Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Easy E wrote:

This really interests me. Tell me more about how this feeds into/or does not feed into the Gun Culture of America?

This is all just opinion from me here, and I am in no way an expert. But, if we look at the direction that schooling in America has gone, particularly in the fields of recess and recreational time, just about everyone can see that basically all forms of recreation in which, especially boys, can vent of their aggression (dodgeball, cops and robbers, etc.) they instead must keep it held up tight. Then, we turn into the classroom, where these same boys who have all this pent up aggression and energy become "disruptive" to others suddenly they had ADD, or ADHD (which some genuinely do have, but no where near the percentage being reported today). After school we send them home, and many of these kids are growing up with no Father or "father figure" in the house, instead it's mom or grandma raising them. They are often times simply ignored, and told to play their video games, where they learn about all sorts of things, many of them related to guns. Now, because they don't play outside with other kids, they lose out on certain social aspects of life, and as we have seen with many of these mass shootings, develop into young-adulthood with numerous mental health problems, and lack the skills to effectively deal with their issues. Of course, this doesn't apply to everyone, but I feel that I have seen it enough times now, that this is in essence what is happening, where it is no longer OK to be a boy, and later on it's no longer OK to be a "Man".

In my time in the Army (which I know shades many of my opinions), I have seen that the bulk of the "worst" soldiers that I have been around, were those who were raised without a father. I was raised in a household with both my parents, and it was my Dad who taught me everything I need to know about firearm safety (the army just sorta reinforced it), he took time out of his schedule to support my decisions: he never missed a football game, and only missed 2 track meets due to work commitments (and one of those was a 3 hour drive from home), he cared for my family unconditionally and showed it in many ways. Even in moments where he wasn't actively teaching me something, he was still teaching, and it's only now that I have kids of my own that I can see this.


I personally feel that there is nothing wrong with A gun culture in America, however the one that we have now needs some work. I do hate the media blaming other media sources (movies, video games, music, etc.) for all the problems, as I feel that the problems stem from home.

Worthy of an exalt

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

This really interests me. Tell me more about how this feeds into/or does not feed into the Gun Culture of America?

This is all just opinion from me here, and I am in no way an expert. But, if we look at the direction that schooling in America has gone, particularly in the fields of recess and recreational time, just about everyone can see that basically all forms of recreation in which, especially boys, can vent of their aggression (dodgeball, cops and robbers, etc.) they instead must keep it held up tight. Then, we turn into the classroom, where these same boys who have all this pent up aggression and energy become "disruptive" to others suddenly they had ADD, or ADHD (which some genuinely do have, but no where near the percentage being reported today). After school we send them home, and many of these kids are growing up with no Father or "father figure" in the house, instead it's mom or grandma raising them. They are often times simply ignored, and told to play their video games, where they learn about all sorts of things, many of them related to guns. Now, because they don't play outside with other kids, they lose out on certain social aspects of life, and as we have seen with many of these mass shootings, develop into young-adulthood with numerous mental health problems, and lack the skills to effectively deal with their issues. Of course, this doesn't apply to everyone, but I feel that I have seen it enough times now, that this is in essence what is happening, where it is no longer OK to be a boy, and later on it's no longer OK to be a "Man".

In my time in the Army (which I know shades many of my opinions), I have seen that the bulk of the "worst" soldiers that I have been around, were those who were raised without a father. I was raised in a household with both my parents, and it was my Dad who taught me everything I need to know about firearm safety (the army just sorta reinforced it), he took time out of his schedule to support my decisions: he never missed a football game, and only missed 2 track meets due to work commitments (and one of those was a 3 hour drive from home), he cared for my family unconditionally and showed it in many ways. Even in moments where he wasn't actively teaching me something, he was still teaching, and it's only now that I have kids of my own that I can see this.


I personally feel that there is nothing wrong with A gun culture in America, however the one that we have now needs some work. I do hate the media blaming other media sources (movies, video games, music, etc.) for all the problems, as I feel that the problems stem from home.

