The Perception of Gun Owners

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

And then gun owners try to trivialize their suffering.

When and where?

Being aware that politicians use such tragedies to advance their anti-gun agendas in no way trivializes the suffering of the victims or their families. If anything, it's the anti-gun zealots who voraciously pounce on every "mass shooting" (whether or not it's really a mass shooting) to promote their agenda who trivialize the suffering.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by RR

And then gun owners try to trivialize their suffering.

How does it trivialize the suffering of losing a family member to suicide with a gun to compare it to losing a family member from a drunk driver?

[Nathan]

And then gun owners try to trivialize their suffering.

How? We often lead the thoughts and prayers. We are also the ones that pull out data over emotion. Look at the anti-gun arguments.

Pass these bills we introduced to clog the federal government up in February that had no chance of passage, but now we demand you victims & families go to work with your tears and do the job that the data can’t do. GET THESE AIMLESS SYSTEM CLOGGING BILLS PASSED.

Then go away!

But we gun owners who want to continue to help you with data based solutions, training, gun clubs, etc. We’re the bad guys??<sarcasm >

[44 AMP]

One of the (many) things that bothers me about the issue is the double (triple? Quadruple? Double-Double??? ) standards applied by one side, and the generally successful use of those double standards among the under-informed, and uncommitted general population.

The constant focus on the gun as the primary cause of violence is disturbing to me, simply because of the obvious disconnect from reality.

If the gun is such an irredeemable tool of evil, how is it the police are considered "immune"? (some of the anti's want guns taken from the police, as well, and while I don't agree, I do applaud their consistency)

Does a uniform, a badge, and some training negate the "powerful, irresistible, siren call of these weapons of war to do mass murder on our streets"????

Considering the sheer numbers of police packing semiautomatic assault rifles or (gasp!) the select fire versions, which are MACHINE GUNS!, I'd tend to say it seems the police are somehow resistant.

But, then consider how a trained, licensed, "vetted" armed security guard, who worked for one of the largest private security firms in the world, went to the Pulse nightclub and murdered 49 people.

So, seems to me that, clearly something else is at work here...

Ted Bundy confessed to 30 homicides. How many he actually killed above that is unknown. He didn't use any guns.

A handful of terrorists killed a couple THOUSAND PEOPLE on 9/11/01 and didn't use ANY guns.

The US government will put an actual machinegun in the hands of an 18 year old and as long as they're in uniform, its ok....

Personally, I wonder if demonic possession might not be a cause. Of course, that can't be a real thing, in the 21st century, can it?

Numerous studies over the last century or so have found that most species of mammals have individuals (mostly males) that run "amok". Some species, when crowding (overpopulation) reaches a certain point, generalized "mass insanity" often results.

Put too many rats in a cage, they eat their young. Lemmings run until they run out of land...other species show other traits, what differs is how much they can take before going "crazy".

Individuality matters, as well. Certain individuals have lower tolerances than others. Could that be what we see with society's violence today?

I'm sure there is no single cause, nothing we can fix with another law or three. I just dislike the idea of blaming people who DIDN'T shoot anyone for the acts of the people who do.
It's not right, its not fair, and its not honest.

[Mainah]

I believe that lots of people have very good reason to be anti-gun. For every single victim of gun violence, accidental shooting or suicide there are several other people who’s life was shattered by the event.

I agree. I didn't grow up around guns, my real association with them came when two friends and one family member used guns in suicides and then when a buddy was shot to death for no reason. That's the reality in a society where guns are becoming less popular.

Calm and reasoned research into the facts changed my mind. Not getting yelled at.

And then gun owners try to trivialize their suffering.

I don't agree with that as a universal statement. However I will say that there is too much cross-over between the current gun rights movement and guys like Alex Jones who try to capitalize on murder.

Furthermore the pro-gun movement has been led for too long by a guy who accused political opponents of being naive because they live in gated communities, while he was trying to get gun rights supporters to pay for his house in a gated community.

[SIGSHR]

Public perception of gun owners ? Define "public". After the 1994 elections NPR sent a reporter on a LONG journey through flyover country/the heartland/red states/whatever, he admitted that it's a different country, said that attacking the NRA was like attacking the Baptist church, the PTA, the American Legion.

[MTT TL]

So, seems to me that, clearly something else is at work here...

Ted Bundy confessed to 30 homicides. How many he actually killed above that is unknown. He didn't use any guns.

A handful of terrorists killed a couple THOUSAND PEOPLE on 9/11/01 and didn't use ANY guns.

