Jump to content

Growing up with guns


Super Jag
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guns are nmot just a tool, they are, for some of us, an irreplaceable tool. However in Australia gun owners are basically treated like criminals and anyone pro-gun ownership- even for specific groups like hunters mind you- is widely portrayed as a psychopath.

 

I was raised with guns. I was trained thus: A gun is always loaded. ALWAYS. A gun is never to be pointed at a human under any circumstances. Stand behind the shooter.

 

However others I know of believe that guns and alcohol mix well, six guys with a gun each is not a fatal accident waiting for the right moment, and so on.

 

 

On another subject: the line between "hunting" and "people killing" guns is not so clear-cut. For example for control of certain pest animals, a pump-action shotgun is basically essential. In this country it is a semi-automatic and therefore in essence, illegal, because "semi automatics are people killers". Even shotguns, and .22 calibre rifles. Also in untrained hands a "people killer" is *usually* no more effective than any other weapon, whereas in trained hands a high-quality "hunting weapon" is far, FAR more deadly than any cheap shoddy assault rifle- and make no mistake, assault rifles are cheap and shoddy.

 

However in this state of this nation, additional training for young drivers has been ruled out as MORE DANGEROUS than the current (massive) road-death toll in that age group, so anything else a government might decide about safety should come as no surprise.

 

Finally, safe storage of guns is a seperate issue. Most households contain the appropriate chemicals to kill the inhabitants many times over, but no-one has yet suggested outlawing bleach, drain-o, fly spray, petrol, metho, or matches. Although I do expect matches to be next.

 

<_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Being raised around guns or not is not the issue. The issue is how you are raised. If you are raised in a "normal" household where you are taught right from wrong, to respect the law and to respect life then whether there are guns around or not will make very little difference... Conversly if I was brought up in a household where there was a lack of moral upbringing, no respect for the law or other people... Then I am far more likely to be dangerous if given a weapon of any kind.

 

It is an issue of upbringing not access to weapons that determines how people will use and treat firearms.

 

This is the supporting argument behind that statement I quoted in the initital post. While the statement itself is technically too broadly stated, the idea is that responsible people generally don't use their guns to commit crimes... case in point:

On a personal note, I grew up around guns. I was taught to respect them (which was later reinforced when some little punk @$$ Beeyuch shot me).

 

Not to go off on a tangent, but it could be argued that the whole IRRESPONSIBLILTY OF GUNS problem comes back to the fact that manufacturers are selling guns partly, if not primarily, because of PROFIT. The more that can be sold, the more money that can be made. Result, more tools for killing in circulation, and TOO MANY PEOPLE equally irresponsible owning them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but it could be argued that the whole IRRESPONSIBLILTY OF GUNS problem comes back to the fact that manufacturers are selling guns partly, if not primarily, because of PROFIT. The more that can be sold, the more money that can be made. Result, more tools for killing in circulation, and TOO MANY PEOPLE equally irresponsible owning them.

SJ, the sole purpose of a company is to make money. If a company (sole proprieter, corporation, whatever) does not make money, it goes out of business. PERIOD. Companies are not here to see to it that you have a job unless it helps their profit. They are not here to advance a social issue unless it helps their profit. They are here to make a product and sell it. Resellers (distributors, wholesaler, retailers) are here to buy a product, mark it up and sell it. This includes Reaper and your FLGS, respectively.

 

The argument that you made would apply even better to automobile and truck manufacturers. "TOO MANY PEOPLE equally irresponsible owning them." Autos are far more deadly than guns in all civilized countries. Yet, nobody is talking about taking automatic transmittions away and only allowing manual transmissions. Or limiting the number of gallons of fuel that your auto can carry. And you don't need a special license to own a silenced automobile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also raised with Guns here (Texas, go figure eh?). At the age of 6 I was taken deer hunting and given my first "real" lesson about guns. Oh I'd be instructed not to touch them, etc. before then mind you, but the real lesson was such... Go deer hunting with Dad at 6. Watch Dad shoot a deer. Have Dad take me to dying deer. Dad says, "This is why you never point at gun at anything you don't want to kill even if you think it is not loaded." I will never, ever forget that moment. It really drove home what the purpose of a gun was. I am a hunter "despite" that event though. ;)

 

As for Assault Rifles vs. Deer Rifles, etc... It is important to remember that assault rifles were developed for one reason and one reason only. It was not to kill people. Dead people are easy to take care of. It was to WOUND people. This is why most assault rifles are smaller calibre and why many rounds like the 9mm and so forth were developed. The military understands that wounded people take FAR more resources to care for than dead people. When you're fighting a war, that's what it's about. Resources. Whomever has the best and most efficient resources wins. It's why guerilla warfare is so efficient. It takes very little resources to create injuries which in turn take significant resources to care for...