Worth an exalt my man

This is my perception too! I have two boyz and I worry about this...

Thinking of getting them/me this book...
http://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Book-Boys-Conn-Iggulden/dp/0062208977

That book is definitly worth it.

 whembly wrote:

Thinking of getting them/me this book...
http://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Book-Boys-Conn-Iggulden/dp/0062208977

Lol, I have that book, and the one for girls (as I have one of each)... Probably later this year, when my girl is 4, we'll start some shenanigans

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

This really interests me. Tell me more about how this feeds into/or does not feed into the Gun Culture of America?

This is all just opinion from me here, and I am in no way an expert. But, if we look at the direction that schooling in America has gone, particularly in the fields of recess and recreational time, just about everyone can see that basically all forms of recreation in which, especially boys, can vent of their aggression (dodgeball, cops and robbers, etc.) they instead must keep it held up tight. Then, we turn into the classroom, where these same boys who have all this pent up aggression and energy become "disruptive" to others suddenly they had ADD, or ADHD (which some genuinely do have, but no where near the percentage being reported today).

Ensis has a bit of a point in the first paragraph actually.

I have few requirements of the wee ones, and even less that they actually listen to. But one is that they have to be involved in some sort of PE activity (in school or out). It really helped with the Boy.

Thanks for sharing.

All that aggression that boys have must be special to Americans. Other countries get on fine with educating children without providing special aggression play courses for boys.

Serbia just had a mass shooting the other day...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All that aggression that boys have must be special to Americans. Other countries get on fine with educating children without providing special aggression play courses for boys.

don't other western country's at least allow them to play various "violent" sports, like rugby, without significant alterations to the rules?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Hordini wrote:Back to the topic: I would love to hear your suggestions on other, better ways to stop a bad guy with a gun. And don't say running or hiding, because that doesn't stop the bad guy.

I'm a pretty big fan of trained law enforcement officers.

Were I in a lecture hall when someone starts shooting; I'd be keeping my head down and trying to make my way to an exit as fast and safely as possible. The thought of having not only the perp's bullets flying overhead, but one or two people thinking they're living out their Die Hard fantasies is even worse in some respects.

See, here's what essentially informs my thought process on this issue, in a broad sense:

I am more concerned about catching a stray from an overcompensating moron than I am about being targeted by a malicious shooter, I think that a lot of current firearms marketing is targeting exactly the kind of idiots that I do not believe should have easy access to firearms.

I certainly would not begrudge anyone for keeping their head down and trying to make an exit as fast as possible during a mass shooting. In the majority of cases that's probably the best idea. Worrying more about being hit by a CCW holder than by a malicious shooter during a mass shooting situation seems incredibly paranoid though. Do you think it's easier to get shot by someone who's not trying to shoot you than it is to get shot by someone who is trying to shoot you? If a CCW holder draws a weapon while everyone else is running away, there's a good chance that even if the CCW holder doesn't succeed in stopping the malicious shooter, he/she will at least draw the shooter's attention away from everyone else who is trying to flee.

If someone, whether that person is a CCW holder or a police officer, succeeds in stopping the threat during a mass shooting, even if they accidentally hit a bystander in the process, that's better than letting the malicious shooter go wild until he runs out of ammo or kills himself.

Do you think all CCW holders are overcompensating morons with Die Hard fantasies?


Just to clarify: I understand having the concern that in a mass shooting where a CCW holder is present, there is the possibility that a bystander could be hit by a bullet fired by the CCW holder while attempting to stop the shooter. Worrying more about being accidentally hit by the CCW holder than by the malicious shooter who is actively trying to murder everyone in sight is what I find paranoid.

Here is a sobering thought to the "only LEO or veterans should have guns" group.

It is a fact that most citizens have more range-time than LEOs. More range time means more familiarity with their weapon, as well as accuracy.

