As A Self Identified ' Skeptic ' or ' Proponent ', How Do You Feel About Gun Control?

[Kamarling]

Nah, I shoot competitively ( probably put 1000 rounds down range a week in practice, and when I go to matches ). So just paper and steel for me. I've never shot at anything that was living.

I understand and relate to that. My South African friends occasionally took me to the range and I surprised myself by hitting the targets almost as though it were a natural talent. That was fun but not enough to tempt me to buy one.

 

[Iyace]

I understand and relate to that. My South African friends occasionally took me to the range and I surprised myself by hitting the targets almost as though it were a natural talent. That was fun but not enough to tempt me to buy one.

Absolutely. It's not for everyone, and that's something I understand and appreciate. 99% of my gun buddies and I are totally accepting when people tell us that guns aren't their cup of tea. For me, guns are my life ( I manage a small competitive firearms company ). I'm just really interested in what people who are anti-gun are thinking when they oppose gun rights. Trying to get some better insight greater than screaming ' DEM LIBRAL ATHISTS! '

 

[Reece]

Does that fun include shooting animals for sport? I have to say up front that I also find that justification for owning guns repugnant.

One may or may not agree with people who hunt for any number of reasons, but I know a lot who do and they would almost never kill an animal and not eat or give away the meat. Anyway, what's worse: killing an animal who lived free, is basically organic and ate a non-grain diet, or eating a McDonald's burger that was factory farmed? Of course McDonald's is an easy target, but it could equally apply to a high end steak house.

 

[Iyace]

Yeah, I found it pretty good and was a little surprised to find it in Harper's. By and large, a main point he makes is just how careful and cautious people who carry concealed weapons generally are . . . and I believe it, too.

And yeah, they are fun to shoot . . . To me, aside from liking a level of potential protection and refusing to feel helpless with a wife and child in the house if there were someone breaking in, they (potentially) represent the difference in having or not having food . . . and yep, they are fun to shoot.

Yeah, it's an entirely different way of life when carrying, and I feel myself sort of responsible and held to a higher standard than everyone else. I used to get shit-faced drunk at friends' houses, but now I'm generally the DD because alcohol and guns don't mix well. You have to entirely change the way you live your life, but I feel confident that if there ever came a time when Aurora was happening right in front of me, I'd have the courage to try to eliminate the situation.

 

[Kamarling]

One may or may not agree with people who hunt for any number of reasons, but I know a lot who do and they would almost never kill an animal and not eat or give away the meat. Anyway, what's worse: killing an animal who lived free, is basically organic and ate a non-grain diet, or eating a McDonald's burger that was factory farmed? Of course McDonald's is an easy target, but it could equally apply to a high end steak house.

I tried to live up to my convictions and was a veggie for 3 years. I lapsed :( I do try to make sure any meat I buy is free range though.

The basic issue is the "for fun" bit. Making an animal suffer should not be fun or sport.

 

[Iyace]

One may or may not agree with people who hunt for any number of reasons, but I know a lot who do and they would almost never kill an animal and not eat or give away the meat. Anyway, what's worse: killing an animal who lived free, is basically organic and ate a non-grain diet, or eating a McDonald's burger that was factory farmed? Of course McDonald's is an easy target, but it could equally apply to a high end steak house.

Yes, but factory farming animals is a different monster I feel. There are people specifically trained to harvest meat product, while many hunters are doing it for pure sport. While I'm not directly opposed to hunting, I don't feel many times it's necessary. Then again, neither is fishing, and that's a thing...

 

[Iyace]

Truth be told, I made this thread in reference to our challenges to ' understand the other side ' of the debate, or maybe gain some common understanding of the ways each of us feel outside of our skeptic vs proponent debate. Whether we like it or not, topics like gun control, education, abortion, gay marriage, etc. all factor into these topics that we discuss here.

 

[gabriel]

Well, in most cases, I feel that we do live in a world where gun ownership isn't necessary for survival.

That hasn't been my experience, and I've lived in some rough areas of big UK cities. The difference may be gun ownership is essentially illegal in Britain, so anyone carrying a firearm is a criminal. That makes sorting out the good and bad guys much simpler. I also accept evil as a real phenomenon, not just a manifestation of poor mental health or inadequate social opportunities. Guns contribute to the sum total of misery in the world far more than they alleviate it, IMO.

 

[Iyace]

That hasn't been my experience, and I've lived in some rough areas of big UK cities. The difference may be gun ownership is essentially illegal in Britain, so anyone carrying a firearm is a criminal. That makes sorting out the good and bad guys much simpler. I also accept evil as a real phenomenon, not just a manifestation of poor mental health or inadequate social opportunities. Guns contribute to the sum total of misery in the world far more than they alleviate it, IMO.

