Scared and refused to have picture taken with a Gun

[SrMachoSolo]

We appreciate that. No one wants to see your junk.

Depends on which hat one is wearing...



-Robert

 

[mhayd93]

I am a gun owner, and like showing my fancy possessions to those who are actually interested.

But I do think we sometimes lack perspective when we talk about the fact that we own police and military type weapons as if there isn't at least an implication of violence. Or that we think of violence in a matter-of-fact way, like it is inevitable or likely, rather than horrible and to be avoided.

Other Americans feel the trappings of violence show immaturity or paranoia on the part of conspicuous gun owners, and it shouldn't be shocking that people from much lower violence countries than the US feel that even more so.

I would prefer to live in a time and place where weapons are largely viewed as both completely unnecessary and about as important as monster trucks and cartoons. I just don't want to live where it is someone else's choice if my personal 'kink' is a problem.


But I don't think our community's attitude towards weapons is necessarily natural or healthy. The bloodthirsty things members of this board feel so comfortable stating often grosses me out. Maybe joking about murdering, dismembering and burying a tow truck driver is a lot more screwed up than being shocked by a Dirty Harry's gun appearing in the dining room.

No need for perspective, understanding, or sympathy for people who are irrationally afraid of firearms in my opinion. The only perspective and understanding anybody needs is the 2nd Amendment!

 

[bradsteen]

It's also important to point out that someone does not have to manually check and interpret the photos for someone to get in trouble. The ranks of political and ideological enforcers that were required to control the populace of China and the Soviet Union during the cold war are no longer needed. Object recognition algorithms can scan thousands of photos and flag those that depict something resembling the object of concern, whether that's guns, clothing, flags, symbols, or anything else they don't like. Facial recognition will do the same, identifying who is in the photo with the concerning object. Those items with flags get reviewed by human eyes, and the identified citizen gets more intensive monitoring of their behavior, or (if the offense is egregious enough) they are arrested. It's a scarily efficient system for what has traditionally been an inefficient and error-peone effort.

The NSA (of the USA) collects ALL electronic data (including voice and photos) that is transmitted via satellite, land line (of any type that goes thru the internet, phone lines, etc.) and WiFi (onto the internet) in the USA and much of the world. The NSA also collects a lot of the financial data that financial institutions collect and share with each other. Same for pretty much any records it can get its hands on.

The NSA analyzes and correlates all of this data, including relationship data - it knows who your relatives and friends are, who and where you have bought anything you did not pay cash for, your medical history, and pretty much all other data about you, your family, coworkers, etc.

It also shares at least some of this data with the DHS and CIA.

So don't think that the USA is any different from China in this regard.

The key difference is how the information is used (or not used). I don't believe there is an active effort to track every move and behavior of every citizen in the United States, whereas there is most definitely an active, OVERT effort to do so in China. The capability exists here, but I don't think the US government has the motivation necessary to exploit it. China is a totalitarian regime whose survival hinges on control of the populace, whereas the reins of power in the US are up for grabs every 4 years, and there are checks and balances in the system to theoretically prevent such totalitarian efforts from taking place. Those checks and balances are eroding away, but they still exist here - in China, there are none.

I could be wrong - maybe some punk in the basement at Fort Meade or the Utah Data Center is viewing this thread and laughing maniacally about how they've outsmarted us all, but I doubt it. Gathering pieces is one thing, but stitching it all together into one massive picture is another story. Secrets are notoriously hard to keep, and something of that scale taking place would leak eventually.

 

[American123]

I am a gun owner, and like showing my fancy possessions to those who are actually interested.

But I do think we sometimes lack perspective when we talk about the fact that we own police and military type weapons as if there isn't at least an implication of violence. Or that we think of violence in a matter-of-fact way, like it is inevitable or likely, rather than horrible and to be avoided.

