An Apology for Trying to Start a Discussion

[TerryMathews]

So what is a viable solution to the health problem that is gun violence?

For one thing, it's not a health problem. Attacking it as though its the flu is never going to work because you fail to look at the social issues that drive all violence.

A gun is a tool. Youre never going to eliminate the use of the tool unless you eliminate all of them.

The correct solution would be to attack the driving factors of violence: poverty, lack of education, and lack of opportunity.

Violence will never be eliminated. It can be minimized. It never will be while we glorify it as an ideal to aspire to.

 

[jackstar7]

For one thing, it's not a health problem. Attacking it as though its the flu is never going to work because you fail to look at the social issues that drive all violence.

A gun is a tool. Youre never going to eliminate the use of the tool unless you eliminate all of them.

The correct solution would be to attack the driving factors of violence: poverty, lack of education, and lack of opportunity.

Violence will never be eliminated. It can be minimized. It never will be while we glorify it as an ideal to aspire to.

It is a health problem. And you addressed it as such by looking for the root causes and how to treat them.

And what is the violent ideal that you refer to?

 

[TerryMathews]

It is a health problem. And you addressed it as such by looking for the root causes and how to treat them.

And what is the violent ideal that you refer to?

As a culture, we glorify violence. Every spree shooter gets his expose on TV. Every rapper gets more cred the "harder" they are, or the more crimes they've committed. Nudity on TV is no bueno, but violence for the sake of violence is A OK.

Television has gotten far more violent in recent years. Kids watch more TV than ever before. I doubt those points are completely unrelated to the situation at hand.

To your top point, if gun violence is a health problem then what is its transmission vector?

 

[jackstar7]

As a culture, we glorify violence. Every spree shooter gets his expose on TV. Every rapper gets more cred the "harder" they are, or the more crimes they've committed. Nudity on TV is no bueno, but violence for the sake of violence is A OK.

Television has gotten far more violent in recent years. Kids watch more TV than ever before. I doubt those points are completely unrelated to the situation at hand.

To your top point, if gun violence is a health problem then what is its transmission vector?

I didn't say it was a virus or other germ-like health issue. What's the transmission vector of heart disease?

Do you imagine that the gladiator arenas led to spree stabbings? It's not like violence is some new part of culture, nor is the glorification of it. We glorify MMA now, but it used to be boxers. Oh right... and the NFL. The things you're talking about are not new to the culture... so why are they so much more terrible now?

And how you connect them to violent crimes, which if you check the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime) have been on a downward trend in recent years... also not supporting your theory about our violent culture leading to more violence.

 

[poofyhairguy]

And still, this is not at all what I wanted this discussion to be about.

It's a shame as the internet has bred more and more of these insular cultures that can minimize the reach of contrary thoughts and ideas into a given culture and this kind of reaction will sadly become more common.

I agree with this. When the internet hit many thought it would lead to a better informed electorate with ho easy it is to access information and multiple viewpoints. Instead people put on blinders and go to sites that support their preconceived notions about the way things are.

 

[jackstar7]

So are there other cultures/sub-cultures that maintain such an insular nature and deplore all counter-thought?

 

[TerryMathews]

So are there other cultures/sub-cultures that maintain such an insular nature and deplore all counter-thought?

"Snitches get stitches"...

 

[Agent11]

I would disagree with the statement that gun owners are insular. We are well aware of the arguments and ideas behind gun control. We are tired of being the scapegoat.

 

[jackstar7]

I would disagree with the statement that gun owners are insular. We are well aware of the arguments and ideas behind gun control. We are tired of being the scapegoat.

I wasn't trying to paint all gun owners with a broad brush, but rather the group that reads and responded to the editorial that prompted two people to effectively lose their jobs... for trying to have a discussion.

 

[TerryMathews]

I wasn't trying to paint all gun owners with a broad brush, but rather the group that reads and responded to the editorial that prompted two people to effectively lose their jobs... for trying to have a discussion.

There are two issues here:
1) Gun owners view gun ownership as a wedge issue.
2) These editors were forced out of their jobs for the view they espoused via their magazine and the backlash from the readership.

You seem to have a problem with #1, but you're expressing it via #2.

To #2, I would say that these men had every right to say what they said just as the readership had the right to write/call and say that they didn't appreciate the direction the magazine was going in and that they would be discontinuing their subscription. Everything from that point was a simple business decision.

If your issue is truly people being fired for expressing their opinions, why are we laser-focused on this specific incident? Why not look at the teacher who is being fired for fighting against Planned Parenthood in his town.

 

[jackstar7]

There are two issues here:
1) Gun owners view gun ownership as a wedge issue.
2) These editors were forced out of their jobs for the view they espoused via their magazine and the backlash from the readership.

You seem to have a problem with #1, but you're expressing it via #2.

