We did not allow our boys to play with guns while growing up. I wouldn't do that now, but it made sense at the time. Little problem for them - boys just go "All right, swords and light-sabers it is, then" and move on.
Why would parents do this? If you follow the reasoning, there aren't many choices why. Sometimes I like to point out the obvious, simply because it is being consistently denied.
The parent must think that the mere ownership, the mere use of a toy gun, has the potential to make his child more violent.
There are many qualifiers here. The parent may think it is extremely unlikely to affect his own child, but there is a greater chance it will affect other children (that's a bit superior, isn't it?). The parent may think that the effect is small and most normal folks can master it, but a few can't. The explanation that this is less personal than cultural, an expression of being a good example of where society should go, a declaration that we shouldn't use violence to resolve our differences or whatever, is simply a dodge. That means exactly the same thing, one is just hiding from oneself with grand language. Other modifications may occur to you, but they all resolve to this point. Toy guns make you more violent.
One would think real guns would be even more likely to do that, correct?
So. Therefore, those who have guns are more violent, less moral, culturally inferior. Oh, maybe not you personally, but as a group, that must be how you are viewed. The other ways of putting this don't change that. To say that there are better ways to resolve differences, or that people in this society believe they need to resort to violence far more often than is necessary, is again an evasion from the base point. They think you are less moral.
Well, it may be all true. We might be able to show that there is some moral lack, or increase in violence, that results from ownership, possession, or even handling firearms. It's going to be hard to sort out because of selection bias, because there are three groups who buy guns: those who want to shoot someone, those who want to protect themselves, and those who have a gun hobby - hunting, target, collecting, re-enactment. That first category does include bad characters that we'd like to keep firearms, and lots of other stuff, away from.
Culturally, I'm not a gun person. My father's family were farmers and had guns and my mother's family were city people who worked in offices and didn't. My parents divorced and I grew up surrounded by the latter. I can't get my mind around wanting to own anything but basic home protection (not much needed in suburban NH). But my wanting and feelings and cultural preferences have nothing to do with the issue.
I'll write more, especially about the mental health angle, where I actually have some knowledge. But for now I just want the obvious stated. In this debate, the gun-rights people may think the gun-regulators are fools and interfering controllers. But the regulators, whether they recognise it or not, believe the gun-owners are less moral. How much less likely varies greatly. But it's there. There is no other way to get there.
11 comments:
A few things...
Disccouraging gun play is still alive and well. I taught pre-school for several years and we were told to discourage gun play. There was no detailed explanantion of why, but I think that most teachers felt it encouraged violent play.
My own children have played with water guns, nerf guns, laser guns, etc. Last year my oldest son really wanted a cap gun. He wound up buying one that looked like an old-time western rifle, mainly because we told him he couldn't own anything that looked remotely real.
One day I caught him playing outside and he was aiming it at a car that drove by. Of course, it couldn't do anything, but I was very angry and told him that you never aim anything that looks like a gun at people because the people you are aiming at might have no idea that it isn't a real gun, or a pellet gun. They might call the police or react with anger.
My oldest is the type that actually listens, so we never had an issue with that again.
All that to say...that gun play in our house is not discouraged, but most of the "gun" things are brightly colored devices that could never be mistaken for the real thing. I would never let children play with anything that looked real or authentic.
Even though I was never a nazi about gun play, we have never had a gun in our house and likkely never will. The only way I could see myself owning one would be if we lived in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming/Montana...or anywhere with bears, wolves, mountain lions..etc. And the main reason that I would never have a gun in the house is directly related to my children, not a moral objection to others owning guns.
Children are curious and ingenious and make poor choices. If they know there is a gun in the house, they are going to be tempted to mess with it when they think they can . Too many kids wind up dead, or their friends do, when they are playing around with a gun that is from their home. It happens at least a couple times a year in this area it seems.
On the other hand....before the past few months I never paid much attention to gun control. It just wasn't oin my radar of things to think about. However, after seeing how some people have reacted to the Sandy Hook shootings, I really have come to believe that there are more gun-obseesed people out there than I realized. I have listened to some of the things said in the wake of this turmoil and I honestly think a few of the people advocating for little or no gun control have a few srews loose.