The US government will put an actual machinegun in the hands of an 18 year old and as long as they're in uniform, its ok....

Personally, I wonder if demonic possession might not be a cause. Of course, that can't be a real thing, in the 21st century, can it?

If you are looking for markers drug use and mental illness are the two most consistent ones. Practically every killer be it a mass killer or otherwise used marijuana and various psychotropic drugs regularly. In fact it is easier now to say which killers did not use these drugs. Use of these drugs often presents as mental illness which is why doctors routinely check for drugs before even trying to treat apparently mentally ill patients.

[rickyrick]

Like it or not, public perception of gun owners is pretty low ATM, no one says other's perception has to be founded on the same logic or beliefs as gun owners.

What the public sees or perceives is just that. They see the conspiracy theories and claims of false flags. They see gun owners grumble on about civil war, “come and take it”, “out side has all the bullets” and all the other cliches regurgitated on social media. Gun owners are perceived as adults throwing tantrums over the prospect of loosing their toys.

[Mainah]

Public perception of gun owners ? Define "public". After the 1994 elections NPR sent a reporter on a LONG journey through flyover country/the heartland/red states/whatever, he admitted that it's a different country, said that attacking the NRA was like attacking the Baptist church, the PTA, the American Legion.

1994 was a long time ago, and the NRA is in big trouble now. In part because their leadership is out of touch with gun owners. That creates a big void in terms of projecting our image now.

[44 AMP]

Gun owners are perceived as adults throwing tantrums over the prospect of loosing their toys.

Indeed, because we are a basket of deplorables, clinging to our guns and our religion.

Or so we have been called by the political elite of one of the two major parties.

The other party pretty much takes us for granted, simply because "where else are you going to go?"

Realpoiitik, but no less real for all that.

Practically every killer be it a mass killer or otherwise used marijuana and various psychotropic drugs regularly.

Ok, but also true is, practically every killer be it a mass killer or otherwise ate bread or a bread product regularly.

It's just not that simple. I'd also be willing to bet all the killers also wore shoes regularly. The fact that one can co-relate things does not mean A causes B 100% of the time, or even, that A causes B, at all.

EVERY case is an individual, and general tendencies don't mean much, if anything, useful. Look at the millions of people who use marijuana or any other drugs, legal or not, and who kill NO ONE.

And always remember that "more likely" does NOT mean "will happen".

[MTT TL]

Ok, but also true is, practically every killer be it a mass killer or otherwise ate bread or a bread product regularly.

It's just not that simple. I'd also be willing to bet all the killers also wore shoes regularly. The fact that one can co-relate things does not mean A causes B 100% of the time, or even, that A causes B, at all.

EVERY case is an individual, and general tendencies don't mean much, if anything, useful. Look at the millions of people who use marijuana or any other drugs, legal or not, and who kill NO ONE.

And always remember that "more likely" does NOT mean "will happen".

Really?

Unless you have diabetes eating bread does not present as a mental illness. Same for wearing shoes and all those other perfectly legal activities. And while the vast majority of people wear shoes and eat bread only a small minority of the population consume drugs illegally. So I am not sure what your strawmen are good for?

The co-relation between crime and drug use is well beyond contestation. If you like I can bomb you with peer reviewed studies, facts and figures to show this. I really don't mind. This isn't a general tendency it is a simple fact.

Besides which you are looking at this the wrong way. This has to do with the fact that a small population (drug users) are responsible for nearly every murder in the country. Therefore if you want to reduce the number of murders you simply reduce the number of illegal drug users.

[44 AMP]

Besides which you are looking at this the wrong way. This has to do with the fact that a small population (drug users) are responsible for nearly every murder in the country. Therefore if you want to reduce the number of murders you simply reduce the number of illegal drug users.

I don't think I'm looking at it the wrong way so much as, in this case we're looking at the wrong thing.

This has to do with the fact that a small population (illegal gun users) are responsible for nearly every gun murder in the country. Therefore if you want to reduce the number of murders you simply reduce the number of illegal gun users.

If you are implying that illegal drug use, alone, is the cause of murder in this country, I don't think its that simple.

We've had guns in this country since before we had a country. Some believe that it was private ownership of weapons of war that allowed us the tools needed to become our own country.

What we haven't had throughout our history is numbers of people willing to shoot random people for kicks. We've had the technology to commit mass murder with firearms for a long time. "High capacity" magazines are well over a century old, as well. The criminals of the motor bandit /prohibition era had full auto weapons, either legally purchased, or stolen from Govt arsenals. We didn't have the mass shooting like we get today, back then.
They shot each other, they shot police, and rarely they shot people they robbed. They didn't shoot into crowds of people just because they could.

