Skip to main content

View Diary: A Question For Gun Owners (77 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Fishing on the Karluk river in Kodiak, AK (7+ / 0-)

    Bears across the river from us on a daily basis.  Pretty happy we had a rifle.  Although somehow I suspect I'm not the target audience for this question . . .

    If I were to play devil's advocate, I would say that gun ownership is perceived as a 'right.'  It isn't about examples of need, but about rights against the government.

    I have never been searched by law enforcement.  Therefore, I have never had the need to demand to see a warrant before consenting to a search.  However, despite the fact that I have never felt this need (and have a good chance of going my entire life without feeling it), I am very strongly attached to the right of limitting searches pursuant to the 4th amendment.  

    We argue a lot about guns saving people, or not saving people, but really it seems to me that the gun ownership is about psychology and rights.  It's not about facts.  

    •  I certainly would agree that there (6+ / 0-)

      are situations where people need guns and yours sounds like one of them.

      Part of what I'm trying to understand is if people go out and but a gun just because they want to affirm their right to do so. There are a number of things that I have a right to do that I don't do for a variety of reasons.

      •  i firmly believe in my personal right to free (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Richard Lyon

        speech, uncensored by the gov't. i don't feel compelled to assert that right, by going out to a local street corner, standing on my soapbox, and regaling the public with my "deep thoughts". in my experience, it is primarily males, who seem to need to overtly affirm their right to own a gun, by running out and purchasing one. yes, there are lots of women who own guns, but fewer of them seem to feel the need to have a big gun, to make up for the lack of big boobs, or own a gun, period. of course, middle-aged women don't go buying sports cars much either, as part of their mid-life crisis, so go figure.

    •  What Does This Mean In Concrete Terms? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Richard Lyon
      We argue a lot about guns saving people, or not saving people, but really it seems to me that the gun ownership is about psychology and rights.  It's not about facts.
      If arguments about the body count are smoke screens, what psychology (selfishness? insecurity? fear?) and rights (the needs of the many, don't mean jack?) are you referring too?

      The 1st Amdmt. of the Constitution prohibits abridgement of free speech and the press, the exercise of religion, the right to assembly and petitioning of grievances.  The 2d Amdmt. doesn't say anything like that about the right to bear arms.  If the 2d Amdmt. right is subject to abridgement, what concrete rights are you referring to?

      BTW I agree that one side - based on misinformation, the profit motive, and fear - is not dealing with the facts, particularly the fact of the public good referenced in the Preamble.

      We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
      •  What I mean (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I mean that, as with many political opinions, opinions around gun ownership don't flow from statistics, they flow from philosophy.  

        This is similar with many rights we hold dear.  If you told me that the requiring warrants to search houses, or probably cause to arrest people costs 30,000 lives a year, that isn't going to persuade me to abandon the 4th amendment.  Because my opinion on this subject is not based on statistics about saving lives.  

        Similarly, on guns, I feel that a lot of the argument is on the 'surface,' if you will.  Do you "need" guns, is largely irrelevant, to those who defend them.  They feel the right to own guns for a variety of reasons.  It is this right that makes them argue that guns are needed or helpful.  

        Torture is another anology.  I believe that torture is wrong.  I also know that torture does not 'work.'  When arguing about torture I will say that "torture doesn't work," but that isn't the source of my opinion.  The source is a more general philosophy.  If someone were to show me times when torture worked, my positin would no waiver.  

        Similarly, a gun rights activist might say that 'guns prevent crime' or that there are those who 'need guns' - but I don't think these opinions are the source of their opinion on gun rights.  If we lived in a crime free utopia, I suspect they would still argue for the right to own guns (many of them at least).  

        I do think the diary author is getting at something important though.  Why and when do people feel a psychological attachment to their guns.  I tried to write a diary on this awhile back and my use of a provacative title got a lot of backlash.

    •  Not every state is like that. I live in a suburb (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      of Seattle where we have several identified packs of coyotes, who eat pets. However they are protected by the State Department of  Something or other, and so the cops simply take the complaints, and of course nobody dares do anything to the coyotes. We also find wandering mountain lions and bears with similar protection in the City of Seattle from time to time, and I do mean inside the City, but they get anaesthetized and moved by the gummint, since nobody else can do anything to them. And we are IIRC an open carry state.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site