Other Americans feel the trappings of violence show immaturity or paranoia on the part of conspicuous gun owners, and it shouldn't be shocking that people from much lower violence countries than the US feel that even more so.

I would prefer to live in a time and place where weapons are largely viewed as both completely unnecessary and about as important as monster trucks and cartoons. I just don't want to live where it is someone else's choice if my personal 'kink' is a problem.


But I don't think our community's attitude towards weapons is necessarily natural or healthy. The bloodthirsty things members of this board feel so comfortable stating often grosses me out. Maybe joking about murdering, dismembering and burying a tow truck driver is a lot more screwed up than being shocked by a Dirty Harry's gun appearing in the dining room.

No such thing as: "military and police type weapons," that's a thought process designed to empower the state over the individual and reduce the rights of the common man. The implication of violence correlated to firearm ownership is something to note. History shows us that violence affects all societies, but where violence has been the absolute worst is when a government (group of people) has weapons and some other people group generally doesn't and the government then imposes their will with impunity, resulting in mass death.

So I suppose gun ownership does have a slight implication of "I could use violence if necessary." But the real question is, why are people comfortable with the government having that power over the people and not the people having that power also. That's called statism.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

But I do think we sometimes lack perspective when we talk about the fact that we own police and military type weapons as if there isn't at least an implication of violence. Or that we think of violence in a matter-of-fact way, like it is inevitable or likely, rather than horrible and to be avoided.

If I am reading this correctly....
I am thinking that you are saying that owing certain types of firearms , implies acts of violence.

If that is what you are saying....
Then I would disagree.
Simply owning firearms , of any type , does not imply violence.
It may imply that one has a collection of firearms....but that is about it.

Violence can be done with a firearm...or anything else.
However...one does not need a firearm in order be violent.

I and many others own firearms , of many different types , and have not committed violent acts* with them.
I would think that an overwhelming majority of firearm owners fall into this category.

*I have used a firearm of mine for self defense....this could be considered a violent act.
With that said...that was a justified means of using violence.

Andy

 

[RX-79G]

No need for perspective, understanding, or sympathy for people who are irrationally afraid of firearms in my opinion. The only perspective and understanding anybody needs is the 2nd Amendment!

Why is it irrational to be cautious of weapons?

 

[American123]

Why is it irrational to be cautious of weapons?

Being cautious/careful with something they are inexperienced with is entirely different than being irrationally afraid. I think that's the point that was made previously.

For example, people drive around a few thousand pound mechanical death machines every day that collectively are responsible for more deaths every year (by far) than guns in the US, but you don't see people clutching their pearls in terror over cars.

 

[The Heretic]

The key difference is how the information is used (or not used). I don't believe there is an active effort to track every move and behavior of every citizen in the United States

Yet.

Track? The data is there.

Do something with the data?

Not unless the person is "of interest".

 

[nwslopoke]

Why is it irrational to be cautious of weapons?

Any weapon, in this case a firearm, requires a user to be of any use. Moving from a box, loading, aiming or being part of a threat.

People need to be cautious of other people. Unless you believe no one died before firearms.

 

[The Heretic]

Except voicing an opinion against the current administration won't get you hauled to the work camp.

Yet.

 

[American123]

Any weapon, in this case a firearm, requires a user to be of any use. Moving from a box, loading, aiming or being part of a threat.

People need to be cautious of other people. Unless you believe no one died before firearms.

Yep, life was so peaceful until guns were invented.

 

[RX-79G]

No such thing as: "military and police type weapons," that's a thought process designed to empower the state over the individual and reduce the rights of the common man. The implication of violence correlated to firearm ownership is something to note. History shows us that violence affects all societies, but where violence has been the absolute worst is when a government (group of people) has weapons and some other people group generally doesn't and the government then imposes their will with impunity, resulting in mass death.

So I suppose gun ownership does have a slight implication of "I could use violence if necessary." But the real question is, why are people comfortable with the government having that power over the people and not the people having that power also. That's called statism.