Why not? if it was the gun that caused it?

Something ELSE is the reason. Probably multiple somethings. As I see it, it's not the guns, that are the problem it is some people's willingness to shoot random people. And the actions of those few deranged individuals being blamed on people whose only co-relation with the killers is that they also own a gun.

we are constantly told how wrong it is to profile and judge all members of a group by the actions of a few individuals, but that goes out the window when it comes to gun owners. In fact the anti's not only act that way, they demand every one else do, as well.

or so it seems to me...

[MTT TL]

We've had guns in this country since before we had a country. Some believe that it was private ownership of weapons of war that allowed us the tools needed to become our own country.

We've had the technology to commit mass murder with firearms for a long time.

What we haven't had throughout our history is numbers of people willing to shoot random people for kicks.

Again you are looking at the wrong thing. I never said the guns were responsible.

How long have we had Alprazolam, Fluoxetine and high octane weed? 1981?, 1986? 2005? You still don't see a pattern, eh?

We didn't have the mass shooting like we get today, back then.
They shot each other, they shot police, and rarely they shot people they robbed. They didn't shoot into crowds of people just because they could.

Why not? if it was the gun that caused it?

Something ELSE is the reason. Probably multiple somethings. As I see it, it's not the guns, that are the problem it is some people's willingness to shoot random people.

It is almost like you are right at the doorway but afraid to go in. This unhealthy diversion in to blaming the guns is odd.

Think of it is a bad reaction or side effect. Not everyone gets a bad reaction or side effect from taking Penicillin for example. Some people get rashes, some people go in to shock some people die. Well some people who take these mind altering dugs (and by what I mean by some people I mean an entire practically exclusive population of people) pick up guns and murder people for sport and whimsy. Sure it is a small portion of the population and some people are going to be more susceptible than others but it doesn't change the fact that they are the ones doing it.

[44 AMP]

Again you are looking at the wrong thing. I never said the guns were responsible.

I didn't mean to imply that you said guns were responsible. The people saying that are the people who want restrictions and bans. At least the people calling for enhanced background checks seem to be addressing the issue by looking at the people getting guns, and not the inanimate object.

It is almost like you are right at the doorway but afraid to go in. This unhealthy diversion in to blaming the guns is odd.

Not sure what you mean by the doorway, but I will agree that blaming the gun is not rational. I'm not the one blaming the gun.

Well some people who take these mind altering dugs (and by what I mean by some people I mean an entire practically exclusive population of people) pick up guns and murder people for sport and whimsy.

This is where I have trouble following what you mean. WHAT practically exclusive population of people are you referring to? ALL drug users? Because I don't see that as true.

Violent sociopaths? that I could agree with. Absolutely true some, if not most of the mass shooters have been on some kind of dope, some prescription, some street drugs, some both.

But not all of the mass killers has been. Some have been jihadists, or other stripes of fanatics, without drugs being mentioned in any accounts I have seen.

What we've got is wacked out people, due to some reason, drugs, fanaticism over some racial or ethnic or religious cause, or other mental problems, or for reasons we never learn, some of them have been fully functional in society, until they snapped, others borderline, what people often refer to as "losers", who ALSO haven't broken any laws, until they snap and start shooting.

Seems like if we create a profile that most fit, some exception comes along, and blows the profile out of the water, figuratively speaking.

[MTT TL]

ALL drug users? Because I don't see that as true.

Absolutely true some, if not most of the mass shooters have been on some kind of dope, some prescription, some street drugs, some both.

100% no, more than 90% yes. Once you get past the Three Sigma Rule you are in a very high confidence. I don't include Islamic terrorists in the numbers because they have solid reasons for wanting to kill people and their actions are targeted instead of random. These type activities are also not new. They are just new to us in the US. And really not even that new.

[Mainah]

Therefore if you want to reduce the number of murders you simply reduce the number of illegal drug users

.

We've been trying for over 100 years without any results. I don't think it's simple.

[44 AMP]

I don't include Islamic terrorists in the numbers because they have solid reasons for wanting to kill people and their actions are targeted instead of random.

As far as I'm concerned, NO ONE has a "solid reason" for the mass murder of innocent people. NO ONE.

Their actions are targeted? I suppose, in the broadest sense, but their target selection seems to include everyone in the world who is not them.

Once you get past the Three Sigma Rule you are in a very high confidence.

