Gun Culture

veronie

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
465
Reaction score
58
Location
Ocala, Florida
Website
www.preferredword.com
I have a hunter friend that's incensed about using pistols, assault rifles and such for hunting. He says they're immoral tools because hunters are not supposed to be in the inflicting cruelty business. One shot, one kill, and every time you have to track game to finish it off with another shot, you've failed - that's his philosophy.

You can kill a game animal with an AR-15, with one shot. A lot of hunters do it. And you can kill a big-game animal with one shot of a large-caliber pistol. No hunter I know is looking to fire multiple shots at an animal they are hunting. They are all looking for a one-shot kill with whatever gun they are using.
 

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
In his early days, yeah, maybe, but -- and this is just my personal taste based on only slight familiarity because I'm not really a fan (go, Spiderman) -- the later, Dark Knight Batman also seems to have devolved into violence-fetishism.

Guns are just the prop of the fetish. They kill people in real life, but they didn't get stuck in our minds all by themselves. Our gun fixation exists within a larger context of fixation on violence, taking many forms. To me, later versions of Batman seem to wallow in inflicting pain and physical damage on characters to a near-porn degree. That kind of thing is something I think we need to get some self-awareness on.

I recently watched a movie called Headhunters. It was Swedish, if I recall correctly. Hard to remember what language I'm hearing when I'm basically reading the movie in English subtitles. Anyway, it was a crime thriller about a thief running afoul of a killer, and there was a shit-ton of violence in it. However, even though violence resolved the plot in the end, the violence was not glorified nor presented as fun in any way. Possibly the most unrealistic thing about it was that the MC survived to the end. They really beat the crap out of this poor guy. But in any event, what saved the day was not the last bullet fired, but the cleverness of the MC in preparing for the final showdown. If we're going to apply a Hayes Code approach -- which we absolutely should not do ever again -- then "Headhunters" was pretty damned irresponsible, socially. But still, what it glorified was brains over violence. (It was also pretty good. I recommend it to a mature audience.)

For an American example of something similar, I think of Ocean's Eleven, Twelve, and Thirteen, which similarly make heroes out of criminals, but which are love-letters to intelligence, cunning, expertise and wit, rather than violence. I wonder if we cannot start to think about how we, as Americans, traditionally or ideally address challenges and conflicts to come out winners without killing people. I would love to see us get to a place where the American hero/heroine is smart instead of violent, where young people grow up with role models that use their intelligence to save their lives, and where we grow up to be focused on preventing violence rather than engaging in it.
 
Last edited:

mirandashell

Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
16,197
Reaction score
1,889
Location
England
To go back to the OP, I think this is the biggest cultural difference between the UK and the US.

When we have a gun rampage, we clamp down on gun ownership. We make it harder because over here guns are a bad thing. We don't even like our police having guns, never mind Joe Bloggs. So having armed guards in schools is completely inconceviable.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
So there's something good about owning a gun but not knowing a lot of details about it? I don't get this.

Yes there are people in the U.S. who know a lot about guns, but they are a minority. The vast majority of people here know very little about guns. Yes some people know a lot about guns and it's an interest of theirs. Those are usually the kinds of people who don't go out and kill other people. They go to the range, they practice, they often are responsible with guns. I don't see anything wrong with them knowing a lot about the make and model of their guns, any differently than a car enthusiast knowing a lot more about cars than the average person.

It's more often than not that mass killers know a lot less about guns. They just want to kill people, they aren't interested in the history or make or model of a gun more than their need to kill people.

A person who really has a fun time going to the range, and knows a lot about calibers and makes and models, usually doesn't have any interest in murdering people. There's no connection there, except for a general fear you might have of gun enthusiasts, which I would say is irrational.

I'd say there is a distinct difference in mentality between, say, people who honestly just want their guns for hunting and people who have delusions of being a hero and taking out bad guys. I don't think all gun enthusiasts fall into that latter category, but they are certainly people who exist.
 

veronie

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
465
Reaction score
58
Location
Ocala, Florida
Website
www.preferredword.com
Assault rife is a perfectly accurate term for weapons whose primary function is to provide the ability to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time.

You may disagree about this, but it's not the opinion of someone "uneducated."