You're preaching to the choir. I'm just pointing out that this particular thought process is not part of most people's daily lives, and they are unlikely to be comfortable in the presence of an AR15 for the same reason they don't want to spend time in a well-maintained smallpox laboratory. Whether you see the civics of the problem or not, weapons aren't necessarily attractive objects to people. A farmer may be proud of the quality of his fertilizer, but that doesn't mean everyone should want to spend time with his manure.

If I am reading this correctly....
I am thinking that you are saying that owing certain types of firearms , implies acts of violence.

Of course it implies violence. It doesn't predict violence, which is what you're saying. But if the sight of an AK47 doesn't conjure visions of people being shot with them, you're living in dissonance. It is better to realize that weapons - especially those favored for their efficiency - are closely associated with violence in any normal person's mind, and to consider that they might not enjoy thinking about that.

One of the things that holds society together is being polite. Sometimes a gun is not polite, regardless of its efficacy or necessity. I like that people conceal carry. I think open carry is a rude imposition on people in shared public places. Simply because we don't wear uniforms and no one has any way of gauging whether the guy so conspicuously carrying a gun is a nice person with bad taste, or a cretin who wants everyone to know that they are a threat.

Any weapon, in this case a firearm, requires a user to be of any use. Moving from a box, loading, aiming or being part of a threat.

People need to be cautious of other people. Unless you believe no one died before firearms.

And I said weapon, not "firearm". We're talking about handling guns, not just viewing them in a museum. I would expect a houseguest to be no less alarmed by my unsheathed samurai sword than my unholstered Glock.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Of course it implies violence. It doesn't predict violence, which is what you're saying. But if the sight of an AK47 doesn't conjure visions of people being shot with them, you're living in dissonance. It is better to realize that weapons - especially those favored for their efficiency - are closely associated with violence in any normal person's mind, and to consider that they might not enjoy thinking about that.

One of the things that holds society together is being polite. Sometimes a gun is not polite, regardless of its efficacy or necessity. I like that people conceal carry. I think open carry is a rude imposition on people in shared public places. Simply because we don't wear uniforms and no one has any way of gauging whether the guy so conspicuously carrying a gun is a nice person with bad taste, or a cretin who wants everyone to know that they are a threat.

The politest thing that I can say this is :

I disagree and think that this quoted statement is wrong on almost all accounts.

In any event...
I wish you a pleasant Sunday.
Andy

 

[RX-79G]

The politest thing that I can say this is :

I disagree and think that this quoted statement is wrong on almost all accounts.

In any event...
I wish you a pleasant Sunday.
Andy

Not much point in having discussions if you are unable to articulate your point.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Not much point in having discussions if you are unable to articulate your point.

I articulated my point earlier.

You disagree with me...as I disagree with you.

I will not change my view on what I said here in this post or any of my other posts in this thread.
Therefore there is no point in talking to you....Any further attempt by you to engage with "discussion" about this topic with me will be ignored.
Please do not continue to quote or contact me with this.
Andy

 

[RX-79G]

I will not change my view on what I said here in this post or any of my other posts in this thread.

The purpose of public discourse is not to change the view of the other person. It is to reveal both sides of a disagreement to the audience so they can become better informed.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

@RX-79G
Do Not Contact / Quote /Attempt to engage in discussion with me....If I could place you on ignore I world.
STOP TALKING TO ME.
Andy

 

[Ruger Rich]

I am a gun owner, and like showing my fancy possessions to those who are actually interested.

But I do think we sometimes lack perspective when we talk about the fact that we own police and military type weapons as if there isn't at least an implication of violence. Or that we think of violence in a matter-of-fact way, like it is inevitable or likely, rather than horrible and to be avoided.

Other Americans feel the trappings of violence show immaturity or paranoia on the part of conspicuous gun owners, and it shouldn't be shocking that people from much lower violence countries than the US feel that even more so.