 

Now do I need to own assault rifles? No. Do I own them? Yes. Do I hunt with them? No. Do I take them to the range for sport? Absolutely. They're entertainment for me that's all.

 

My shotgun makes a far superior home-defense weapon than any assault rifle will ever make.

 

Back to the OP's point though... There's an element of truth to his statement, but like most generalities it's false.

 

I would be willing to go on record saying that "The majority of people raised with the respect of firearms and with proper instruction on their use commit far fewer crimes with firearms than those without respect and instruction."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also throw my support to the original subject of this. I never grew up with firearms, but I was in the Army, and that did it for me. Although I never had to fire my weapon in anger, I saw what my tools could do in ventilating hard range targets, the local vegitation, and yes, the occasional critter (not that I would do that!).

 

Recently, my fiancee's brother bought an AK knock-off, and wanted me to show him how it works. First thing I did was pull back the bolt and check the chamber. I even went so far as to lock to bolt back and stick a finger in there to make sure none were stuck (note don't actually do this since the bolt could slide forward and break a finger...). This just shows the level of trust I have in him...

 

It is my understanding that most firearm crime is committed by unlawful posessors. I believe the adage that if you ban guns only criminals will have them is true.

 

Damon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recently, my fiancee's brother bought an AK knock-off, and wanted me to show him how it works. First thing I did was pull back the bolt and check the chamber. I even went so far as to lock to bolt back and stick a finger in there to make sure none were stuck (note don't actually do this since the bolt could slide forward and break a finger...). This just shows the level of trust I have in him...

People with no firearms experience who buy guns with a "wow ain't this cool" attitude scare the crap out of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People with no firearms experience who buy guns with a "wow ain't this cool" attitude scare the crap out of me.

why does it scare you more if they have no experience?

 

People who buy guns b/c "they're so F'n Cool!" worry me as much or more if they have 12 guns already and shoot the heck out of their tree in the backyard - even if they do know where the safety is and treat every gun as if it is loaded. People who take a good safety class and STILL treat guns as if they are a neato toy are more scary to me than someone who thinks that who hasn't been exposed to good information yet.

 

The original statement is one of those things that [i expect if I was actually in a room with the person making it] I would poke holes in, then the speaker would refine what they said, I would poke another hole in, they would further refine, etc.

 

The statement is ridiculous. Anyone who grows up in America's inner cities where guns are more common than tennis rackets can tell you stories of many people who held a gun before first grade and went on to commit gun violence.

 

And depending on what you mean by "violence" - if pointing a gun at a person and threatening violence in order to scare someone into doing (or not doing) something is considered "gun violence"...

 

...I work in a battered women's shelter and hear a new story every week about someone raised with guns who have NEVER fired one in anger, but when the doors are closed and the windows are shaded they ARE willing to point a gun at their spouse/partner's head (i am not just talking about abusive men here - women can abuse other people as well) and scare the heck out of them so that they won't "cheat" (usually - not always, but usually - they already aren't cheating, but the abuser is pathologically jealous) or "lie" or WHATEVER.

 

Heck, in many - not all - USA rural areas where guns are common, threatening someone with a gun to get them off your property is considered barely worse than being impolite. And THIS is usually by people raised all their lives around guns.

 

Trying to get to the SPIRIT of the statement: People who learn to respect the power and danger of a lethal weapon won't use it...

 

well, there's something to the idea that people who learn to RESPECT - period - are less likely to commit violence is obvious. And certainly you can watch how someone interacts with weapons to see if someone is respectful - but you could also watch how they interact with children or animals and that would be an even better indicator.

 

The question is, how does this person act when they have more power - whether that person comes from a gun, a badge, an election, or being a parent?

 

Sure you can watch how a person treats weapons to try & figger that out...but it's not much better and maybe not ANY better than watching how that person acts in any number of other situations.

 

The statement strikes me as overreaching tremendously.

