Creating new gun owners out of many anti-Gun folks?

Status
Not open for further replies.
GEM said:
My view - welcome all law abiding citizens who purchase firearms, independent of other political views.
Click to expand...

I would add to that: and don't expect them to blossom into full-blown enthusiasts and champions of the 2A cause.
Lot's of people own guns. Most people are pretty ambivalent about it. Some came into possession of them simply by inheritance and some actively bought them. Even ones in the latter category don't necessarily indicate support for the broader 2A right and a subset of those might even be hostile to it in spite of the subtle hypocrisy. That's human nature.

This latest purchase surge seems to have evoked a lot of fantasy scenarios for true enthusiasts like us, where we envision a former antigun type having a come-to-Jesus moment and running to our side as a soldier in the fight against oppression. And we defend that belief by way of confirmation bias such as the article that went along with the initial post to this thread. But those are exceptions to the rule and those examples are actually just outliers in the big picture.
 
Is a tool to fight. To defend. To give a chance to the weak or old.
To fend off the wolves. Its even a tool to have some fun at the range. Its a tool that helps me to sleep better at night.
In the end is just a tool, but a noble one.
 
armydog said:
Its funny how you left off Combat Veterans and current or former LE.

Maybe you could've thought out that narrow list a little better and maybe include those of us who have used them a time or two.

Some of us no matter how many guns we have are still just regular people.
Click to expand...

I left them off for a reason. The group of people I am referring to is underrepresented both in the armed services and as veterans. Most are going to be college educated with little in common with either combat veterans or beat cops. Most don't see their gun ownership as functionally similar to that of LE or the military. Qualification to teach is not the relevant criterion for converting them, trust and common ground is.
 
AlexanderA said:
The new owners, I think, fall into two categories: (1) those that are scared of crime, and (2) those that are scared of a right-wing coup. You are correct as regards the first category -- they are buying handguns, or maybe shotguns. But the second group is buying military-looking rifles, to put themselves on a par with what they believe the right wing to have. Not that they believe a civil war is right around the corner, but they are doing this out of an abundance of caution. That's a rational response to what they see every night on CNN, MSNBC, etc. I've never been more worried about what I see happening in this country.
Click to expand...
I have seen some of the second group in gun stores, and they are exactly the kind of people that have no business owning firearms. I don't think they are concerned with a coup so much as being able to riot with impunity and have no one stop them.
 
edwardware said:
Obviously it could, and on average almost certainly is.

In every case, no. There's a small number of true believer socialists (not the useful idiots, but the real Marxists) who are armed, and are roughly equivalent to Hitler's Brown Shirts or Mao's Red Guard.

None the less, a broadly armed society is always a Good Thing vs a concentration of arms in the hands of a few.
Click to expand...
 
Will Munny said:
I left them off for a reason. The group of people I am referring to is underrepresented both in the armed services and as veterans. Most are going to be college educated with little in common with either combat veterans or beat cops. Most don't see their gun ownership as functionally similar to that of LE or the military. Qualification to teach is not the relevant criterion for converting them, trust and common ground is.
Click to expand...
The last place I lived was a nice subdivision and all my neighbors were MDs, professors and lawyers. The only time I ever talked to them was right when Obama won the election in Nov 2008, before he took office. All of them suddenly became interested in guns. They wanted to get one before all the gun stores were shutdown by Obama. lol Being that they all had Obama-Biden bumper stickers on their cars and yard signs, you figured they would have thought this through since it was their vote that caused their own ridiculous panic. lol

The criteria you laid out in 1-3, in the previous post sounds more like a job listing for a Firearms Social Worker. But I do think your right to some degree. There is no way some of my former neighbors would ever come up to me. From what one neighbor told me, some neighbors didn't even like the fact that we had a high ranking member of the PD in our subdivision. I'm sure they needed one of those people with sensitivity training to confide in.
 
Last edited:
AlexanderA said:
If guns were merely tools, we wouldn't be having this debate over the meaning of the 2nd Amendment (and, indeed, we probably wouldn't have a 2nd Amendment in the first place). We're discussing guns, and their place in society, precisely because they transcend the concept of "tool." They're instrumentalities of survival, freedom, etc, in the way that no ordinary tools are. Nobody has an emotional reaction to mere "tools" the way they do to guns.
Click to expand...

Guns ARE tools. The fact that they're important tools does not make them any less so.

Knives are instrumentalities of survival, freedom, etc. in the way that no ordinary tools are, also.

So is the bow, the spear, the staff, and any number of other tools. Not the least of which is the human brain, a "software" tool.

The difference between the gun and all the rest, however, is it's ability to level the playing ground like no other piece of hardware in human history.