You're incorrect about the definition of an "assault rifle." It's a common misconception. An "assault rifle" is a select-fire rifle, capable of shooting in fully-automatic mode, such as a three-burst automatic mode of the military's M4 rifle. U.S. citizens are already banned from owning those kinds of rifles. An AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle, and is no different in functionality than a semi-automatic hunting rifle.
 

veronie

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
465
Reaction score
58
Location
Ocala, Florida
Website
www.preferredword.com
I'd say there is a distinct difference in mentality between, say, people who honestly just want their guns for hunting and people who have delusions of being a hero and taking out bad guys. I don't think all gun enthusiasts fall into that latter category, but they are certainly people who exist.

There are delusions of both kinds. There are people deluded enough to think it could never happen, or that they would never be the victim of a home invasion. They do happen, and when they do people often say they never thought it would happen to them.

Then there are the people who are deluded enough to think it happens all the time, and that a mass killing could happen anywhere they happen to be.

But there are a lot of people, like myself, who are realists. I know it's rare and most likely will never suffer a home invasion while I or my family is at home, and that I will likely never be assaulted by a person with a gun, or in a place where a mass killing takes place. But just in case, I am prepared. Since it's one of those issues where if the rare chance that it does happen comes true, my life and the lives of my loved ones are on the line. So I'd rather have it and never need it (and I hope I don't) then need it when my life is on the line, and not have it.

Killings and home invasions do happen. That's reality, not delusion.
 

EMaree

a demon for tea
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,655
Reaction score
839
Location
Scotland
Website
www.emmamaree.com
I'd say there is a distinct difference in mentality between, say, people who honestly just want their guns for hunting and people who have delusions of being a hero and taking out bad guys. I don't think all gun enthusiasts fall into that latter category, but they are certainly people who exist.

Something I find interesting about the UK attitude is that I've never met anyone who wants to own a gun for self-defense. The attitude is: you use a gun for hunting if you're legit, and using a gun for any other purpose is the stuff of criminals.

If someone robbed a Brit and they shot the robber, the victim would be jailed for it -- there's an extremely slim chance of arguing that your right-to-self-defence included the right to use a legally owned firearm. It comes under using "grossly disproportionate" force, which is illegal.

It's deeply ingrained into our culture that shooting a person is wrong in any circumstance. If I met someone who wanted to use a gun to protect themselves or their family, I'd instantly consider them a threat to themselves and to others.

(Disclaimer: I'm from a remote part of the UK with a lot of hunting land and farmers. I can only speak for my own experience. I don't speak for areas like London, where there's a significant illegal gun trade and your chance of being threatened by someone with a firearm are higher.)
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Killings and home invasions do happen. That's reality, not delusion.

If you want guns in your home, that's fine with me. Not everyone is comfortable with that. That's why police officers exists.

I do, however, have a problem with the "guns protect people" mantra coming from the same people who say "guns don't kill people."

Guns protect nothing. They are designed for killing living things. If you want protection, carry a shield.

If you carry a gun, be prepared to kill something.
 

crunchyblanket

the Juggernaut of Imperfection
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
4,870
Reaction score
766
Location
London's grey and pleasant land
(Disclaimer: I'm from a remote part of the UK with a lot of hunting land and farmers. I can only speak for my own experience. I don't speak for areas like London, where there's a significant illegal gun trade and your chance of being threatened by someone with a firearm are higher.)

I'm from Bermondsey, London, and my attitude towards guns as protection is exactly the same as yours. If someone breaks into my home, I'm jumping out the window and calling the police. I'm just not okay with the idea of killing another human being, even if they are potentially a threat to me.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Something I find interesting about the UK attitude is that I've never met anyone who wants to own a gun for self-defense. The attitude is: you use a gun for hunting if you're legit, and using a gun for any other purpose is the stuff of criminals.

If someone robbed a Brit and they shot the robber, the victim would be jailed for it -- there's an extremely slim chance of arguing that your right-to-self-defence included the right to use a legally owned firearm. It comes under using "grossly disproportionate" force, which is illegal.

It's deeply ingrained into our culture that shooting a person is wrong in any circumstance. If I met someone who wanted to use a gun to protect themselves or their family, I'd instantly consider them a threat to themselves and to others.

(Disclaimer: I'm from a remote part of the UK with a lot of hunting land and farmers. I can only speak for my own experience. I don't speak for areas like London, where there's a significant illegal gun trade and your chance of being threatened by someone with a firearm are higher.)

