National Why Take Guns?

[Medic!]

You can sometimes hide, cower, and delay or limit the adrenalin being pumped into your body.
But most times you have little control over it. And it's likely you will over or under react.

You can however invoke an adrenalin rush and practice managing it.
How you train to do this is up to you. Or not.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

You can sometimes hide, cower, and delay or limit the adrenalin being pumped into your body.
But most times you have little control over it. And it's likely you will over or under react.

You can however invoke an adrenalin rush and practice managing it.
How you train to do this is up to you. Or not.

From my observances over the course of my years in the Army, those that exercise control over the adrenaline and subsequent emotional overload induced by combat are more likely to perform better and survive.

 

[OldBroad44]

Okay. I think I'm starting to get it. Aggressiveness and masculinity are being linked together by some and both are being judged as bad and are being attacked or rejected. And guns are being considered essentially aggressive/masculine so also get rejected. Yeah. That makes sense. I can see why a person with that set of belief structures would be anti-gun.

 

[The Heretic]

"They" (the people in power behind the people in power - who want to see the law abiding civilian populace disarmed to some degree), are "playing the long game".

"They" do not care about "gun violence".

"They" do not care about anyone's rights - "they" have power to do what they want to do and they want to increase that power. "They" see the populace having guns as a long term threat to their power, and removing at least some of those guns, reducing the rights and ability of the populace to bear arms as a way to increase their own power.

This "they" are the powerful few - not the typical anti-gunner who is mislead and misinformed about the issues. "They" know what they are doing - it isn't about rights, or crime or violence - their facts are simple; it is about the balance of power; the less power the populace has, the more power they have. "They" know that gun control won't reduce crime or "gun violence".

"They" know that gun control will leave the law abiding populace less safe - "they" are counting on it; that will give them more power. "They" will be protected because they have the power to live safely by having more police protection in high end low crime areas with private security, and that if "they" want guns themselves they know that they can get them by their influence and greasing the right palms.

That is the game "they" are playing. That is why "they" want to restrict gun ownership. "They" know that gun control won't eliminate all guns in circulation - but every gun they do manage to take out of circulation incrementally makes them more powerful and more safe.

 

[turbo_vanner]

So how come "they" didn't get the ball rolling for ip43 quicker? Sounds like "they" didnt have anything to do with that, if "they" are so smart and powerful.

 

[The Heretic]

So how come "they" didn't get the ball rolling for ip43 quicker? Sounds like "they" didnt have anything to do with that, if "they" are so smart and powerful.

The people working at that level are not "they" - the people who initiated IP43 are the misguided and misinformed "in-duh-viduals". When I speak of "they" I am talking about people like Mike Bloomberg not some low level idiot.

 

[DuneHopper]

I really appreciate all the answers and thoughts.
I think the answer myself is much easier then it appears and is why I wondered what others thought.

Quite simply for thousands of years, community leaders found two things gave them absolute power,
and its been used so many times its a pretty simple game play.

1. If chaos does not exist, create it.
2. Manage the chaos created and rule as the leader that solved it.

By any means, this has been done and works quite well, and the communities actually praise the
leaders unaware they created what they solved.
Its clear our leaders know they are losing their control over us, and time and time again fail.
So they must create chaos and in this case they use guns and play each side off of each other.

 

[turbo_vanner]

The people working at that level are not "they" - the people who initiated IP43 are the misguided and misinformed "in-duh-viduals". When I speak of "they" I am talking about people like Mike Bloomberg not some low level idiot.

Thats what i mean, if bloomberg and the like wanted this kind of stuff done, why didnt they help ip43 by getting it going sooner, and sending in a professional or something. "They" would have already had the local framework and organizations in place to enact their agenda a while lot sooner. While we were a whole lot less prepared.

 

[Ownerus]

"They" frequently misjudge. Not the same as "they" don't exist.

 

[Ownerus]

.....this has been done and works quite well, and the communities actually praise the
leaders unaware they created what they solved.....

A great example of this is lefty icon FDR. The man who's policies made the Great Depression GREAT.

 

[The Heretic]

Thats what i mean, if bloomberg and the like wanted this kind of stuff done, why didnt they help ip43 by getting it going sooner, and sending in a professional or something. "They" would have already had the local framework and organizations in place to enact their agenda a while lot sooner. While we were a whole lot less prepared.