But for all it's capability and impact on human history, it's still a tool, nonetheless.
 
Kleanbore said:
Why not?

If a gun is not a tool, what is it?
Click to expand...
They aren't not tools, if a person needs to label them in the most singular way possible. That would mean disregarding all other things guns can be and often are for lots of people.

Art, collectibles, historic artifacts, heirlooms to name a few. They can represent tremendous joy or pain, suffering and grief. There are no other "tools" that evoke such emotional and impassioned discussion either for or against, and none other so important as to have their own Amendment in the Bill of Rights. A gun can be the only separation between liberty and oppression, life and death. Sure it's a tool, but it's not only a tool. To me, a gun is less merely a tool than the home I live in, the car I drive or the clothes I wear.

In the very generic sense of the word, all things ever created by human beings are tools of some fashion and debatable importance.
 
Last edited:
Kleanbore said:
If a gun is not a tool, what is it?
Click to expand...
This "guns as tools" discussion is really about the meaning of words. You can say that "guns are tools," but that statement has consequences for the gun debate. If a gun is a tool, does that make it more likely or less likely to be regulated? (You can argue that either way, but I would come down on the side of easier regulation if a gun is merely a tool.)

Guns may be tools (to some people) but they are also historical objects, symbols of self-reliance, and magical amulets. People form emotional attachments to their guns that they don't to other objects. Some equate their guns to life itself. It is precisely these latter aspects that make it so difficult to pass laws against guns.

This is why we should not use "guns" and "tools" in the same sentence. Give the gun its due importance if you want to fend off the attacks against it.
 
AlexanderA said:
This "guns as tools" discussion is really about the meaning of words. You can say that "guns are tools," but that statement has consequences for the gun debate. If a gun is a tool, does that make it more likely or less likely to be regulated? (You can argue that either way, but I would come down on the side of easier regulation if a gun is merely a tool.)
Click to expand...
What tools are "regulated"?
 
Kleanbore said:
What tools are "regulated"?
Click to expand...

See my answer below, for one. Dynamite is a tool used in building demolition and mining, and for some odd reason is regulated.

RetiredUSNChief said:
The difference between the gun and all the rest, however, is it's ability to level the playing ground like no other piece of hardware in human history.
Click to expand...

I'd say the atomic bomb can literally level the playing ground, and glass it, better. ;) It is a tool used in nation security strategy. Hopefully never used again after the first two times it was.
 
I see liberals and LGBTQ community buying guns at a higher rate than anyone is willing to admit or has the data. And not just one gun. They get the fever like everyone else.
They fear bias and oppression and crime like everyone else. Maybe even more. I think the data we have is way way off.
Back when I grew up in the 50's and sixty's there was no one political side that liked guns and hunting or competition shooting. The recent attack on 2A is just a small number of extremist lefties with money.
 
plainsdrifter said:
I see liberals and LGBTQ community buying guns at a higher rate than anyone is willing to admit or has the data. And not just one gun. They get the fever like everyone else.
They fear bias and oppression and crime like everyone else. Maybe even more. I think the data we have is way way off.
Back when I grew up in the 50's and sixty's there was no one political side that liked guns and hunting or competition shooting. The recent attack on 2A is just a small number of extremist lefties with money.
Click to expand...

Which after the events of last summer I find very concerning. The idea of armed riots is not a good one.
 
Kleanbore said:
What tools are "regulated"?
Click to expand...
They are generally not, which leads some people to think that classifying guns as "tools" would let guns fall under the non-regulation scheme that otherwise applies to tools. That's why I said that the point was arguable.

However, the issue of guns is mainly emotional. The antigunners' appeals are emotional. If we're going to fight that, we have to bring in emotions on the pro-gun side. Calling guns "tools" takes away that emotional connection. In fact, to gun owners, guns are much more than tools. That's why, on balance, calling guns "tools" makes them easier to regulate. It concedes the emotional ground to the antigunners.

The antigunners surely know that guns are not just "tools." Actually, the strongest argument on the pro-gun side is that guns are symbolic of freedom, both on a personal and societal level. This has nothing to do with their utility as tools.
 
AlexanderA said:
However, the issue of guns is mainly emotional. ....we have to bring in emotions on the pro-gun side. Calling guns "tools" takes away that emotional connection. In fact, to gun owners, guns are much more than tools. That's why, on balance, calling guns "tools" makes them easier to regulate. It concedes the emotional ground to the antigunners.
Click to expand...
That makes no sense to me.
 
The gun banners are the ones attributing evil spirits and emotions to guns. Our message should be that these are inanimate tools and artifacts which do no harm if they are not misused/negligently handled or kept. They are not talismans or icons of freedom. They are some of the tools in the freedom toolbox, and possessing them does not corrupt or motivate to do evil. They are a part of the balance of power that defines this experiment in governance.
 