Many former military about 2/3 are not combat experienced. Thats right, only about 33% of all military personnel (less so in branches such as the Navy [only a select few fire the vessel's weapons] and the Air Force [not everyone is a pilot or PJ]) have actually been through AIT or another "close" combat school. The other 66% are support and logistics personnel a d have training appropriate for their MOS. That's not to say that a 12Kilo or 88Mike would never fire a weapon or be called out for patrol duty (an 88M would probably have to worry about ambush so may have some more trigger-time and training) but it is less likely than an 11Baker.. Further down you have your mechanics, IT personnel, finance, and human resource personnel.

So can you really say that vets are more qualified than any other civilian to carry a CCDW, when so many of them haven't fired a weapon since basic?

The only way to get proficient with a firearm is to practice. How mass shooters can hit anything is beyond me, but there you have it.

A LEO only has to do enough shooting to maintain his/her qualification

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All that aggression that boys have must be special to Americans. Other countries get on fine with educating children without providing special aggression play courses for boys.

don't other western country's at least allow them to play various "violent" sports, like rugby, without significant alterations to the rules?

No.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

xraytango wrote:
Here is a sobering thought to the "only LEO or veterans should have guns" group.

It is a fact that most citizens have more range-time than LEOs. More range time means more familiarity with their weapon, as well as accuracy.

...
...

You've got no way of knowing that because there isn't any kind of licensing or qualification mechanism for civilians.

So you think that gun-owners just buy these things to let them rust away in the back corner of the closet?


http://txfx.net/2005/10/14/citizens-better-at-using-guns-than-cops/


http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/kdowst/competen.html
Notice the 18th paragraph under the heading "Police opinion and Police Competence"


http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-388935.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/nyregion/new-york-police-recruits-need-more-gun-training-in-real-life-scenarios-critics-say.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Remember a LEO is interested in [/i]certification[i], not shooting as a hobby in which accuracy and correct target acquisition are paramount.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

xraytango wrote:
Here is a sobering thought to the "only LEO or veterans should have guns" group.

It is a fact that most citizens have more range-time than LEOs. More range time means more familiarity with their weapon, as well as accuracy.

...
...

You've got no way of knowing that because there isn't any kind of licensing or qualification mechanism for civilians.

There is no licensing or qualification mechanism for civilian gun ownership in most states beyond being a law-abiding citizen and meeting the age requirements. There are strict licensing and training requirements for CCW permits in the majority of states that allow CCWs, however.

Everyone I know that owns a gun goes to the range at least once a month, usually more. From what I know about LEO training its almost always less than that.

Easy E wrote:This really interests me. Tell me more about how this feeds into/or does not feed into the Gun Culture of America?

I feel this is apt.

Hordini wrote:Do you think all CCW holders are overcompensating morons with Die Hard fantasies?

All? Absolutely not. Not even a majority, I'd like to think.

But the ones who are specifically being targeted by ads such as Bushmaster's? Absolutely. As well as anyone that tries to equate firearms with notions of masculinity.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Hordini wrote:Do you think all CCW holders are overcompensating morons with Die Hard fantasies?

All? Absolutely not. Not even a majority, I'd like to think.

But the ones who are specifically being targeted by ads such as Bushmaster's? Absolutely. As well as anyone that tries to equate firearms with notions of masculinity.

And what exactly is wrong with intertwining masculinity with guns? It gets mashed together with just about everything else, why should guns be any different then things like Ford pickups, Old Spice, or beer?

Advertizing in general is about playing off of the feelings of the consumer, feelings that may include a desire to feel empowered. Why revile a company for doing what everyone else that sells anything is doing? Selling guns is no different from selling any other product, its just advertising. No more malicious than any other form of advertising.


Not that guns are purely masculine in reality, they're a tool of protection that can also be used for recreational and hunting purposes. Let people think its macho to do stuff like that think that, after all "Macho" is different for everyone. Its like trying to define fun, fun doesn't mean the same thing for everyone.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Hordini wrote:Do you think all CCW holders are overcompensating morons with Die Hard fantasies?