 

Sounds like someone is being defensive because someone ELSE is making ridiculous over-broad statements about guns can never be in the same house with a child or some other obviously false universal statement.

 

Universal statements like these 2 are not helpful.

 

On the other hand, there are many, many gun accidents and IMHO trigger locks and/ or gun safes are pretty darn necessary for homes where a gun and an un-trained person (adult OR child) are staying in the same home.

 

I personally believe that the only time you DON'T need such safety precautions is when the only people living in a home are adults with good-working minds AND good gun training who never get visited by kids or adults with cognitive disabilities (like Alzheimer's or anything else that interferes with good thinking).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cripdyke, you are awesome. You're right, I'm scared of anyone with a cavalier attitude about guns, period.

 

But "wow neato" doesn't equate irresponsible.

 

Case in point, me.

 

A month ago or so I was home and went shooting with my dad and brother. My dad had recently purchased a couple of .45 auto's and we went out to shoot those and some trap.

 

I'd never shot a .45 before and I for sure had a "wow, neato" reaction to them. That doesn't mean I was swinging the barrel all over. If anything I was even more careful than usual because auto pistols were new to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd never shot a .45 before...If anything I was even more careful than usual because ... were new to me.

Good answer. Some guns are just "fun to shoot"

 

Traps, skeet, Practical Handgun, just to name a few. I always enjoy shooting a new weapon from a .22 plinking pistol to a Barrets .50 sniper. First, I want to know it is empty. That means checking the chamber myself. And I want to know where everything is before I load it: safety (safeties in some cases), where the slide release is, how much eye relief do I need from the scope, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish to state before anyone reads this that I am Canadian. So the following is an outsider view of the Second Amendment and its meaning.

 

The Second Amendment.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Excluding a grose misconseption on my part, it would seam to me that, the purpose of the second amendment is to make sure that if ever there is a threat to the sovereignty of the United States of America, a regulated Militia could be easily raised in order to protect the rights and freedoms of the population of the USA against the threat.

 

What does it take for the population of a given area to keep a “well regulated Militia”?

 

It is my understanding that in order to keep a “well regulated militia” you must:

a) Make fire arms readily available to properly trained individuals

b) Make sure that there are sufficient people within a population that are trained in the use and maintenance of these weapons, and a systems is in place to organize and raise a militia when it is needed.

 

The second amendment does not say that it is the right of every individual to own a gun. And in fact it can be argued that anyone who owns a gun and is not trained in the use of that weapon is in direct violation of the second amendment witch clearly states that the Militia deemed necessary must be regulated. Now please let me know if I am wrong here but allowing anyone to have and use arms does not seem like a regulated militia. Not to mention that the definition of Arms is not reserved only to firearms, but is a broad term that encompass any weapon!

 

Ergo as far as I am concerned: If you are not in the military, not in law enforcement, and not part of your towns Militia. there is absolutely no reason for you to know how to use a fire arm let alone own one.

 

As far as hunting for sport goes, the fact that we still do this in the twenty first century make me wonder if we, as a species, even have even the remotest chance at survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think CripD was gettin' more at irresponsible folks...and used that as the example. It's pretty easy to get excited about the prospect of a owning/shooting a weapon, because of the awsome power that one has at their fingertips. It can be a bit overwhelming for some. However, most intelligent folk still have the capability to maintain a certain level of respect for the weapon even with the excitement factor. Again, a person that can't respect a weapon regardless of the excitement level---is stupid.

 

The first weapon I owned was 30-06 that I got a age four. I've never been without a gun since then.

Today, I have 7 guns that each have a very distinct purpose--whether hunting, home protection or otherwise. I own weapons that are built to kill people, as I don't entertain--at all--the prospect of someone coming into my house uninvited. I've been martially trained. I've been on both sides of a gun---victim and protector. Each and every one of them are secured depending on their purpose. Hunting rifles/guns are locked, chamber open, and placed in a gun safe. Home protection weapons are loaded, chambered with safety on, and locked in a bullet proof

'finger safe". All of these weapons are removed monthly for disassembly, cleaning, testing, and inspection.

 

In the 34 years that I've owned a weapon, I've only had 1 "accident" that involved a gun. An accidental discharge because of a manufacturing defect. Because I was taught the proper handling of a gun---and taught to not be stupid---noone was hurt. The gun discharged upon shell chambering, safely, into the ground about 40 feet in front of me--simply because I followed the "muzzle down" rule and made sure that noone was in front of me at the time---that is, I didn't do anything stupid.