And when I see interviiews with people saying they had to buy 3 more AR-15 rifles because they are worried they may not be able to own any more of them, I am at a loss. because most of these people interviewed have a post-apocalyptic, paranoid version of the world living in their heads....and knowing they are stock-piling guns because they really believe the governtment is going to take over and the world is going to dissolve into a massive cage fight any secind now.
These are people I would think of as sane, but captive to a twisted version of reality.
So yes, for people who say such things and behave in such ways when it comes to guns....I don't know that I would call them morally inferior/bad...but I would say that there is something wrong there.
And, ever since Obama was elected in 2008, I see and hear otherwise normal people saying crazy bizarre things and really believeing them....and saying them in public with no shame. Maybe it has always been this way and I just never paid much attention to it when Bush was president.
Sorry for the rambling comment....the whole gun thing has been simmering in my mind without a real resolution...so I just dumped some of my miscellaneous thought shere. :-)
A few things...
Disccouraging gun play is still alive and well. I taught pre-school for several years and we were told to discourage gun play. There was no detailed explanantion of why, but I think that most teachers felt it encouraged violent play.
My own children have played with water guns, nerf guns, laser guns, etc. Last year my oldest son really wanted a cap gun. He wound up buying one that looked like an old-time western rifle, mainly because we told him he couldn't own anything that looked remotely real.
One day I caught him playing outside and he was aiming it at a car that drove by. Of course, it couldn't do anything, but I was very angry and told him that you never aim anything that looks like a gun at people because the people you are aiming at might have no idea that it isn't a real gun, or a pellet gun. They might call the police or react with anger.
My oldest is the type that actually listens, so we never had an issue with that again.
All that to say...that gun play in our house is not discouraged, but most of the "gun" things are brightly colored devices that could never be mistaken for the real thing. I would never let children play with anything that looked real or authentic.
Even though I was never a nazi about gun play, we have never had a gun in our house and likkely never will. The only way I could see myself owning one would be if we lived in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming/Montana...or anywhere with bears, wolves, mountain lions..etc. And the main reason that I would never have a gun in the house is directly related to my children, not a moral objection to others owning guns.
Children are curious and ingenious and make poor choices. If they know there is a gun in the house, they are going to be tempted to mess with it when they think they can . Too many kids wind up dead, or their friends do, when they are playing around with a gun that is from their home. It happens at least a couple times a year in this area it seems.
On the other hand....before the past few months I never paid much attention to gun control. It just wasn't oin my radar of things to think about. However, after seeing how some people have reacted to the Sandy Hook shootings, I really have come to believe that there are more gun-obseesed people out there than I realized. I have listened to some of the things said in the wake of this turmoil and I honestly think a few of the people advocating for little or no gun control have a few srews loose.
And when I see interviiews with people saying they had to buy 3 more AR-15 rifles because they are worried they may not be able to own any more of them, I am at a loss. because most of these people interviewed have a post-apocalyptic, paranoid version of the world living in their heads....and knowing they are stock-piling guns because they really believe the governtment is going to take over and the world is going to dissolve into a massive cage fight any secind now.
These are people I would think of as sane, but captive to a twisted version of reality.
So yes, for people who say such things and behave in such ways when it comes to guns....I don't know that I would call them morally inferior/bad...but I would say that there is something wrong there.
And, ever since Obama was elected in 2008, I see and hear otherwise normal people saying crazy bizarre things and really believeing them....and saying them in public with no shame. Maybe it has always been this way and I just never paid much attention to it when Bush was president.
Sorry for the rambling comment....the whole gun thing has been simmering in my mind without a real resolution...so I just dumped some of my miscellaneous thought shere. :-)
Sorry about the typos and extra postings...typing on an I-pad is difficult...and for whatever reason it always posts my comments twice.
This is unquestionably true.
I think the split between those who grew up in an environment where guns are literally a tool and those who grew up in an environment where they are not is huge.
And logically, if you live in the middle of NY you just don't need one (unless for self-defense), so you probably do associate guns with the poorer schlubs who live in high-crime neighborhoods, criminals, and low-brows such as cops. This is a form of elitism that is not recognized as such among a group of people who culturally wail about elitism a great deal, but are possibly one of the most elitist groups in mankind's history.
