those in power and the media tell them what their problem is, who is causing it then offer the voters a solution.

[Mainah]

Fear sells. Sells better than good news, by a huge amount

And that's how Wayne did so well, for so long. But it didn't work in the long run.

There have been tragic events in El Paso and Dayton. Tragic events are still taking place in Hong Kong and Moscow. Rights are being trampled, and people in search of freedom are being oppressed.

People on the left here seem pretty united in their distrust of the current leaders of much of the entire federal government. They're worried about their rights while their party is failing. And they don't trust the police. Seems like a pretty good time to sell the 2nd to a new audience. And to shut the hell up about every other aspect of these culture wars.

[Colorado Redneck]

Some, maybe most, discussions about gun rights and regulations here in the Firing Line eventually devolve into divisive discourse that tends to label anyone that sees value in some form of regulation as a "gun grabber." For some of us (me in particular) that results in reluctance to participate. But here goes, anyway.

Our nation has a hell of a problem. One component of that problem is firearms. Gun people resisting any opportunity to participate in productive coalitions to curb this problem does paint gun owners as self serving ludites. Our own community here applies peer pressure to that effect if members aren't staunchly against any type of legislative attempt to stop mass shootings. Colorado's Red Flag Law is one glaring example. Most of us seem to agree that guns need to be kept out of the hands of deranged lunatics. The Red Flag Law is aimed at doing exactly that. The responses of some herein have been heated opposition. So evidently that isn't the preferred means of approaching this issue. Mental health is trotted out time after time but a law that allows removing guns from lunatics is "unconstitutional." What I get from that is, people getting killed by guns is just a tiny downside to the rights of all people that want to buy any gun ever made. Where does that leave us? Doing absolutely nothing.

[Tom Servo]

and being lazy will NEVER solve the problem

Maybe, but it pays political dividends. A politician can look decisive and brave by taking on the [insert strawman] NRA. When his constituents are shocked and dismayed, here he comes with the solution to save the day.

Of course, the solution never seems to have an effect, so the next time it happens, we need even more of that solution. As long as the problem is perpetuated, he can exploit it.

Couple this with the fact that many in politics are calling things a moral crusade. More background checks or a ban on "assault weapons" are moral imperatives, and heaven help the person who's on the wrong side of that. I'm apparently on the "wrong side of decency" or callous about the victims if I argue against bad policy proposals.

So, how do we fix it? I've no idea. Social media has ruined political discourse and given moral authority to whoever can find the best slogan to rile up an ignorant mob. Facts don't do much in the face of that any more.

Really, the only thing we can do is exert raw political pressure on legislators. Problem is, the NRA is a fractured mess right now. I'm very worried about the next legislative session.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Colorado Redneck

Some, maybe most, discussions about gun rights and regulations here in the Firing Line eventually devolve into divisive discourse that tends to label anyone that sees value in some form of regulation as a "gun grabber." For some of us (me in particular) that results in reluctance to participate.

I would hope that having a minority view would not itself dissuade you from explaining that view. That said, it isn't divisive if others discuss problems with that view.

Originally Posted by Colorado Redneck

Our nation has a hell of a problem. One component of that problem is firearms. Gun people resisting any opportunity to participate in productive coalitions to curb this problem does paint gun owners as self serving ludites.

Our nation has many problems. Removing or ignoring limits on government power contained in the constitution isn't a solution to a problem, but is itself a problem. "Mass" shooting may be related to aspects of 1st Am. exercise, but whether most people agree that the 1st Am. should be ignored to reach a short term goal isn't generally seen as a responsible constitutional metric.

Originally Posted by Colorado Redneck

Our own community here applies peer pressure to that effect if members aren't staunchly against any type of legislative attempt to stop mass shootings. Colorado's Red Flag Law is one glaring example. Most of us seem to agree that guns need to be kept out of the hands of deranged lunatics. The Red Flag Law is aimed at doing exactly that. The responses of some herein have been heated opposition.

Whether a RFL is aimed at something doesn't mean that is what it actually does. I have profound reservations about laws with low pseudo-civil thresholds that have quasi-criminal effects and that restrict people's rights without due process. I wouldn't trample someone's due process rights any more gladly than I would trample his 2d, 1st or 4th Am. rights.

Before we set about adopting solutions, we should understand what the problem really is and willingly subject those offered solutions to ample scrutiny, particularly where basic rights are on the chopping block.

[44 AMP]

Mental health is trotted out time after time but a law that allows removing guns from lunatics is "unconstitutional."