To #2, I would say that these men had every right to say what they said just as the readership had the right to write/call and say that they didn't appreciate the direction the magazine was going in and that they would be discontinuing their subscription. Everything from that point was a simple business decision.

If your issue is truly people being fired for expressing their opinions, why are we laser-focused on this specific incident? Why not look at the teacher who is being fired for fighting against Planned Parenthood in his town.

Please stop ascribing things to me and then debating the me you've invented.

 

[TerryMathews]

Please stop ascribing things to me and then debating the me you've invented.

Seems like I touched a nerve...

 

[irishScott]

I wasn't trying to paint all gun owners with a broad brush, but rather the group that reads and responded to the editorial that prompted two people to effectively lose their jobs... for trying to have a discussion.

As I said earlier the discussion has been had and decided within the gun community, many times over. The views contributed by the columnist do not add anything to that discussion, they have been repeated ad-nauseum for over a decade at this point.

The column was not seen as trying to start a discussion, it was seen as giving ammunition to the enemy. Now I don't agree with the resultant backlash, but I do understand the mentality of those who do.

The gun control advocates have unwittingly fostered a militant, siege mentality among many gun owners, especially the more avid ones (who likely comprise the majority of Guns & Ammo's readership). In a siege, spies in the ranks are not tolerated. That's the long and the short of it, it's not a complicated thing to understand.

And for the record, it's not simple reactionary "everything not what I think it wrong"-ism in most cases, it's simply that a consensus has been reached.

Imagine you were a geneticist, and you'd promoted evolution for years. Then you went to a scientific convention where everyone takes for granted the truth of evolution; and gave a speech that said "you know, creationism has some merit, and might be worth teaching in science classrooms." Now exactly what reaction would you expect?

 

[jackstar7]

Seems like I touched a nerve...

Yup. The nerve where I'm not here to be your strawman.

Do you have a response to my previous post where I provided statistics showing that violent crimes are down despite what you describe as some new glorification of violence in society, which itself is flawed as I mentioned being contradicted by pretty much all of history.

As I said earlier the discussion has been had and decided within the gun community, many times over. The views contributed by the columnist do not add anything to that discussion, they have been repeated ad-nauseum for over a decade at this point.

The column was not seen as trying to start a discussion, it was seen as giving ammunition to the enemy. Now I don't agree with the resultant backlash, but I do understand the mentality of those who do.

The gun control advocates have unwittingly fostered a militant, siege mentality among many gun owners, especially the more avid ones (who likely comprise the majority of Guns & Ammo's readership). In a siege, spies in the ranks are not tolerated. That's the long and the short of it, it's not a complicated thing to understand.

And for the record, it's not simple reactionary "everything not what I think it wrong"-ism in most cases, it's simply that a consensus has been reached.

Imagine you were a geneticist, and you'd promoted evolution for years. Then you went to a scientific convention where everyone takes for granted the truth of evolution; and gave a speech that said "you know, creationism has some merit, and might be worth teaching in science classrooms." Now exactly what reaction would you expect?

I'm willing to stipulate that all gun owners have apparently reached a conclusion with regards to their right to own those guns. I don't buy it, as this came from within that very group, but let's say I grant that. Then I ask that you not compare science to something that's not science. You're talking about the feelings of people who all share a similar opinion and comparing that to people all using reason and evidence to support an idea AND who all would be open to someone discussing a differing view if that view came with all the supporting evidence that had been required to reach agreement with the prevailing model. Science is always welcoming to new ideas backed up by evidence, which is precisely why there are so few "laws" within that culture. They understand it is a journey that will likely never end (certainly within our lifetimes) to understand the infinite.

So can we not use science as analogous to the prevailing opinions of gun owners no longer willing to even entertain a rational discourse? And it is those people who I am so troubled by -- and I hardly think that is all gun owners, but clearly they exist in significant numbers.

And if the debate was already settled, where are the convincing arguments that debate yielded that should put a halt to whatever counter-idea comes along? Please point me to them, so I can be convinced and advocate for the best argument.

 

[irishScott]

Yup. The nerve where I'm not here to be your strawman.

Do you have a response to my previous post where I provided statistics showing that violent crimes are down despite what you describe as some new glorification of violence in society, which itself is flawed as I mentioned being contradicted by pretty much all of history.




I'm willing to stipulate that all gun owners have apparently reached a conclusion with regards to their right to own those guns. I don't buy it, as this came from within that very group, but let's say I grant that. Then I ask that you not compare science to something that's not science. You're talking about the feelings of people who all share a similar opinion and comparing that to people all using reason and evidence to support an idea AND who all would be open to someone discussing a differing view if that view came with all the supporting evidence that had been required to reach agreement with the prevailing model. Science is always welcoming to new ideas backed up by evidence, which is precisely why there are so few "laws" within that culture. They understand it is a journey that will likely never end (certainly within our lifetimes) to understand the infinite.