But it works the other way somewhat too. If you live in S GA, you are a negligent parent if you let younger children go out to play in the yard without first checking out the area for poisonous snakes, perhaps gators during some parts of the year, and other dangerous animals. The poisonous snakes are by far the worst problem, because during the spring and fall they will come up to the house to sun on the warmer areas like doorsteps, paths, driveways, etc. There are also large wild populations of animals that can be dangerous, most particularly wild hogs.
At my house, we will always have to kill at least three and usually five snakes a year. Even right smack in the middle of town it's a problem - a kid was badly bitten in the church playground a few years ago.
Thus, guns in our area are necessary householder's tool, much like a plumber's snake. Even if you don't hunt you will have a couple and know how to use them.
The cultural presumption around here if you don't have firearms is that YOU ARE A FELON. People won't say anything to you about it, because it would be rude, but that's what they assume.
Terri - I disagree that most of the people buying AR-15s think that the apocalypse is coming. They are a popular rifle for some purposes, and if people think they won't be able to buy them naturally that creates demand. It's like the milk/bread/egg blitz at supermarkets before snowstorm. Suddenly everybody is worried about not being able to make french toast?
If you get your picture of the world from the news it will inevitably be very very skewed.
Around here, AR-15s (some modified to shoot higher caliber rounds) are used for things like wild hogs.
AR -15s were made to kill people..not wild hogs. You could shave your legs witha machete, but that's not what it's made for.
The problem with guns, and gun murders, specifically, is that it makes killing people so efficient and easy. That's what guns were made to do, at least anything other than hunting guns.
The motto is that guns don't kill people, people kill people. But having a gun sure makes it a lot easier. It is relatively effortless to aim and pull a trigger. People argue that people can and will commit murder by other means, but I wonder how many of those gun murders would have never happened without the possesion of a gun. It' s easier to shoot someone in a split second than it is to wrestle them to the ground and strangle them, or stab them multiple times.
I'm not advocating a complete ban on guns, I'm just making the rhetorical argument that easy access to guns may be enough of an incentive for people who would otherwise not attempt to physically subdue other people.
Swords were made to kill people, too. Fencing with swords goes back to the ancient Egyptians, I've read. I've fenced with foil and sabre, and the first thing I was taught was that they can break and people have been killed with what are considered harmless instruments. The first thing I learned was that I never ever wanted to fence with a real, pointed, edged sword. The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16. Many rifles originally made for army use have been transitioned into civilian hunting rifles. Civilian/hunting rifles have been developed into army rifles.
Can you accept that people in other places can see things such as rifles and pistols differently from you? How many different states have you lived in? That can make a difference.
"These are people I would think of as sane, but captive to a twisted version of reality." They might say the same about you. Clearly, their perspective on Obama is not yours. They have their reasons, as you have yours.
Sam,
I have lived extensively in the Midwest....IL, IN MI, OH...in TN for 5 years.... and here in FL, state of the "stand your ground" law for the last 13.
Does that make me well versed enough? My brother-in-law owns a gun. My mom's side were all hunters and I even used to accompany my grandpa when he went coon hunting sometimes. My uncle hunts with a bow and a gun. My brother used to work at a skeet-shooting place.
In some ways it doesn't matter how people "see" guns. It doesn't change what they are for and what they do. People can have a lot of fun shooting at targets. I, personally, think that would be a lot of fun and a challenge because for me it would be more of a "game" than me trying to be skilled enough to kill someone. But I still wouldn't want one in my home.
I know that some people see things differently than me. I get that. But some of the pro-gun rhetoric that's out there is just over the top.
I read Maxed OUt Mama's post on GunControl on her blog. There were a few comments that I found disturbing, not because of being for gun rights, but because of the reasoning.
There was a commenter on her site aptly named "Teri" who said that the more she thought about it the more she felt like she needed a gun. Then she went on to describe two conflicts that she had while driving, one in which someone got out of a car and yelled at her, and one in which she was trying to pass a car that wouldn't let her pass.