I would prefer to live in a time and place where weapons are largely viewed as both completely unnecessary and about as important as monster trucks and cartoons. I just don't want to live where it is someone else's choice if my personal 'kink' is a problem.


But I don't think our community's attitude towards weapons is necessarily natural or healthy. The bloodthirsty things members of this board feel so comfortable stating often grosses me out. Maybe joking about murdering, dismembering and burying a tow truck driver is a lot more screwed up than being shocked by a Dirty Harry's gun appearing in the dining room.

 

[American123]

You're preaching to the choir. I'm just pointing out that this particular thought process is not part of most people's daily lives, and they are unlikely to be comfortable in the presence of an AR15 for the same reason they don't want to spend time in a well-maintained smallpox laboratory. Whether you see the civics of the problem or not, weapons aren't necessarily attractive objects to people. A farmer may be proud of the quality of his fertilizer, but that doesn't mean everyone should want to spend time with his manure.

Of course it implies violence. It doesn't predict violence, which is what you're saying. But if the sight of an AK47 doesn't conjure visions of people being shot with them, you're living in dissonance. It is better to realize that weapons - especially those favored for their efficiency - are closely associated with violence in any normal person's mind, and to consider that they might not enjoy thinking about that.

One of the things that holds society together is being polite. Sometimes a gun is not polite, regardless of its efficacy or necessity. I like that people conceal carry. I think open carry is a rude imposition on people in shared public places. Simply because we don't wear uniforms and no one has any way of gauging whether the guy so conspicuously carrying a gun is a nice person with bad taste, or a cretin who wants everyone to know that they are a threat.


And I said weapon, not "firearm". We're talking about handling guns, not just viewing them in a museum. I would expect a houseguest to be no less alarmed by my unsheathed samurai sword than my unholstered Glock.

Interesting thoughts. I don't perceive the presence of weapons to be rude, that would imply that they have any control in their demeanor. People can be rude, and lots of different ways.

I'm not bothered by seeing other people in possession of weapons, depending on their demeanor and intentions - that's the key, and truly makes the entire difference. As a "big" guy (at least compared to some people) capable of committing terrible violence on others using only my hands, the possession of a weapon or not is really irrelevant compared to the intent and demeanor of people. For example you can jam your thumb (fingernail first) into an eye socket, effectively gouging the eyeball into oblivion without any "weapons."

People who are "afraid" of weapons are the type of people who (in my opinion) want to live life in a bubble without seeing anything that makes them uncomfortable. It's as if in their mind that they can avoid evil by closing their eyes and ears. It reminds me of the people who also happily buy meat at the store but have no reverence for the slaughter that took place for that burger/steak to be neatly in the package at the store.

The cultural divide is seemingly between a few groups. 1) the group that naively believe if only the government had weapons and everyone else didn't everything would be ok in a peaceful utopia 2) the group that wants only the government and politically connected to have weapons so they can exert control/dominance over the rest of the populace and enact any plans they wish without significant resistance. 3) the group that is aware of the 1st and 2nd groups and owns weapons because they understand the history of disarmed people is not appealing and while they live their day to day lives as peaceful people they are capable of violence as a means of self defense if necessary.

Notice I didn't include the small fraction of the population that are violent criminals that prey upon others as a general means of existence. That's because "wolves" are in every society irrelevant of how many guns that society has and they use any weapons available to them, regardless of laws.

 

[The Heretic]

Interesting thoughts. I don't perceive the presence of weapons to be rude, that would imply that they have any control in their demeanor. People can be rude, and lots of different ways.

I think intentionally displaying a firearm when you are aware (or should be aware) that it makes someone uncomfortable or even afraid, could easily be considered rude, especially when it is unnecessary to do so. I believe that is why some (possibly many) people open carry - some have even stated that this is why they open carry - for the shock value (more or less). I also believe it is counter productive in a number of different ways.