Being Indian, I grew up around guns, but I've only fired them a handful of times. Indians love their guns. They hunt with them. It's a way of life. I never knew anyone who owned one for self-defense. The only ones I knew who owned handguns and thought about shooting other humans were gang members.

When we aim them at other people, it means we're at war.
 

veronie

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
465
Reaction score
58
Location
Ocala, Florida
Website
www.preferredword.com
If you want guns in your home, that's fine with me. Not everyone is comfortable with that. That's why police officers exists.

I do, however, have a problem with the "guns protect people" mantra coming from the same people who say "guns don't kill people."

Guns protect nothing. They are designed for killing living things. If you want protection, carry a shield.

If you carry a gun, be prepared to kill something.

Well, the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" saying is just a way to make the point that it's the intent of the person using the gun that is what matters, and the gun itself is an inanimate object, that can be used both for good or bad. The saying isn't meant to try and say that guns are harmless. Of course guns kill people. But it's not the gun by itself.

So if you understand that, then there's no conflict between the idea that people kill people with guns, but also people protect people with guns. And guns do protect things. Do you want police officers to be disarmed?

I do agree with your general point, that of course a gun is designed for killing. And I do have a gun knowing that its purpose is to kill -- bad guys. Sometimes you get lucky though, and don't have to kill anyone. There are numerous cases where the presence of a gun makes a bad guy give up. Just ask police. And there are cases where the presence of a gun makes a bad guy reconsider doing something bad. But yes, the reason a gun can have those effects is because at the end of the day, a gun can kill. Hopefully only bad guys.

When a bad guy does have a gun and starts on a shooting rampage, you do want a good guy with a gun to show up and confront him, right? Or am I wrong?
 

EMaree

a demon for tea
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,655
Reaction score
839
Location
Scotland
Website
www.emmamaree.com
Being Indian, I grew up around guns, but I've only fired them a handful of times. Indians love their guns. They hunt with them. It's a way of life. I never knew anyone who owned one for self-defense. The only ones I knew who owned handguns and thought about shooting other humans were gang members.

When we aim them at other people, it means we're at war.

That sounds very similar to the attitude here. I know quite a few gun aficionados, and they join a shooting club, do the training, get their license and can happily drool over gun magazines and purchase their own.They're lovely people and I don't think they'd ever consider using their guns for anything other than hunting.

I think rifles are completely illegal here with a few rare exceptions (muzzle-loading pistols and revolvers, says Wiki). Even bb/airsoft guns and paintball guns are heavily regulated and need to be clearly painted to look 'fake', and if you're daft enough to be out and about with a toy or replica that looks even slightly realistic chances are you'll be surrounded by armed cops.
 

mirandashell

Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
16,197
Reaction score
1,889
Location
England
Our attitude to guns is why I found it so shocking that a lot of people on this board were talking about putting armed guards in schools. It's just.... wrong. Guns are wrong. The only people in this country who like guns are farmers who use them on vermin and criminals.

Guns are not good in this country. And people who love their gun are automatically regarded as nutters where I come from.

Like I said, it's probably the biggest cultural difference.
 

crunchyblanket

the Juggernaut of Imperfection
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
4,870
Reaction score
766
Location
London's grey and pleasant land
When a bad guy does have a gun and starts on a shooting rampage, you do want a good guy with a gun to show up and confront him, right? Or am I wrong?

Personally, I want everyone to get away unharmed and for the police to apprehend the 'bad guy', but hey, evidently that's a great deal less realistic than hoping The Man With No Name'll show up and manage, in the total chaos, to make a nice clean shot that just happens to hit the right person.

There were good guys with guns at Columbine. They didn't help.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
When a bad guy does have a gun and starts on a shooting rampage, you do want a good guy with a gun to show up and confront him, right? Or am I wrong?

I've pointed this out in another thread, but I find this whole "good guy vs bad guy" mentality highly disturbing.

I think rifles are completely illegal here with a few rare exceptions (muzzle-loading pistols and revolvers, says Wiki). Even bb/airsoft guns and paintball guns are heavily regulated and need to be clearly painted to look 'fake', and if you're daft enough to be out and about with a toy or replica that looks even slightly realistic chances are you'll be surrounded by armed cops.

I've always been jealous of Japanese kids who get to run around with highly realistic airsoft guns because the assumption is it couldn't be real anyway.

But that could be just an anime thing.
 