Well, I think it also makes it much simple for the bad guys to do bad things, in that regard. But as I stated, I don't really want to make this a pro/anti gun debate; I just want to see how people on the other side of the situation feel about it, so I can understand where you're coming from.

 

[Kamarling]

Truth be told, I made this thread in reference to our challenges to ' understand the other side ' of the debate, or maybe gain some common understanding of the ways each of us feel outside of our skeptic vs proponent debate. Whether we like it or not, topics like gun control, education, abortion, gay marriage, etc. all factor into these topics that we discuss here.

Remember that diversion we had on the old forum - the graph which plotted your position in terms of, as I recall, left/right/authoritarian/liberal? That confirmed something for me at least. My son is an atheist/materialist and follows the lead from people such a Neil deGrasse Tyson, etc. Our views on spirituality are poles apart. Yet on that graph our little dots were so close they almost touched.

When we look at our differences in detail, however, we both have similar views on organised religion, on fundamentalism and on charlatan psychics, etc. Our divergence happens to be one of idealism vs materialism.

 

[gabriel]

Well, I think it also makes it much simple for the bad guys to do bad things, in that regard. But as I stated, I don't really want to make this a pro/anti gun debate; I just want to see how people on the other side of the situation feel about it.

But how do you decide who the bad guys are? I'd feel the same carrying a knife incidentally, which is also illegal in Britain. The intent is if someone offends you sufficiently, you reserve the right to kill them. A friend had his London house broken into a couple of years ago, while he and his partner were in bed. He went down stairs and restrained the guy, who, realising he was beaten, made as though he'd been sleepwalking. In the US either or both parties would have been dead. Is violent homicide, or breaking and entering lower in the US than parts of Europe with weapons control?

 

[Reece]

Well ya'll, and I've went into this before here bc it had deep metaphysical implications for me, but I was a strict vegetarian for 5 or 6 years, then for a few years afterwards I remained so with the single exception of fish. Then I found Weston Price and read about his work studying indigenous populations, their diets, lack of all chronic disease, different - read: correct or better - skeletons whose teeth could fit properly in their heads, and the general ages of these people, I realized how wrong I'd been . . . It was very profound for me. (Now granted, people can eliminate processed foods, go on a real vegetarian diet, and sometimes cure themselves of all manner of things, but the evidence of Price's work says that on the long term this is a very bad idea to go without meat.). So, basically, not only did every single indigenous group eat meat, but they used every part: they ate the organs, made bone broth, etc. nothing was wasted. Inuits, for part of the year, lived exclusively off meat: fresh fish, much blubber, etc. . . With absolutely no heart disease or cancer or chronic degenerative disease whatsoever. So, to me now, it's not just that it's healthier to eat that way - though close to impossible to do it like they did - but it's natural and our bodies were clearly designed for it. And now I see it quite the opposite as I used to in terms of being spiritual: since we were designed to live that way, we should . . . In the same way we were designed to shit, drink water, screw, be in the sun, etc., and that doing what's natural is spiritual . . . I now see vegetarianism as unnatural, even if very well intended.

That said, I'm an extreme animal lover and would want to use a hand gun - joke - to shoot someone who abused or needlessly killed an animal. I hate raising animals the wrong way - factory farms - for meat, but not bc I think we're not supposed to eat it . . . But rather that it should be done right, ethically . . . And they should lead a relatively good, natural life till they're killed.

 

[Iyace]

Remember that diversion we had on the old forum - the graph which plotted your position in terms of, as I recall, left/right/authoritarian/liberal? That confirmed something for me at least. My son is an atheist/materialist and follows the lead from people such a Neil deGrasse Tyson, etc. Our views on spirituality are poles apart. Yet on that graph our little dots were so close they almost touched.

When we look at our differences in detail, however, we both have similar views on organised religion, on fundamentalism and on charlatan psychics, etc. Our divergence happens to be one of idealism vs materialism.

True, which leads me to believe that gun ownership may be something that's just based on experience and not ideological reasoning. For instance, I never knew Sam Harris was pro - gun ( maybe he'll stop by the shop one day ;) ). We have lawyers, doctors ( doctors are huge customer bases for us, who usually have to hide their gun enthusiam ), pastors, retail workers, liberals, conservatives etc. who buy from us. It's interesting to me how such similar people can diverge on these issues, and how such different people can unite and agree on a topic.

 

[Reece]

Concerning guns, political issues, too, and the way to live or not live life, I'd like hear ya'll's opinion on the opening story in the Gita with Arjuna and Krishna. Surely and especially concerning guns and life and death this is extremely relevant. I used to try to say that it was simply allegorical, but I just can't stand by that anymore.

Is Arjuna supposed to fight in a war even though he doesn't want to and even though he has family and teachers standing on the other side? Krishna says fight. What say you?