All? Absolutely not. Not even a majority, I'd like to think.

But the ones who are specifically being targeted by ads such as Bushmaster's? Absolutely. As well as anyone that tries to equate firearms with notions of masculinity.

Okay, fair enough. One thing to keep in mind is that not every gun owner (probably not even the majority of gun owners) have CCW permits. The people being targeted by those ads might not be the same people who are willing to go through all the effort it takes to get a CCW license.


I get what you're saying about the advertisements, but I think it's worth noting as well that being interested in owning and shooting an AR-15 after viewing an ad like that isn't the same thing as being interested in going on a rampage or indulging in a Rambo/Die Hard fantasy after viewing an ad like that.

Its a silly advertisement, ultimately it means nothing.

Privateer Press used a similar vein of thought with their "Play like you've got a pair" ad. Simply for the "catch" factor, it gets attention.

That's all it is there for, no huge philosophical reasoning, just something humorous to get notice and increase brand awareness. Freudian, yes; serious, no.

xraytango wrote:
Its a silly advertisement, ultimately it means nothing.

Privateer Press used a similar vein of thought with their "Play like you've got a pair" ad. Simply for the "catch" factor, it gets attention.

That's all it is there for, no huge philosophical reasoning, just something humorous to get notice and increase brand awareness. Freudian, yes; serious, no.

Indeed.

xraytango wrote:Privateer Press used a similar vein of thought with their "Play like you've got a pair" ad. Simply for the "catch" factor, it gets attention.

Privateer Press sells toys; not deadly weapons that are being marketed like toys.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Easy E wrote:This really interests me. Tell me more about how this feeds into/or does not feed into the Gun Culture of America?

I feel this is apt.

Well, it's good to know that Bush Master has 2 meanings.

 azazel the cat wrote:

xraytango wrote:Privateer Press used a similar vein of thought with their "Play like you've got a pair" ad. Simply for the "catch" factor, it gets attention.

Privateer Press sells toys; not deadly weapons that are being marketed like toys.

Wow, really did you just... ... I mean, wow.

That completely misses the point.

You know the products are being marketed to two completely different groups right?

Toys for big boys.

I would venture that the largest portion of the anti-gun crowd has never fired a weapon.
Shooting is fun. Tin cans, watermelons, paint cans, paper targets all at various ranges with different firearms and different loads can be a very enjoyable activity, not to mention skeet-shooting as well as tactical time-trials.

These activities also have competitive as well as contemplative (zen-like) attributes.

Guns kill people? My firearms have never once attacked me or any of my house-guests, nor am I worried that they will load themselves and attack innocent people on the street some balmy afternoon. But that is what many believe that they will do.

Guns do not make anyone go out and commit a crime, they simply have no power of persuasion, and if a gun is talking to you, then you may have bigger issues that need to be addressed.

xraytango wrote:Toys for big boys.

Guns kill people? My firearms have never once attacked me or any of my house-guests, nor am I worried that they will load themselves and attack innocent people on the street some balmy afternoon. But that is what many believe that they will do.

I'm glad to see you've joined the party, late and ignorant of the discussion up to this point.

Let me bring you up to speed:
1. I have a firearms license.
2. My concern is not with firearms; it's with the people who are able to obtain them without first proving they have even a modicum of responsibility...
3. ...such as those who think firearms are "toys for big boys". This denotes a lack of respect for the firearms, and as such a lack of safety likely follows.
4. I'm not concerned about you intentionally shooting me. I'm concerned about you misfiring, and the bullet passing through the walls of your house and mine.

 azazel the cat wrote:
4. I'm not concerned about you intentionally shooting me. I'm concerned about you misfiring, and the bullet passing through the walls of your house and mine.

Heh, okay.

Seriously though, that's the Bushmaster ad you find morally reprehensible? I was hoping to find something at least as morally repugnant and awesome as a Carl's Jr. commercial.

 azazel the cat wrote:

xraytango wrote:Toys for big boys.