Unimportant

No COVID yet. Still masking.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
19,425
Reaction score
22,571
Location
Aotearoa
Do you want police officers to be disarmed?
The vast majority of the police officers in my country are disarmed. I'm perfectly happy with that.
 

veronie

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
465
Reaction score
58
Location
Ocala, Florida
Website
www.preferredword.com
There were good guys with guns at Columbine. They didn't help.

I know. That was part of the problem, and that's sort of another reason I like having my own gun for protection. Police officers (and I do appreciate them) often get frozen in the bureaucratic decision process of do we or do we not enter, we have to get everyone here first, we have to get organized, we have to see if we can talk to the people inside, etc. All the while, in some instances like Columbine, people are getting killed inside.

There was an armed guard at Columbine, but after trading a few bullets with the killers, the killers ran into the school, and the guard backed off and called police, and waited outside, while the people he was supposed to be guarding were being killed.

Basically, you can't trust other people for your own self-protection, not all the time anyway.
 

mirandashell

Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
16,197
Reaction score
1,889
Location
England
You amaze me. You really do.

I only wish you could, to quote Rabbie Burns, see yourself as others see you.
 

veronie

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
465
Reaction score
58
Location
Ocala, Florida
Website
www.preferredword.com
I've pointed this out in another thread, but I find this whole "good guy vs bad guy" mentality highly disturbing.

Well don't get me wrong. I know people are grays throughout their lives, not all good or all bad.

All I mean is that in the event of a shooting, it does become clear in that instance who the "bad" guy is. I mean not all cops are good either. But ultimately people do want armed police officers (call them the good guys or not) to come and kill the truly bad guy who is killing people.

In other words, you do want someone with a gun there to confront the killer. It's either that, or let them run out of bullets.
 

waylander

Who's going for a beer?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
8,263
Reaction score
1,560
Age
65
Location
London, UK
There are delusions of both kinds. There are people deluded enough to think it could never happen, or that they would never be the victim of a home invasion. They do happen, and when they do people often say they never thought it would happen to them.

Then there are the people who are deluded enough to think it happens all the time, and that a mass killing could happen anywhere they happen to be.

But there are a lot of people, like myself, who are realists. I know it's rare and most likely will never suffer a home invasion while I or my family is at home, and that I will likely never be assaulted by a person with a gun, or in a place where a mass killing takes place. But just in case, I am prepared. Since it's one of those issues where if the rare chance that it does happen comes true, my life and the lives of my loved ones are on the line. So I'd rather have it and never need it (and I hope I don't) then need it when my life is on the line, and not have it.

Killings and home invasions do happen. That's reality, not delusion.

They happen, but you don't need a machine gun to repel them. A pistol will do.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Basically, you can't trust other people for your own self-protection, not all the time anyway.

I think this is the mentality that I find most disturbing, this unrestrained, misdirected individualism.

If we want to be a part of society, we have to be ready to trust other people.

If you don't trust others, is it no wonder that other people return the favor?
 

Unimportant

No COVID yet. Still masking.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
19,425
Reaction score
22,571
Location
Aotearoa
Your armed units do, and if there were a shooting, or a knife attack, the armed units would arrive.
Yes. Of over 8000 officers, there are about 300 who are trained and who, if needed, put on their protective gear, get their gun, and respond to an armed offender callout. That's why I said the 'vast majority' -- less than 4% of our officers are armed responders, and they do that on a part time basis, only when needed.
 

Unimportant

No COVID yet. Still masking.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
19,425
Reaction score
22,571
Location
Aotearoa
I know. That was part of the problem, and that's sort of another reason I like having my own gun for protection. Police officers (and I do appreciate them) often get frozen in the bureaucratic decision process of do we or do we not enter, we have to get everyone here first, we have to get organized, we have to see if we can talk to the people inside, etc. All the while, in some instances like Columbine, people are getting killed inside.

There was an armed guard at Columbine, but after trading a few bullets with the killers, the killers ran into the school, and the guard backed off and called police, and waited outside, while the people he was supposed to be guarding were being killed.

Basically, you can't trust other people for your own self-protection, not all the time anyway.

So: my options are to trust trained, professional police officers whose policies are to minimise injuries and death to the public and themselves, or to trust strangers who have guns which they may or may not be trained to use, and who will race in and start firing regardless of what the situation really is and regardless of their own and others' safety.

Um...I know which one I'd pick.