This is absolutely NOT a true statement, though it may be someone's opinion, it is NOT correct.

We HAVE a law that allows removing guns from lunatics, and have had it for OVER 50 years!!!

In that half century, it has not been found unconstitutional, because it contains DUE PROCESS, which includes a hearing in court, where both sides get to present their cases before judicial authority.

This is no where near the "red flag" laws that allow a person's property to be seized based on ACCUSATIONS by individuals, without the due process of existing law.

My objection to these kinds of laws is simply, #1) they operate on presumptive guilt and are only overcome by proven innocence. And, proving you are NOT a threat is, like proving any negative, a difficult thing.

#2) Rather than properly utilize the existing system with its built in protection for the our rights, UNTIL guilt is established by a court, they remove our protections from abuse, both accidental and deliberate, in order to make things "easier".

Don't hold the government (at all levels) responsible for doing their job properly, simply pass new laws so they don't have to do as much, and MAYBE they'll be able to do that, better? Is this the way you want government to operate?

Might as well not bother with courts, or any of that other, expensive stuff. If someone files a complaint, the person they complain about must be guilty, no need for a trial, a hearing, rules of evidence or any of that, just go grab them, and throw them in jail....
oh, but wait, they aren't doing that, they're just taking the gun(s) from these "dangerous" people, and then letting them walk free amongst us.

Doesn't seem to make me feel any safer when they lock up inanimate objects and don't lock up then power that moves them.

[Metal god]

For the last two years-ish I have tried to wear something pro 2nd on my person every day . Mostly it's a hat that has the NRA logo . I wanted the debate if someone want to ask or challenge me as to why I would wear and or support the NRA logo . Yesterday was the first time I did not want to wear the hat or shirt or what ever . Not because I was ashamed or anything but after two shootings in two days , I did not want the crap storm that may come my way if I did .

I went back and forth with my self on this before I left the house . Thinking this is actually the exact time I should wear the hat because it's likely the time it would get the most attention ( keeping in mind I'm in CA in one of those VERY urban areas ) . I chose not to wear it and for that I'm a little ashamed because - is it little things like that , that make it are fault more don't understand we gun owners are not bad people ? There are just some bad people that own guns .

I don't know , maybe I'm over thinking it but I'm still conflicted .

[rickyrick]

A few weeks ago, locals were saying that an NRA sticker or cap is equivalent to wearing a swastika, I can only imagine what they are saying now.

[Colorado Redneck]

Delete

[Buzzcook]

Red Flag Laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law

As the article states they are restraining orders that include removing firearms from people that are judged to be a risk.

These laws cover people who may or may not be clinically unstable but still pose a risk to themselves and or others.

[Metal god]

I personally like the theory of a red flag law but I've yet to see one written in a away that seemed constitutional . I also believe ANY red flag law passed MUST have a provision in it that says if you falsely accuse some one you go to jail , no not fined , no not probation , you go directly to jail for causing another citizen to loose there fundamental rights because is also a crime . How you would prove that I don't know but just knowing it's a possibility would deter a lot of boy friends/girl friend or pissed off family members from just trying to screw you over because they were mad at you .

Maybe you have a choice of surrendering your guns to a third party until you get evaluated . I just don't know , like I said the "theory" IMHO is sound . Who better to see what you are going through then the people closet to you . No they are not likely professionals at assessing something like this/that . How else do we get the professionals involved if nobody knows who might be at risk .

I think of it like the terrorism slogan " if you see something say something " Except for the taking of your property ( which is no little thing ) it's the same idea ???

We just have to figure out a way for real due process to also be a part of any red flag law . How that would read I'm not sure . I mean I'm not a fan of them being able to search your home even with a warrant with out you first being able to fight it in court . My theory is maybe they secure the area but can't search until you get your day in court challenging the warrant . Once there in and looking you're screwed .

I mean they can be looking for a person but the warrant would also include items small enough to fit in a ring box allowing them to look EVERYWHERE even though they are look for a 6'5" 250lb man . Some how that allows them to look in the kitchen drawers . No sorry he's not in there you don't get to look in there . It's that kind of stuff that makes me not want red flag laws because they are likely going to write it in a way that infringes on us more then necessary .

[Nathan]

This whole thread seems to have many good points, yet many in the US would somehow say it promotes hate or white supremacy. I can read. I don’t see that. This is the very problem.