While "they" are powerful, "they" are not all powerful and can't be everywhere and support every effort. Even billionaires have to budget their money and time and "they" don't control every anti-gun effort. My understanding is that the IP43 people decided that they should "jump the gun" on their initiative and try to push it thru after another mass shooting instead of waiting for when they original planned to present it. This backfired on them.

As I said, "they" are "playing the long game". "They" want to see the eventual criminalization of private civilian firearm ownership of firearms. "They" understand that not every effort will meet with success, and that some compromise will be necessary to accomplish their goals - so "they" often go for "reasonable" measures, always willing to take what they can get because they know that they can get more later.

"They" are fighting a war of attrition and they are winning - if for no other reason than simple culture change and the increasing urbanization of the populace; increasingly a smaller percentage of the populace owns guns and/or participates in the shooting sports and an increasing percentage of the populace lives in urban areas where shooting sports are harder to engage in (finding safe and legal places to shoot is harder and harder), owning guns is frowned upon and politics are increasingly "liberal".

Add to that the increasing polarization of cultural and political values, and the populace is basically doing their job for them.

 

[OldBroad44]

With respect to the question of why a person might be in favor of there being no guns for anyone--
If a person considers it impossible for they themselves to have or use a gun, they will often be against all guns. They figure if they are gun-less they have everything to gain and nothing to lose if everyone else is gun-less also. So why might an adult think it impossible for them to have a gun?

A reason I mentioned for some women is that they consider the deployment of the aggressiveness involved so essentially masculine that learning how to do that threatens their identity as females. (To which I say, "Femaleness is no excuse for incompetence.")

A reason Medic! and others explained with respect to men is that these days often aggressiveness and masculinity are being linked and rejected. A man who believes that guns are associated with this "evil masculinity/aggression" is likely to reject guns for himself, so prefer the bad guys don't have them either. The very image of a man aggressively using a gun to protect himself or family might be by such a man viewed as offensive. Sort of an example of an evil person doing good. Maybe this is one reason why there seems to be a tendency among the real gun haters to conceal or misinterpret it when an armed citizen is successful at defending innocent life and make a big deal out of it and seem to actually love it when he isn't.

Some people are terrified of guns and can't imagine ever using one themselves because guns are totally unfamiliar. They are frightened even being in the same room with an unloaded gun. These are normally city people who have no relatives or friends that shoot. As long as they feel relatively safe, they tend to be happy with the position that no private citizens should have guns. With many of them, the first time reality happens and they or a loved one has a close call, they become very teachable.

I think there is another class of people who can't imagine ever owning a gun themselves, so want no guns for others. Some people are incompetent in emergencies. In a crisis, they will always do the wrong thing, always something that makes the situation worse. Probably some people don't realize they are no good in emergencies. But I have known some ordinarily smart competent people who actually realized they were not any good in emergencies and said so. These people don't want guns for themselves because they don't trust themselves with a gun in an emergency. And in their case that is probably a sensible attitude.

There are also people who are just generally incompetent. They will be just as undisciplined and irresponsible with a gun as with anything else. There are also people with violent out of control tempers. Or people who sometimes experiences suicidal depressions. These would be good reasons for not ever wanting a gun yourself, I would think.

 

[Ownerus]

I think generally the term "masculine" has been conflated with the very different term "macho". The roots of masculine and feminine are genetic and biological. Masculinity derives from the need to protect the women and children. Even when that comes at a cost of personal comfort, safety or even life. Aggression isn't really part of that equation but rather counter-aggression. One doesn't protect ones family by going out of their way to find a bear to poke (aggression) but should the bear show up near the cave to eat the children, it's time to counter-attack.

Not too many bear encounters these days. It may be nothing worse than a flat tire. Being masculine means you "deal with it". Even when it's raining. Even if your hands get dirty and your knuckles bruised. There is the entire spectrum of reality. From the burned out light bulb to storming the beach at Iwo Jima. Masculinity is the ability and (even if reluctant) willingness to "deal with it". Not much masculinity inhabits the world of those who need someone else (especially government) to deal with everything. They don't understand and therefore literally fear those who don't have that need.