I immediately thanked the spirit of my deceased father for teaching me to not be stupid.

 

 

The second amendment does not say that it is the right of every individual to own a gun.

 

That is, or more specifically "was", exactly the intention of the second ammendment. Since this was written in the wake of the Revolutionary War, this was a thing that was very near and dear to the hearts of America's forefathers. It also makes it a bit "out-dated" by some folks arguments. The ammendment was written so that the American people could protect themselves from the US government. A strange prospect nowadays...but when it was written, it was a *very* real threat in the eyes of our forefathers.

 

Specifically...the premise behind this ammendment was what made America the United States of America. If England (our government) was able to take our guns away, we would have never existed as a country/independant nation.

Edited by Rodnik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second amendment does not say that it is the right of every individual to own a gun.

 

That is, or more specifically "was", exactly the intention of the second ammendment. Since this was written in the wake of the Revolutionary War, this was a thing that was very near and dear to the hearts of America's forefathers. It also makes it a bit "out-dated" by some folks arguments....

If only it were outdated. The prospect of tyranny seems nearer than ever before in my lifetime, so I'm all for protecting that Second Amendment. Ultimately, I think it and the rest are some of the best guarantees of First Amendment freedoms, which are IMO the most important of all.

 

I would interpret the Second Amendment as guaranteeing everyone the right to bear arms, whether or not they choose to associate formally with a state or local militia. Recall that militias increased their membership after the onset of hostilities with England, and recall that the federal government has co-opted many National Guardsmen for overseas service. Some of the rest of us should be ready to help defend the home front, should such become necessary.

 

In the interests of safety, I would have no objection to state testing and licensing of gun owners. We seem to be efficient enough in doing the same for drivers, without having significantly infringed the fundamental right of interstate travel. Convicted violent offenders should probably be barred from gun ownership.

 

I wouldn't object to a minimum age requirement, either, as that seems to work okay with voting. While I'm sure there are a few exceptional four-year-olds out there who would take gun ownership seriously enough, I'd see nothing wrong with restricting it to ten years and older, via some sort of learner's permit until the age of sixteen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree with you if the amendment did not begin with:

 

A well regulated Militia.

 

The amendment is talking about the ability to raise a Militia. It is only with an organised Militia that a country has the ability to defend against a threat from within, or a threat from without that has gotten past the regular military.

 

This idea, the ability to protect the rights and freedoms of a nation from an outside attack (The Constitution was written with fear the the British would be back) is the central focus of this amendment.

 

The idea of being able to walk arround with a gun on your person, that could be hidden from view easily, and could fire multiple shots was unthinkable. At the time people were still using smooth boar flint lock muskets, and the best range a musket had ws 400 yards. Technology having changed, the spirit of this amendment has been forgoten. What the governing body meant at the time of writing is still withing the wording of this amendment. And being the very first thing stated, it is the ability to raise a militia that is important.

 

At least that is my take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as hunting for sport goes, the fact that we still do this in the twenty first century make me wonder if we, as a species, even have even the remotest chance at survival.

What is your definition of hunting for sport?

 

If you mean hunting and killing an animal, just for the sake of saying you did, or for a trophy, and make no use of the animal beyond its skin, horns, teeth or claws, then I have to agree with you.

 

If you mean hunting, and making full use of the animal, I would have to wholeheartedly disagree.

 

Everyone that I know, that hunted, hunted game that was edible, for the purpose of eating whatever that bagged. They enjoyed the activity. But they also respected the animals they hunted, the environments they hunted in, and made sure that it did not go to waste. Just because we live in a world where there is a supermarket on nearly every corner, and food is readily available does not mean that hunting should be considered uncivilized. To say that would be to also say that people that forage for wild mushrooms or blueberries or nuts or other wild fruits and vegetables is equally uncivilized. I would much rather eat these things, than partially dehydrogenated, filler added, red #5 dyed, sodium nitrate added to preserve freshness mass produced fare. Granted, it is much easier, and more convenient to get these things, than it is to slog through the woods, or a swamp and wait for hours in the cold. That doesn't make it any less civilzed. Far more civilzed then walking into the barn and herd overcrowded animals into a train, railing them to a slaughterhouse, and then making McPatties.

 

Okay, rant over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...