 

[Iyace]

But how do you decide who the bad guys are? I'd feel the same carrying a knife incidentally, which is also illegal in Britain. The intent is if someone offends you sufficiently, you reserve the right to kill them. A friend had his London house broken into a couple of years ago, while he and his partner were in bed. He went down stairs and restrained the guy, who, realising he was beaten, made as though he'd been sleepwalking. In the US either or both parties would have been dead. Is violent homicide, or breaking and entering lower in the US than parts of Europe with weapons control?

Well, it's a bit different. I live in Cali, and I'm one of the relatively few here who have a concealed carry permit. There are VERY limited situations where I am actually allowed to use my carry weapon. Basically, only when I am being assaulted with a deadly weapon. Same thing with home defense; you're only legally allowed to use your weapon if you're defending your body or your family.

Consequently, most firearms instructors here will encourage you to lock you and your family in a room and call the cops. If someone is trying to break into the room, you call out that you're armed and that by breaking down the door you're intending to assault my persons and I will defend myself accordingly.

Never should you ever engage someone over a little money; this is a pretty common dictum in the gun culture.

 

[gabriel]

From what I understand, the constitutional right to bear arms was a distortion of the original intention to carry firearms as organised defence militias, not for personal security. I'm afraid I don't see guns as a solution to anything, in Vietnam, Iraq or as personal security. We need to think past our baser desire for control and look to the good of society. However I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm on a high horse here. I'm a sportsman and do kill animals for food (though not with firearms) and also for catch and release fun. There's a history to that personally and culturally. I only buy free range meat.

 

[Iyace]

I mean, I'm fine with eliminating guns from the hands of civilians if we also disarm our police force, military, and personal security firms as well.

We should get rid of alcohol while we're at it, and cars. Fast food, too. And minorities ( they cause the most crime ). I think my point is that all those things mentioned are historically more dangerous than guns. Why aren't we targeting those?

 

[gabriel]

I mean, I'm fine with eliminating guns from the hands of civilians if we also disarm our police force, military, and personal security firms as well.

We should get rid of alcohol while we're at it, and cars. Fast food, too. And minorities ( they cause the most crime ). I think my point is that all those things mentioned are historically more dangerous than guns. Why aren't we targeting those?

I agree with disarming police and personal security firms, absolutely. Not sure military weapons are much use either, as the situations they are used in are either illegal prosecutions of war, or are denied their defensive purpose, as with the Yugoslavian civilian massacres. Alcohol and cars don't mix, and alcohol and guns are certainly bad medicine. I don't believe being a minority is inherently dangerous, though I can imagine social disaffection and access to firearms being a bad mix.

The problem is the US has de-problematized the problem of guns. They appear in cartoons and computer games, something like three out four action film advertisements feature someone pointing a firearm at someone. They have become the automatic (sic) choice for sporting, security and social use and the boundaries have become blurred between lethal force and fun, even in societies where guns were never a feature. When I was a child there were old men who owned a Luger captured from the body of a dead German, but they were never accessible and were covered in cobwebs up in the loft because they'd had their fill of killing. The idea they might be used for personal security would never have even occurred to them.

 

[Iyace]

I understand and relate to that. My South African friends occasionally took me to the range and I surprised myself by hitting the targets almost as though it were a natural talent. That was fun but not enough to tempt me to buy one.

Interestingly enough, I found this as well: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Ironic since you were mentioning both!

 

[Iyace]

I agree with disarming police and personal security firms, absolutely. Not sure military weapons are much use either, as the situations they are used in are either illegal prosecutions of war, or are denied their defensive purpose, as with the Yugoslavian civilian massacres. Alcohol and cars don't mix, and alcohol and guns are certainly bad medicine. I don't believe being a minority is inherently dangerous, though I can imagine social disaffection and access to firearms being a bad mix.

The problem is the US has de-problematized the problem of guns. They appear in cartoons and computer games, something like three out four action film advertisements feature someone pointing a firearm at someone. They have become the automatic (sic) choice for sporting, security and social use and the boundaries have become blurred between lethal force and fun, even in societies where guns were never a feature. When I was a child there were old men who owned a Luger captured from the body of a dead German, but they were never accessible and were covered in cobwebs up in the loft because they'd had their fill of killing. The idea they might be used for personal security would never have even occurred to them.

Well, I certainly agree with proper control. What I mean by proper control is:

Background checks
Felons cannot own guns
Cannot own a gun under 18
Must pass a safety course with your first firearm

That seems reasonable to me. But I want you to answer an honest question for me:

Say you came out to where I live and I wanted to buy you lunch and talk to you about some psi related research or some such. How would you feel about that discussion with the assumption than I am carrying a concealed weapon? Would we be able to have the same sort of conversation we would have without the weapon? Or does the fact that I'm armed automatically change your opinion of me?