There are many folks who wander about aimlessly arguing, but lack, history, family or a clear head as a foundation. Gaming all day and night, music that promotes murder and rap, hatred of self reliance will never be the foundations to healthy thought. Rape list and hit lists are no longer signs of mental issues? I have read some amazing crap over the last few days to promote the agenda of hate towards gun owners.

If this post is off topic, please delete.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Buzzcook

Red Flag Laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law

As the article states they are restraining orders that include removing firearms from people that are judged to be a risk.

These laws cover people who may or may not be clinically unstable but still pose a risk to themselves and or others.

My state enacted a red flag law a couple of years ago. My state's concept of "due process" is that a person's firearms can be confiscated based on an unproven allegation and without any hearing ... in fact, the person doesn't even have to be informed that there's a complaint. After the guns have been confiscated, the person then gets to go into court and try to demonstrate why his (or her) guns should be given back.

In other words, all the "due process" is ex post facto, and the burden of proof is on the wrong side. Instead of someone having to show why your guns should be taken away, the burden is on you to show why you should get them back. That's like trying to prove a negative, which is generally considered to be next to impossible. The legislature stacked the deck, and they knew they were doing it when they did it. They did it intentionally.

[Tony Z]

Last week, a friend's daughter committed suicide. I'm 66, soon to be 67 and grew up with this guy and, in fact, he does handyman chores for me at my manufacturing plant. He is not a gun owner, nor a hunter.

His daughter was 28, and in front of the local police department (1/4 mile from where we live), live streamed on FB, shooting herself in the head. She was gainfully employed at a local hospital in marketing. She was not a drug user. She graduated from UNC, maybe 5 years ago, and was not what could be called "a person that should be watched", but evidently was suffering depression. One of the worse funerals I was ever at.

Where did she get the gun? My point is, no law would have prevented the act she committed. It could have been poison, vehicle or knife. Why in front of a police station? If someone would have tried to stop her, would others have been injured?

By laws, we're trying to rationalize, irrational acts. There is a deeper, multi-faceted problem here that all are failing to grasp.

[5whiskey]

Our nation has a hell of a problem. One component of that problem is firearms. Gun people resisting any opportunity to participate in productive coalitions to curb this problem does paint gun owners as self serving ludites. Our own community here applies peer pressure to that effect if members aren't staunchly against any type of legislative attempt to stop mass shootings. Colorado's Red Flag Law is one glaring example. Most of us seem to agree that guns need to be kept out of the hands of deranged lunatics. The Red Flag Law is aimed at doing exactly that. The responses of some herein have been heated opposition. So evidently that isn't the preferred means of approaching this issue. Mental health is trotted out time after time but a law that allows removing guns from lunatics is "unconstitutional." What I get from that is, people getting killed by guns is just a tiny downside to the rights of all people that want to buy any gun ever made. Where does that leave us? Doing absolutely nothing.

I hear you Colorado redneck. TFL is definitely an echo chamber for pro 2A sentiment, but I will say I appreciate some who are long time members who have differing views. While I may not agree with their particular views, I don’t mind hearing them. Plus I consider such things. Seriously, I loathe hearing about mass shootings. The loss of life, the depravity of some (typically) young man... I hate it. I want it to stop. If there was a way to drastically reduce the number of mass shootings, I would be all ears. Even if it’s a firearm restriction.

The devil, though, is in the details. The only sincere proposals that may, might curb mass shootings that I have seen in the past few years are the red flag laws. I have personally seen those laws abused before, but I also have seen most instances of abuse stop cold once the target of the ex parte hearing has their opportunity at due process during the full court hearing. I don’t have quite the knee jerk reaction against those laws that most here have. If there was any other proposal that could be articulated, with good supporting data and evidence, to drastically reduce these mass shootings I would consider it...

... well, I would consider it with caveats. See I could give up my ARs. Honestly, if it could be shown that doing so would end mass shootings I would be ok giving mine up. But there are several problems. A law banning ARs could not be proven to work, because there are already millions (10s of millions probably) in circulation. In addition, the AR also is the very current rifle that the 2nd amendment seeks to protect (an arm suitable for militia service), and that protection serves an important purpose. So whatever law proposed may could reduce the number of mass shootings where a hundred or so people die a year (which is tragic), but does it create potential problems down the road in removing a general deterrence to government oppression? It may sound silly but that is exactly why we have the 2nd amendment in the first place. How many more lives would be on the line should a despot gain populist support, ignore Supreme Court decisions, and begin oppressing minority populations (and don’t think it could never happen, you can look in the past 100 years of American history and find examples).