Last edited:
I grew into the gun culture from my father and uncles taking me target practicing and hunting as a boy, and from media exposure to heroes with guns like David Crockett and Alvin York and sharp shooters like Colonel Larson and Annie Oakley. Sounds like a lot of new people who own guns are self described liberals suddenly afraid of both rioters and right wing vigilantes. I am not sure I feel much connection.

Researchers James D,. Wright and Peter Rossi (hired by the Carter Administration in 1977 because they were liberals) helmed the first large scale prison inmate survey on firearms issues conducted by the federal government. They were surprised to find that burglars feared meeting an armed home owner more than they feared being caught by the police, or tried for burglary, or sent to prison. Kinda explains why the proportion of burglary of unoccupied dwelling versus home invasion robbery of occupants is different in areas where gun ownership is high and self-defense is respected versus areas where gun ownership is low and self-defense is criminalized.
On the other hand, John Lott was economically and politically conservative, but like Wright and Rossi, he too started out believing the conventional wisdom about guns and crime and gun control. Then he asked his class at Wharton Business School to suggest a subject to analyse using econometric methods and a student suggested gun control. The more he looked at the issues, as Wright & Rossi had done, the more he realized the "conventional wisdom" was wrong and did not add up in objective analysis.
 
AlexanderA said:
They are generally not, which leads some people to think that classifying guns as "tools" would let guns fall under the non-regulation scheme that otherwise applies to tools. That's why I said that the point was arguable.

However, the issue of guns is mainly emotional. The antigunners' appeals are emotional. If we're going to fight that, we have to bring in emotions on the pro-gun side. Calling guns "tools" takes away that emotional connection. In fact, to gun owners, guns are much more than tools. That's why, on balance, calling guns "tools" makes them easier to regulate. It concedes the emotional ground to the antigunners.

The antigunners surely know that guns are not just "tools." Actually, the strongest argument on the pro-gun side is that guns are symbolic of freedom, both on a personal and societal level. This has nothing to do with their utility as tools.
Click to expand...

The issue with guns is mainly legal, with respect to regulation and gun control. Emotions have a play in this for manipulative purposes, but in the end it's the legal aspect which counts.

People will always be emotional about things, some more so than others. But their emotional response has nothing to do with whether or not things are tools.

If calling guns "tools" takes away the emotional connection, and antigunner's appeals are emotional, then calling them "tools" cannot make them easier to regulate. The whole push behind gun control laws is emotional...that's how the left pushes it.

Guns are tools. They're self-defense tools, sporting tools, hunting tools, and yes...tools for illicit acts such as theft, burglary, rape, and murder. They are tools for oppression and tools for freedom.

And, if you watch enough old westerns, you'll probably see where they're also tools for nailing up wanted posters. :)

Computers are tools, saws are tools, pens are tools, needles are tools, even rocks and sticks are tools. Tools are devices used to carry out some function.

What that tool may be might be defined by design, by use, or both. A curtain, for example, is a tool used to shade windows and block view through windows. Yank it down and use it in the garage to wipe up oil, and now it's a rag.

Guns are only different in what they can do. But they're still tools which accomplish nothing unless someone wields it as such.
 
Howland937 said:
Our individual relationship with guns can be as simple or as complex as we wish. They're most certainly tools in some regards the same way a vehicle is merely transportation. If that vehicle is only used to commute to and from work, it's only the means to that end. If a gun is only needed for defense or to harvest game, then it's boiled down to it's most basic purpose.

Guns, like vehicles, can represent much more than the very basics. The existence and content of THR is a good indicator of the multiple layers of gun ownership and use. While I don't doubt the importance of an 18mm ratcheting wrench(been waiting 2 months for Snap-On to fix one), I can't imagine that forum having as many members.
Click to expand...
I was checking to see if anyone had posted this point before I went to the trouble of doing so. Guns are lots of things to lots of people beyond just tools. Just like vehicles are far more than just transportation to many people, and homes are more than just a structure to keep the wind and rain off of you and your stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
When people talk about Gun Laws point to this article on people who gun laws do not affect
Replies
7
Views
596
lysanderxiii
L
A
  • Locked
Impromptu metal detector finds kids with 21 weapons at Brooklyn school day after student gun bust
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
Meeks36
Meeks36
U
  • Locked
Anti-gun folks promote 'swatting' legal gun owners who are out in the public
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
6K
cdk8
C
D
  • Locked
Is it really "gun owners against anti's?"
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
213
Views
7K
Robert
Robert
A
  • Locked
Will President Trump be the greatest gun seller of all time?
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Robert
Robert
Back
Top