Guns kill people? My firearms have never once attacked me or any of my house-guests, nor am I worried that they will load themselves and attack innocent people on the street some balmy afternoon. But that is what many believe that they will do.

I'm glad to see you've joined the party, late and ignorant of the discussion up to this point.

Let me bring you up to speed:
1. I have a firearms license.
2. My concern is not with firearms; it's with the people who are able to obtain them without first proving they have even a modicum of responsibility...
3. ...such as those who think firearms are "toys for big boys". This denotes a lack of respect for the firearms, and as such a lack of safety likely follows.
4. I'm not concerned about you intentionally shooting me. I'm concerned about you misfiring, and the bullet passing through the walls of your house and mine.

If a firearm is used in sporting activity, target shoots and hunting, isn't it being used for a non-essential, and entertaining activity? The very definition of what you do with a "toy".

I am well aware of the fact that guns are not toys. Not only do I come from a family of hunters and owners of multiple guns, but for a short period of time the state in which I live actually had a natural resources conservation program that taught firearms safety and marksmanship. In public schools no less. We also had hunter safety education, that dealt with firearms safety and marksmanship as well as fish&game laws.


Only those unfamiliar with firearms or misinformed by Hollywood are the only ones that I have ever seen handle them in an unsafe method.

I don't really care if you have a firearms license, it means very little here to the south of your border.

You may not be familiar with the term "big toys for big boys" as you are Canadian and is a popular American colloquialism, it means that an item that is costly or dangerous is not for children, nor is it cavalier in it's tone as it merely denotes a demographic.

Why would I be wanting to shoot inside my house? And why on earth would I use a round that could pass through both of our houses? I would use a frangible or a low velocity, or any other home defense round appropriate for shotgun or pistol. You make it sound as though I am going to be firing a 30-06 willy nilly, and that simply isn't the case.

Honestly, I don't own a firearm that could shoot through my house, then go all the way to Canada, then go through your house.

Ignorant of the discussion up to this point? Nope, read every post actually.

What I have really seen though is a lot of tired old rhetoric.

 azazel the cat wrote:

xraytango wrote:Toys for big boys.

Guns kill people? My firearms have never once attacked me or any of my house-guests, nor am I worried that they will load themselves and attack innocent people on the street some balmy afternoon. But that is what many believe that they will do.

I'm glad to see you've joined the party, late and ignorant of the discussion up to this point.

Let me bring you up to speed:
1. I have a firearms license.
2. My concern is not with firearms; it's with the people who are able to obtain them without first proving they have even a modicum of responsibility...
3. ...such as those who think firearms are "toys for big boys". This denotes a lack of respect for the firearms, and as such a lack of safety likely follows.
4. I'm not concerned about you intentionally shooting me. I'm concerned about you misfiring, and the bullet passing through the walls of your house and mine.

Az... check this out: http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf
In March, PoliceOne conducted the most comprehensive survey ever of American law enforcement officers’ opinions on the topic gripping the nation’s attention in recent weeks: gun control.

More than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals took part in the survey, which aimed to bring together the thoughts and opinions of the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility.

Here are two striking results:
1) What effect do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of some semi-automatic
firearms, termed by some as "assault weapons," would have on reducing violent crime?
71% said None

2) . Do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold
more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime?
95.7% said NO

Check it out....

 Kilkrazy wrote:

You've got no way of knowing that because there isn't any kind of licensing or qualification mechanism for civilians.

There is if you want to actually carry the gun concealed in all but (IIRC) three states.

Questions 19 - 22 are probably more pertinent to Az's line of questioning which is more based on the armed citizen then "assault weapons"

Also that Bushmaster ad is so freakin eye roll worthy. At least in my circles it was openly mocked by everybody including one female shooter who racked the slide on her very nice Colt AR (the ad poster had somehow made it down range) and made a comment to the effect of "Guess this Colt makes me a really manly man compared to a low grade piece of gak like that" as she sighted in and proceeded to send said ad to the next life for posters.