For me, I’m beyond “shall not be infringed” and “cold dead hands.” We are at a point where catchy slogans just sound ignorant. It’s important to articulate why we have the 2nd amendment in the first place. And I, for one, would be open to a restriction that could be shown to have a high likelihood of saving lives yet preserves the spirit of the constitution. Even if it was a restriction that personally affected me. I just don’t see where a restriction/law has been proposed that will serve that purpose. Other than possibly RFL, but even then any real “evidence” of their effectiveness is thus far lacking.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Colorado Redneck

Some, maybe most, discussions about gun rights and regulations here in the Firing Line eventually devolve into divisive discourse that tends to label anyone that sees value in some form of regulation as a "gun grabber." For some of us (me in particular) that results in reluctance to participate. But here goes, anyway.

Our nation has a hell of a problem. One component of that problem is firearms. Gun people resisting any opportunity to participate in productive coalitions to curb this problem does paint gun owners as self serving ludites. Our own community here applies peer pressure to that effect if members aren't staunchly against any type of legislative attempt to stop mass shootings. Colorado's Red Flag Law is one glaring example. Most of us seem to agree that guns need to be kept out of the hands of deranged lunatics. The Red Flag Law is aimed at doing exactly that. The responses of some herein have been heated opposition. So evidently that isn't the preferred means of approaching this issue. Mental health is trotted out time after time but a law that allows removing guns from lunatics is "unconstitutional." What I get from that is, people getting killed by guns is just a tiny downside to the rights of all people that want to buy any gun ever made. Where does that leave us? Doing absolutely nothing.

I wouldn't describe you as a 'redneck'...
-Another CO guy, who has a CCWP and agrees with you.

We just have to figure out a way for real due process to also be a part of any red flag law

Agree with that too.

PLUS...more than a few people, who cannot pass a background check, go to places where they can buy a firearm(or many firearms), because they cannot pass a background check...I really don't see the problem with trying to end this 'loophole'..If you are a law abiding citizen, then go get a BGC and buy the thing..I just bought a shotgun, the BGC took all of 10 minutes and $20..

BTW-most places, like CO, have provisions about transferring guns w/o a BGC between relatives..I'm good with that.

but does it create potential problems down the road in removing a general deterrence to government oppression?

Meaning the AR type platform firing a .223/.556 or 7.62 type round..

hmm, I know a LOT of people who own these and at least 2 who are FFLs who sell them and I have never heard of anybody saying they buy it cuz 'it's a deterrent to government oppression...

IMHO

[USNRet93]

I'll make a prediction..and No, I don't support this or anything like that BUT I'll predict that some sort of restriction on .223/.556 ammunition will be coming nationally. With 10 MILLION+ AR type platforms now in existence, that toothpaste is already out of the tube. Remove the ammunition and the 'platform' essentially becomes obsolete...

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Colorado Redneck

Our own community here applies peer pressure to that effect if members aren't staunchly against any type of legislative attempt to stop mass shootings.

There are two problems here. The first is that these legislative attempts are often a poor (if any) fit to the problem they claim to address. As others have mentioned, many of the proposed "red flag" measures trample due process and carry a huge potential for abuse.

(By the way, people under a protective order are already prohibited from possessing firearms.)

Proposals like background checks actually have no relation to the problem, and they're just a prepackaged agenda waiting for a convenient crisis. This brings us to the second problem: the fact that gun-control advocates operate in poor faith.

The stuff they're marketing is about restricting, and ultimately outlawing, gun ownership. The Brady Act was a stepping-stone to a registry, and all the abuses that entails. Schumer made that clear the very day it was signed, and it's why the Tiahrt Amendment gets them so hot and bothered. Likewise, the "Assault Weapons" Ban was a dry-run to see if they could get away with categorical, incremental bans. It was pushed as a way of protecting law enforcement, but the weapons banned weren't the ones used to harm law enforcement officers. They were simply the guns the ban's advocates could demonize. And again, the day it was signed, we were told it was just the "first step."

Neither the Brady Act or the AWB had any real effect on the crimes they were supposed to prevent (and boy, did they make some extravagant promises). Now they want to reinstate or expand those laws. If they were really intent on reducing mass shootings, they'd come up with something new.

But they won't because they've spent decades marketing those proposals. Ultimately, it's not about reducing violence. It's about making a big show for the cameras by doing something, even when something entails purely superficial and empty gestures.