Those who want no guns for anyone, when they're not overtly evil, are merely being children. Like the belief that violence is never the solution. It's the childish belief that "no guns for anyone" is even possible and ignoring the ugly reality that sometimes ONLY violence is the solution.

 

[The Heretic]

I should point out that the threat from IP43 is not dead - if anything it has increased; the people behind it surely have learned a lesson and will now come back at least a bit smarter about how to push their agenda and in the near future, I predict the political climate will change. Trump and conservatism is not popular in Orygun and even mainstream middle of the road voters will be less and less likely to vote for gun rights and more likely to vote the "liberal" side as Trump and the far right polarize more and become less popular as Trump alienates more and more people who voted for him (yes, the "true believers" will still vote for him, but it was the middle who took him over the top, and he did not win Orygun).

 

[Ura-Ki]

Tighten down your tinfoil, here goes! In the late 40s and 50s, we were promised a new utopia, one where every one was equal and every one was happy, no wars, no any thing bad, we were suposed to have finally found peace, and there was no need for any one to have/own guns other then for hunting. Combine that with a shift to urban living, and larger metropolitan areas and were were assured prosperity, measure time, and disposable income! It was suposed to be perfect, but it never happend!
Through out history, this has been the dream, a return to the Garden of Eden where we have no need or want, only a care free existance with no crime or murders! There is and always have been people in positions of power who demand power and control, they have a taste of it and now, like a powerful drug, are addicted to it, needing ever more! These people will stop at NOTHING to take more power, money, and control no matter the cost, and that's history repeating it's self time and time again! So, the old dream of Utopia combined with a ruler to sit on a throne and weild absolute power is the ultimate goal! Look to Europe, speciffically cities where Utopia was closest to reality Burn, Berlin, Oslo, Sarijhivo, Odessa, ect.......... look at what is happening in those major Utopian cities!!!

 

[3MTA3]

A generality, but pretty true, is that the people on the left are controlled more by emotion than reason. It's not much of a reach to say that emotionally controlled people are more likely to act impulsively when angered and may not trust themselves to be around guns and thus fear them and would like to see them eliminated everywhere. They will also project those internal fears on those who are pro gun to be threats because they have a hard time understanding that those of us more controlled by reason won't act on emotions.

A key is to get them to understand that we aren't threats to them.

 

[OldBroad44]

I think generally the term "masculine" has been conflated with the very different term "macho". The roots of masculine and feminine are genetic and biological. Masculinity derives from the need to protect the women and children. Even when that comes at a cost of personal comfort, safety or even life. Aggression isn't really part of that equation but rather counter-aggression. One doesn't protect ones family by going out of their way to find a bear to poke (aggression) but should the bear show up near the cave to eat the children, it's time to counter-attack.

Not too many bear encounters these days. It may be nothing worse than a flat tire. Being masculine means you "deal with it". Even when it's raining. Even if your hands get dirty and your knuckles bruised. There is the entire spectrum of reality. From the burned out light bulb to storming the beach at Iwo Jima. Masculinity is the ability and (even if reluctant) willingness to "deal with it". Not much masculinity inhabits the world of those who need someone else (especially government) to deal with everything. They don't understand and therefore literally fear those who don't have that need.

Those who want no guns for anyone, when they're not overtly evil, are merely being children. Like the belief that violence is never the solution. It's the childish belief that "no guns for anyone" is even possible and ignoring the ugly reality that sometimes ONLY violence is the solution.

Very beautiful, Ownerus.
In our closest primate relatives, males actively defend the troop from predators as well as protect their territories from competing troops. But males and females eat mostly the same foods. And the males don't generally provide food for females or young.

Humans have infants that are born more immature and require more care than those of other primates. In all known modern hunter/gatherers, men not only protect but also provide for women and children in various ways. Usually they provide certain kinds of food with the women providing other kinds. (Exactly who provides what seems to be culturally determined.) And part of the male providing usually involves other tasks, also culturally determined, but often the ones that take more strength or involve danger or just don't mix as well with being pregnant or tending babies or young children.

