Less recognized aspect of societal damage from gun control

[maestro pistolero]

What started out as an OT comment on another forum might make for an interesting topic of it's own:

Because of the failure of some local governments to trust citizens with liberty for so long (the denial of 2A rights), there is a self-fulfilling prophecy on the government's part. The government first fails to trust it's citizens with liberty, then, after a couple of generations, the citizens may forget what it means to be trusted.

Those of us who grew up exercising 2A rights didn't just learn gun safety and marksmanship. We learned about the sacred trust, honor, the fragility of life, and the responsibility that comes with gun-culture socialization.

Those who haven't been raised with that credo have been robbed of that as well. That is perhaps the most damaging aspect of gun control on communities like Chicago.
-MP

[secret_agent_man]

This would not be a problem if military service was compulsory where everyone trained on firearms. State and local governments and their respective agencies which opposing guns would be forced to stand down or be replaced with friendlies.

[BarryLee]

With freedom comes responsibilities and I fear more and more Americans are more than willing to give up freedom to avoid the responsibilities it brings.

[Buzzcook]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc
"after this, therefore because of this,"

It's a nice game anyone can play. After the Nineteenth Amendment the US started an inexorable slide in self destruction. Or so some say.
Pick an event and then pick your signs of failure. The foundation of the Federal Reserve is a popular one and so is the killing of the 2nd Bank of America.

It's a bit more difficult to pick those signs of our sliding into heck in a hand basket. But just a bit.

Loose social mores is popular, crime relative to some ideal is another. The key to all of them is some ideal that the writer holds up for his audience. "Remember when we were all god fearing patriotic Americans, respectful of the rights of others and observant of our civic duties"?

In this instance I'd like to point out that in many states there have been reductions in gun control. Would the writer care to illustrate the surge in respect for authority in those states?

[maestro pistolero]

Would the writer care to illustrate the surge in respect for authority in those states?

Respect squandered is not quickly or easily regained. It must be earned back over time. And trust, or the lack thereof, is a definitively mutual quality.

[Buzzcook]

Respect squandered is not quickly or easily regained. It must be earned back over time. And trust, or the lack thereof, is a definitively mutual quality.

In other words no.

How about in those areas where there never were onerous gun laws, such as Alaska or Vermont? Are those places noticeably more trusting of government?

Personally I do think America has descended into a morass. I just don't think there is one cause and I don't believe gun laws is one of the several causes.

[maestro pistolero]

In other words no.

How about in those areas where there never were onerous gun laws, such as Alaska or Vermont? Are those places noticeably more trusting of government?


Personally I do think America has descended into a morass. I just don't think there is one cause and I don't believe gun laws is one of the several causes.

My point is more about the government that doesn't trust it's law abiding citizens with 2A rights and their resulting lack of experience in being trusted with them.

As a result, all that some segments of the population know about guns are that they are the tools of criminals, and they don't get to see what responsible keeping and bearing looks like. That part of their upbringing is missing.

In other words, being taught and cultured in the responsible bearing of arms brings with it rich lessons that is part of what is denied to society when the right is infringed.

You are reframing it in terms of respect for authority and that was never my point.

[Standing Wolf]

With freedom comes responsibilities and I fear more and more Americans are more than willing to give up freedom to avoid the responsibilities it brings.

Ouch! Most unfortunately, BarryLee, that statement carries the sting of truth.

[BGutzman]

This would not be a problem if military service was compulsory where everyone trained on firearms. State and local governments and their respective agencies which opposing guns would be forced to stand down or be replaced with friendlies.

Even the military has little use for guns.... Most of the times I ever deployed to dangerous places, we had rifles..... but no ammo....heaven forbid you harm an enemy of our nation.....

Its a sad state of affairs...

[Edward429451]

Well, the television show COPS makes it very plain that our nations Law Enforcement industry leans heavily on scare tactics and has zero respect for the citizenry.

[bigkrackers]

The government is not to blame. The only powers the government has are those powers given to it by the people, or in the Feds case, the States via the people through their elected officials, or through complacency via inaction and silence.

We the people don't seem to have a problem giving up our freedoms for a little bit of comfort and or a feeling of security.

Most of this countries issues cannot be traced to one source, however, the public education in this country over the last 40 years, along with the liberal takeover of higher education, has born some horrendously rotten fruit.

Couple that with the epidemic of narcissism in this country and we have a bunch of morons who could care less about freedom and more about what they can get for free.

A stupid and dumb population are easily controlled and manipulated.

This is the place we find ourselves, those of us who are aware enough, and it is a sad thing that we have lost so much of our culture to progressivism.

But, the battles that have been won on behalf of the 2nd Amendment give me hope that some of it can be turned around.

In words of the great Buz Lightyear, "Never give up, never surrender." I have toddlers. Give me a break.