Ok, so you have a high confidence that mass killers are on drugs. How confident are you that drugs are the cause, and not just a contributing factor, or an irrelevant factor?

Because I see all three as possible, but only examination of each individual shooter's history will allow any reasonable assessment of how much of a factor drugs were, and only for that individual.

This was my point about eating bread and wearing shoes, two examples of something we all do, and are part of the mass killer's lives, as well. But they don't CAUSE the mass killings. Picking this or that factor and saying it is the cause of all just doesn't cut it for me. With one exception.

and that is, that ALL the mass killers do have one thing in common, they did what they did, because they WANTED TO!

[rickyrick]

I had a violent family member that never used drugs... never.
This person also rarely consumed alcohol. But was a cigarette smoker.

[MTT TL]

As far as I'm concerned, NO ONE has a "solid reason" for the mass murder of innocent people. NO ONE.

Their actions are targeted? I suppose, in the broadest sense, but their target selection seems to include everyone in the world who is not them.

I agree on both however; they do not.

Ok, so you have a high confidence that mass killers are on drugs. How confident are you that drugs are the cause, and not just a contributing factor, or an irrelevant factor?

Because I see all three as possible, but only examination of each individual shooter's history will allow any reasonable assessment of how much of a factor drugs were, and only for that individual.

I am going to disagree. There are some new studies out there that agree with me as well.

This was my point about eating bread and wearing shoes, two examples of something we all do, and are part of the mass killer's lives, as well. But they don't CAUSE the mass killings. Picking this or that factor and saying it is the cause of all just doesn't cut it for me. With one exception.

Except as I already pointed out people have been doing those things for a long time. The mind altering drugs are a new factor, same as the shootings.

and that is, that ALL the mass killers do have one thing in common, they did what they did, because they WANTED TO!

I am not suggesting that they did what they did against their will. The gulf between "wanting to do something wrong" and "doing something wrong" is quite large in most people. Mind altering drugs have been used to bridge that gap legally and illegally for quite some time.

Terrorist organizations will often get suicide bombers high or drunk to help overcome objections to completing their task. The US Army spent a lot of money issuing Xanax and similar drugs to get soldiers "healthy" enough to return to combat. In Africa Khat is a drug of choice to feed child soldiers to keep them high enough to keep killing. These are just a few examples.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

...There are some new studies out there that agree with me...

Exactly what studies? Citations?

[Mainah]

I am going to disagree. There are some new studies out there that agree with me as well.

That would be valuable information to cite. I know what happens where I live. Maine has seen an explosion in opioid addiction that led to a spike in overdose deaths and a slight increase in petty crime. But the murder rate has remained static throughout.

The mind altering drugs are a new factor, same as the shootings.

We just had the 50th anniversary of Woodstock. They're not new, mass shootings are.

But if you could produce a study that demonstrated the increase in ADHD related diagnosis in young people and the corresponding increase in the prescribed and legal use of drugs in response to that trend you might be onto something.

[MTT TL]

Maine has seen an explosion in opioid addiction that led to a spike in overdose deaths and a slight increase in petty crime. But the murder rate has remained static throughout.

Opioids are a very different drug and also a very old one. The violence linked to opioids is more to do with suicide, neglect and people who are dope sick willing to do just about anything to get more. As a depressant that puts people in to a physically and mentally depressed or comatose like state they do little to incite violence and actually make people calmer and more easy to control (when high).

We just had the 50th anniversary of Woodstock. They're not new, mass shootings are.

Well no, not that new. Charles Whitman climbed a bell tower just over three years to the day before Woodstock. Whitman was high on amphetamines and tranquilizers. He also had a brain tumor that likely played a role. But notice always the drugs.

[rickyrick]

Something to consider

[MTT TL]

That is a good chart and kind of emphasizes my point. Especially when put in to context.



Notice the inverse relationship?

How about now?



While violence has declined over all the mass shootings are becoming more common.

[Mainah]

Opioids are a very different drug and also a very old one. The violence linked to opioids is more to do with suicide, neglect and people who are dope sick willing to do just about anything to get more. As a depressant that puts people in to a physically and mentally depressed or comatose like state they do little to incite violence and actually make people calmer and more easy to control (when high).

But they're certainly mind altering. I thought that was your point.

Well no, not that new. Charles Whitman climbed a bell tower just over three years to the day before Woodstock. Whitman was high on amphetamines and tranquilizers. He also had a brain tumor that likely played a role. But notice always the drugs.

Uppers and downers have been around for a long time too, and Whitman's crime was an anomaly.