"Gun culture" is the "Gay agenda"

[vakkotaur]

The last few days I've seen the term "gun culture" thrown around and it bugged me. I've figured out why it bugs me. The term "gun culture" is equivalent to the term "gay agenda." Really. Both are used by the ignorant and fearful to demonize that which they seem unable to comprehend. Both signal to me that the person using the term doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

And if the title of this post made your head explode, perhaps you shouldn't look here or it's likely to happen all over again.

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Damned straight they don't. And if this means that some gay-bashers get shot dead ... improves the average human gene pool, IMO.

[jcw-da-dmg.livejournal.com]

(This comment is addressed to those erudite gun owners who read The 'Taur™)

See? NOT all liberals want to take your guns away!

[nefaria.livejournal.com]

I think the gripe is that the term "gun culture" lets opponents of the second amendment classify everyone in favor of the second amendment as a member of a uniform gang of freaks. There are dozens of reasons why people want to own guns, a few of them crazy, most of them not.

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

Regarding your icon, not far from where I am sitting now there are a few guns of various styles and calibers. I haven't heard nor seen any of them kill anyone, or indeed anything, though I suspect when fired some bacteria were cooked. I've probably done more killing of that variety with a stove than all the shots of all those firearms combined.

As for the fantasy world, at least you realize it is just that, a fantasy. As nice as it might be, it's just not real. Guns are just machines, tools, things. Things are neither good nor evil, but can be used for either. "Gun culture" seems as silly to me as"fire extinguisher culture."

I have seen the term "gay agenda" or things very close to it used relatively recently, usually in regard to marriage issues, and not at all facetiously.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

At our level of technology, the basic means of personal self-defense is a firearm. Given this, a gun is something that anyone who has any particular reason to be concerned with self-defense, and no particular reason not to own one, can be expected to own.

The track record from places which have banned them are not encouraging -- particularly considering that the European democracies who have most famously banned them are now suffering an escalating problem of abuse of natives by immigrants, which would be extremely difficult in an armed society.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

And what are they protecting themselves from? Probably other people with firearms, or who are proficient with other deadly weapons.

Perhaps, but giving up their own guns won't diminish the threat from those other people, since those other people already want to do something far more illegal than firearms possession.

Also, a lot of violent criminals aren't "proficient" with any weapons. A lot of violent criminals simply make sure to attack small, weak people. If guns are legal, said violent criminals can no longer realistically assume that they can attack small, weak people without running serious risks.

I get annoyed when pro-gun people won't admit that guns aren't all sweetness and light. They're dangerous things, and they're used in committing atrocious acts.

Who said guns were "all sweetness and light?" Or that they weren't dangerous or used by evil people for evil purposes?

Taking them away isn't the solution, I'll readily agree. The crux of the problem is to convince people to not use guns for violent means. That can be simplified even more - you need to convince people to stop being violent.

Which can be simplified even more -- there is NO SOLUTION. Since the only ones likely to be impressed by arguments against violence are those who would normally not be all that violent anyway, and hence not be a major part of the problem. In short, you might convince Arthur Fonzarelli, but you are not going to convince Bonnie and Clyde.

[foolscap001.livejournal.com]

"Because we don't like violence, the use of knives will then be new threshold-crosser, and so on and so forth."

Something tells me that you'll get Emeril's knives when you pry them out of his cold, dead hands.

Anything can be used to commit violence, including things that are useful and even necessary for survival--so if you wish to eliminate violence, best cut to the chase. We can't prohibit everything capable of nefarious use.

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

Thank you for confirming my point. I know you were attempting to counter it, but you have shown quite well that an inanimate object is just a tool that is controlled by the person using it, nothing more and nothing less.

I have yet to see any firearms owners or second amendment supporters use the term "gun culture" seriously. I have seen those who seem to think that anyone who has a handgun or more than one or maybe two long guns for hunting is a 'gun nut' use the term. It's hard not to attach a bias to the term.

[jmaynard.livejournal.com]

A gun doesn't kill. A gun shoots.

A gun no more kills than a car, or a knitting needle, or a swimming pool.

[jcw-da-dmg.livejournal.com]

Or strychnine, hypodermics, swords, daggers, electricity, . . .