[Buzzcook]

In other words, being taught and cultured in the responsible bearing of arms brings with it rich lessons that is part of what is denied to society when the right is infringed.

I agree that learning about and using firearms is a net positive for both the individual and the society. I disagree that overarching social ills are traceable to gun control legislation.

I am trying to get you to frame your argument. Implicit in your first graph is a loss of trust.

Because of the failure of some local governments to trust citizens with liberty for so long (the denial of 2A rights), there is a self-fulfilling prophecy on the government's part.

The clear meaning is that the citizens become untrustworthy. The reciprocal is that the citizens lose trust in government.

You repeat the theme here.

The government first fails to trust it's citizens with liberty, then, after a couple of generations, the citizens may forget what it means to be trusted.

You keep the theme of the relationship between government and the people. Because of course people have trust relationships that don't involve government.
One of the foundations of a trusting relationship is that it is reciprocal. That's why I used the phrase citizen's loss of trust in government.

So you leave me with two choices, either the citizens of America are untrustworthy or the citizens have lost faith in government.
I believe the former is simply wrong and the latter is self evident.

Those of us who grew up exercising 2A rights didn't just learn gun safety and marksmanship. We learned about the sacred trust, honor, the fragility of life, and the responsibility that comes with gun-culture socialization.

OK here's your statement of ideals. I gotta say I think they describe things that aren't integral to gun ownership and use, with the exception of responsibility. I also dislike the phrase "gun culture". It seems to be elitist when connected with phrases such as "sacred duty".

Those who haven't been raised with that credo have been robbed of that as well. That is perhaps the most damaging aspect of gun control on communities like Chicago.

The first sentence is incomplete, what credo? But it also sounds like hubris. Many men and women have lived in America since 1776. Many of those people didn't own guns, didn't care one way or the other about gun rights or gun "culture". Many of them also left there lives on battlefields from Bunker Hill to Bastone.
Were they and was their sacrifice somehow less than those raised with guns? How many times do we have to hear about the good Samaritan before we realize that people outside our tribe can also be amongst the just?

Chicago was a pretty nasty place starting before the last century. Back when there were no gun control laws. Sinclair Lewis among others documented a society that had little that was sacred, trustworthy, honorable, or responsible. They knew the fragility of life largely because it was so cheap.
Fast forward a few years and Chicago is ruled by America's most infamous mobster. Citizens were free to buy civilian versions of the BAR or Thompson. Sacred trust, responsibility, etc are in little evidence.
Compared to those times modern Chicago is a shining city on a hill.

So in short gun ownership and gun rights, good. Gun control as a root of other societal problems, not so much.

[maestro pistolero]

I disagree that overarching social ills are traceable to gun control legislation.

I wouldn't call gun control a primary cause of social ills, either. What I am saying is that fundamental social lessons are contained in the teaching and passing on of firearms culture. Give those what weight you will, or not. But whatever social lessons exists apart from the more apparent net benefit (and it sounds like you think there are none), they are left behind with the denial of the right.

Implicit in your first graph is a loss of trust.

Yes. And I would add trust of oneself might be worth examination. Anecdotally, I have often heard those who have never held a firearm express a real fear of what horrible thing they might do in a heated moment. That may be a reasonable fear, but only they have the same level of fear about what they may do out of anger with a sharp knife, a baseball bat, or some other implement capable of severe harm.

The clear meaning is that the citizens become untrustworthy.

It would seem so, but the finer point is that they aren't seen as trustworthy, and some who would otherwise be trustworthy believe the lie. Like the smart kid who is told repeatedly what an idiot he is. Humans often live up to negative expectations of authority figures like parents, teachers, or government leaders.

The reciprocal is that the citizens lose trust in government.

Perhaps.

So you leave me with two choices, either the citizens of America are untrustworthy or the citizens have lost faith in government.

That's quite a leap. And a false choice.

First, most states do not infringe on the right to a degree that demonstrates a fundamental mistrust of the populace. So we aren't talking about the 'citizens of America' en total.

Second, I never said the citizens of America have lost faith in Government, although if true, it would be hard to blame them. On the contrary, approximately half of the country generally believes government to be the solution to most societal shortcomings. But that view is either evidence of, or reinforces the belief that folks really can't be trusted by the government to handle even the most basic duty of keeping their family safe from harm, which necessarily includes the exercise of the 2A rights.

OK here's your statement of ideals. I gotta say I think they describe things that aren't integral to gun ownership and use, with the exception of responsibility.

I don't think they are integral to gun ownership and use with the same exception. But I do think they they are positive by-products and attributes and that are absorbed by young, formative minds in the process of learning the responsible safe use of arms.

Sacred trust, because I believe innocent life is sacred (feel free to disagree). We trust each other not to misuse the right.