So can we not use science as analogous to the prevailing opinions of gun owners no longer willing to even entertain a rational discourse? And it is those people who I am so troubled by -- and I hardly think that is all gun owners, but clearly they exist in significant numbers.

And if the debate was already settled, where are the convincing arguments that debate yielded that should put a halt to whatever counter-idea comes along? Please point me to them, so I can be convinced and advocate for the best argument.

No need to stipulate that for all gun owners, just the readership of Guns & Ammo.

I was using the analogy to describe the mentality, not relating the material. To the readership of Guns & Ammo (mostly the more radical segment of gun owners), gun control makes as much sense as creationism would to a radical Darwinist. They see what they know as proven fact, and they see the opposition as a dangerous, wishful fantasy. And frankly the pro-gun argument has a much stronger logical backing than the anti-gun argument IMO, but that's another very long post to prove that point and I don't have an hour to assemble it at the moment.

Imagine if you walked into a meeting of the Brady Campaign (a hardcore gun-control lobby) and started talking about how shall-issue concealed carry has serious merit and that the Brady Campaign should look into expanding it into restrictive states like New York and Maryland. If you worked for the Brady Campaign, I can guarantee you'd be out on your ass, figuratively tarred and feathered in every way possible.

Now I know that Guns & Ammo is not a lobbyist news letter, but that's another point of mine. Gun owners at large have been turned into one giant pseudo-lobby/union. If you own any of the most popular firearms on the market today, odds are you have skin in game. Odds are you own a gun that holds more than 10 rounds, certainly. Not to mention every new gun sold comes with a "join the NRA" pamphlet in the case. If you are into guns enough to subscribe to printed magazines about them, odds are you own multiple guns of the varieties that have repeatably come under attack; and odds are you're older and have lived through several such attacks.

Ergo, it makes sense that the readership of Guns & Ammo would consist of that segment of gun owners that has long since made up its mind and has a pretty deep hatred of gun control advocacy. Even if the attempt to start a discussion was genuine, it was pathetically misguided.

 

[jackstar7]

So, if I understand you correctly, it was more a problem with the message than with the audience?

I just want to be on the same page with you.

 

[Agent11]

No need to stipulate that for all gun owners, just the readership of Guns & Ammo.

I was using the analogy to describe the mentality, not relating the material. To the readership of Guns & Ammo (mostly the more radical segment of gun owners), gun control makes as much sense as creationism would to a radical Darwinist. They see what they know as proven fact, and they see the opposition as a dangerous, wishful fantasy. And frankly the pro-gun argument has a much stronger logical backing than the anti-gun argument IMO, but that's another very long post to prove that point and I don't have an hour to assemble it at the moment.

Imagine if you walked into a meeting of the Brady Campaign (a hardcore gun-control lobby) and started talking about how shall-issue concealed carry has serious merit and that the Brady Campaign should look into expanding it into restrictive states like New York and Maryland. If you worked for the Brady Campaign, I can guarantee you'd be out on your ass, figuratively tarred and feathered in every way possible.

Now I know that Guns & Ammo is not a lobbyist news letter, but that's another point of mine. Gun owners at large have been turned into one giant pseudo-lobby/union. If you own any of the most popular firearms on the market today, odds are you have skin in game. Odds are you own a gun that holds more than 10 rounds, certainly. Not to mention every new gun sold comes with a "join the NRA" pamphlet in the case. If you are into guns enough to subscribe to printed magazines about them, odds are you own multiple guns of the varieties that have repeatably come under attack; and odds are you're older and have lived through several such attacks.

Ergo, it makes sense that the readership of Guns & Ammo would consist of that segment of gun owners that has long since made up its mind and has a pretty deep hatred of gun control advocacy. Even if the attempt to start a discussion was genuine, it was pathetically misguided.

Well said.

 

[irishScott]

So, if I understand you correctly, it was more a problem with the message than with the audience?

I just want to be on the same page with you.

It's both. The message was pitched to the audience that is just about the least likely to accept, discuss, or entertain its arguments; and it was pitched in the worst possible way by taking a somewhat condescending tone. Perhaps if he had acknowledged pro-gun arguments a little more it may have smoothed things out a bit, but instead he simply listed his credentials and proceeded to list views that blatantly advocate gun control; views that his readership all but universally consider uninformed, stupid, wrong, and dangerous.

It doesn't help that the gun control lobby grabbed hold of this to say "Look! Guns & Ammo supports gun control!"


Perhaps Guns & Ammo used to have a more moderate readership, but I can tell you for a fact that very few moderate gunners subscribe to gun magazines. Quite simply various youtube channels are better quality, more convenient and free. I can't remember the last time I talked about Guns & Ammo with someone at the range (well, except concerning this), whereas I talk to people about the latest nutnfacy, MAC, or Hickok45 video all the time. The only significant demographic left on print magazines are older, set-in-their-ways gun enthusiasts. It's also notable that this demographic make up the majority of gun-magazine writers as well.