The Hidatsa Indian men, for example, did all the hunting of big game and the warfare. The women did the gathering, food processing, and all the gardening. Except the men cleared the land for new gardens. And they also transported the harvested corn home. That is, the two heaviest tasks associated with their agriculture. Your speaking of, as a man, "dealing with it", even if it is raining or you get your hands dirty or bruised...(I envision your changing a tire in the rain)...of getting it done, whatever it is, from changing a lightbulb to Iwa Jima--yes, this is it exactly, one manifestation of modern masculinity--of how you express in this era the ancient masculine imperative of protecting and providing for women and children.

I think for many of the men who are most interested in shooting and hunting, these interests are not just practical, but are deeply symbolic. I was once in an auto repair shop where the walls were lined with dozens of trophies of deer, elk, antelope. Turning to the owner behind the counter, I asked, "Who's the hunter?" "That's me," he responded, with some reserve. I turned back to the displays and contemplated them a while, recognizing not just the shooting ability but the hunting skill involved. I turned back to the owner and, silently, bowed formally. There was a flash of surprised recognition on his face. Then a grin of very happy very masculine pride. He was telling the whole world that he was prepared to take care of his family, come what may. And I had understood.

 

[Ura-Ki]

^^^This^^^^
To take it even further, before the industrial revolution, there were the traditional tribal roles! some men were the hunters and war fighters, some were the farmers and miners, some tended to the supplies, some gathered crops and water and tended the livestock, and some were the teachers, amd we have a elder chief, and finally the wasterials who contributed nothing! Each of these ( except the last one) were essential and well respected with in the community at large, and the better they were, the better they lived! Fast forward to today and there are no longer a great need for many of these roles, the hunter/fighter speciffically, so society has cast him out because he is no longer needed, not that he has nothing to contribute or provide, but because he is simply no longer pertinent! We also have a shift to a power base where people want to be the chief with out cause, they want power but with out the experience of the other skills that would traditionally earn them the respect of the tribe! We see this more and more as money and power become larger and harder to take, at the same time, we have more and more Wasterials who are demanding more and more a share of unearned things!

 

[E4mafia]

^^^This^^^^
To take it even further, before the industrial revolution, there were the traditional tribal roles! some men were the hunters and war fighters, some were the farmers and miners, some tended to the supplies, some gathered crops and water and tended the livestock, and some were the teachers, amd we have a elder chief, and finally the wasterials who contributed nothing! Each of these ( except the last one) were essential and well respected with in the community at large, and the better they were, the better they lived! Fast forward to today and there are no longer a great need for many of these roles, the hunter/fighter speciffically, so society has cast him out because he is no longer needed, not that he has nothing to contribute or provide, but because he is simply no longer pertinent! We also have a shift to a power base where people want to be the chief with out cause, they want power but with out the experience of the other skills that would traditionally earn them the respect of the tribe! We see this more and more as money and power become larger and harder to take, at the same time, we have more and more Wasterials who are demanding more and more a share of unearned things!

Grug no like berry pickers and those who want to take spears/clubs. Always wonder why Shamans want more rocks and to take grugs livelihood.

Grug just want to hunt and dwell in cave peacefully from rival tribes.

 

[OldBroad44]

A generality, but pretty true, is that the people on the left are controlled more by emotion than reason. It's not much of a reach to say that emotionally controlled people are more likely to act impulsively when angered and may not trust themselves to be around guns and thus fear them and would like to see them eliminated everywhere. They will also project those internal fears on those who are pro gun to be threats because they have a hard time understanding that those of us more controlled by reason won't act on emotions.

A key is to get them to understand that we aren't threats to them.

I very much doubt that people on the left are more driven by emotion than people on the right. Keep in mind that the loudest crazies on both extremes don't bear much resemblance to the majority. But the reality is, with respect to some issues, including guns, nearly everybody's view is influenced by feelings and emotion. And this is legitimate. For example, being in favor of guns because it's part of a way of life is an argument from emotion. You just personally prefer that way of life. It wouldn't necessarily be best, optimal, or even possible for everyone. I can state all kinds of rational reasons why I support citizens being able to own guns. But there are emotional factors too. Having grown up with shooting and just enjoying it. But above all, the fact that had I not been armed on three different occasions, I would probably have been badly hurt or killed.