Honor, because being trustworthy with lethal force is honorable. When a parent teaches a child to shoot it inevitably communicates a sense of worthiness, and trust between the parent and the child.

The fragility of life, because learning muzzle and trigger control inevitably calls to mind to the preciousness and vulnerability of human beings.

The responsibility that comes with gun-culture socialization.

I also dislike the phrase "gun culture". It seems to be elitist when connected with phrases such as "sacred duty".

Feel free to substitute a phrase that's less loaded for you. The duty to which I refer is the duty not to harm innocent (to me, sacred) life. Perhaps that will go down a little easier for you.

Those of us who grew up exercising 2A rights didn't just learn gun safety and marksmanship. We learned about the sacred trust, honor, the fragility of life, and the responsibility that comes with gun-culture socialization.

Those who haven't been raised with that credo have been robbed of that as well. That is perhaps the most damaging aspect of gun control on communities like Chicago.

The first sentence is incomplete, what credo?

Sure it's incomplete, when you fail to post the previous sentence to which it refers. See bold.

. . . But it also sounds like hubris. Many men and women have lived in America since 1776. Many of those people didn't own guns, didn't care one way or the other about gun rights or gun "culture". Many of them also left there lives on battlefields from Bunker Hill to Bastone.

Here's where you really lose me. This is a classic straw man argument. I've said nothing to indicate that many of these positive qualities are impossible to acquire in some other way, nor would I ever disparage in any way a person who, for reasons of conscience or any other reason, declined to take up arms.

Were they and was their sacrifice somehow less than those raised with guns? How many times do we have to hear about the good Samaritan before we realize that people outside our tribe can also be amongst the just?

I would never posit such an absurd notion. My family has been in this country since about 1730, roughly the time of Washington's birth. Some of my direct ancestors were Quakers (pacifists), but many others fought in the American revolution. While that doesn't make me one bit more of an American than last week's immigrant, is has given me a sense of national identity and an inclusiveness for diverse views on the subject of arms, up to, but not including the denial of the right.

[Hardcase]

Academically speaking, I also don't believe that gun control, in and of itself, is a root cause for whatever disintegration of our society may be taking place. Perhaps, in the quest to find a simple, yet pithy, homily to describe what's happening, this will do:

"Familiarity breeds contempt."

The corollary to that is probably something along the lines of "use it or lose it." If you don't exercise your freedoms, it becomes pretty easy to tolerate losing them. It happens all the time with First Amendment rights, but there are plenty of First Amendment organizations who fight against those who would take those rights and try to educate those who are apathetic about them (the contemptuous ones). Of course, you don't hear them called "free speech nuts" and I think that's because nobody can be killed with words (I say that cynically, of course.)

Defenders of the Second Amendment are gun nuts, of course, because too many people have elected to ignore their Second Amendment right, so it's easy to sit idly by and watch it taken away. It's not an inconvenience to them, so it's not worth defending.

The Fourth Amendment is perilously close to gaining Second Amendment status in that regard - "Why should you object to me searching you if you haven't done anything wrong?" You're not "soft on crime" if you defend that right, but it's getting to be a tough sell.

I don't have children, so I don't know what's being taught in schools about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I know that my niece and nephews don't seem to have a very good grasp of either, so that makes me assume that they're typical of what both school and parents are teaching these days.

[BlueTrain]

I'm not sure which liberties we aren't trusted with that is referred to in the first post. In any event, there isn't much trust anymore, apparently, one way or the other. Or is this another thread about how someone doesn't like government, meaning the government that got elected. I suppose that means you have a problem with elections, provided your candidate wasn't elected. Too bad the loser didn't have a brother who was a governor somewhere.

Or is it another thread about how all values, rights and priveliges hang on just part of one admendment to the constitution? Remember, it was written to provide, in a way, for the militia, because the didn't trust standing armies back then. But the little problem is that the milita is an arm of the government. Can't have it both ways.

Maybe another problem is that our memory isn't long enough. I don't remember when we were all god fearing patriotic American,s respectful of the rights of others and observant of our civic duties. To some, god fearing only counts if you belong to the same church or denomination. Other religions are, apparently, godless, just like communism, socialism, social-democrats, whigs, tories, and I don't know wht all. Some people, I seem to recall, basically had no rights at all.

[maestro pistolero]

I'm not sure which liberties we aren't trusted with that is referred to in the first post.

Really?

Because of the failure of some local governments to trust citizens with liberty for so long (the denial of 2A rights), . . .

Or is it another thread about how all values, rights and priveliges hang on just part of one admendment to the constitution?

No. It's discussing the loss of ancillary benefits to society and individuals, separate from the primary benefits of 2A culturization when the tradition of the practice of 2nd amendment rights ceases due to infringement.