I read that and I wonder....how exactly a gun would have made things better for her...unless she plans on brandishing it towards other drivers. That's the type of thing I am trying to get at.
The idea that guns make everyone safer is not proved in my eyes. In the last year or so I can think of 3 high-profile cases in FL where someone wound up dead because a legally owned gun was brandished and started a confrontation that ended with someone being dead. One involved a tow truck driver who had towed a car from a bar, illegally it turned out. One involved a 65-year old School Bus driver who brought a gun to an argument about someone skateboarding on the community's newly resurfaced basketball court. Both of the people killed were not the ones with the guns. Both gun owners were convicted.
The third is, of course, is the Trayvon Martin case. I have no problem whatsoever believing that Zimmerman feared for his life....but I also wonder if he showed his gun to Martin, precipitating the assault.
WHen you brandish a weapon at someone, you are making a clear threat. And, if someone really fears for their life they may decide to attack rather than flee...which is what happened in the case of the 65 year old man who shot the ex-military, young father at the basketball court.
To all you men out there, you are (or were) a member of the Unorganized militia of the United States and whatever state you live in between the ages of 17 and 45. This is no dusty law unlooked at over the years but part of the current defense of localities and the USA. You can be called by the Governor or President to help in the defense of the Constitution.
This was the norm in the USA for most of its history and the implication was that individuals would be capable and willing to respond. Perhaps with their own weapons if required. Giving people responsibility and expecting responsible behavior are key to a free country. Not all would respond, but the concept helps set the tone.
Gun controllers not only question the gun owner's morality but their honesty and responsibility. Gun owners see this as also a breach of the rule of law in the 2nd Amendment where they are prepared to respond to the call to arms. Although not a current gun owner, I've found that people who say things like "why would you need a high capacity magazine" also say things like "why would you need your F150 4x4" or "why do you need a 100 W light bulb". It doesn't take long to ferret out the control fetish in many progressives.
I know what Terri means, and the comments sections of some sites make me nervous as well. These are people who are not only suspicious of Democrats in general and Obama in specific being an uber-controller, necessitating a firm response involving the announcement of firearms, but actually seem to relish this. "Bring it on! We're ready for you, you fascist bastards!" It is fevered, and it is insane.
First, however much I object to liberal increasing of control and government intrusion, it is gradualist, even from such figures prone to sweeping legislation as Obama. "Sweeping," should be used in an Anglospheric sense, much more comprehensive than we are used to in our measured, democratic, move-the-dial approach. But compared to the actual "sweeping" nature of political change in other countries, we are pikers. Pretending otherwise seems an attempt to exaggerate one's enemies in order to feel more powerful. Let the liberals do that, thanks.
Note, however, that this is much in line with my general observation about conservative and liberal extremists. Conservative extremists like to hole up with a bunch of weaponry and shout "I dare you to come after me, you communist bastards!" They don't go out after people. Liberal extremists are much more likely to act outward, attacking the institutions they do not like, sometimes violently.
@terri, AR -15s were made to kill people..not wild hogs....
The problem with guns, and gun murders, specifically, is that it makes killing people so efficient and easy. That's what guns were made to do, at least anything other than hunting guns.
With respect terri, any rifle made for hunting is designed to kill. The big change (in both military and hunting worlds) between older style and newer style rifles is the mechanism that makes it easier to fire a second shot rapidly.
Very few hunters of deer have a need to fire a second or third shot rapidly. Deer are flighty, and if the first shot doesn't do the job, there will be little opportunity for a second shot. Thus, many deer hunting rifles are functionally indistinguishable from WWI-vintage military rifles. Designed to kill, but need mechanical operation of a bolt or lever between shots.
Hunters who are thinning out troublesome animals like prairie dogs or coyotes have great advantage from rapid-refire. AR's are very popular for that task, as are lever-action rifles.
Wild hogs are in the category of game that doesn't mind attacking humans. Rapid-refire is very valuable in that situation.
@AVI, thank you for pointing out the pretended moral superiority of the gun-controllers. It is galling to hear someone discuss the use of firearms in those terms.
That can be made worse by people who show great ignorance on the subject. That varies from misunderstanding of the core technology to ignorance of the difference between low-power, medium-power, and high-power ammunition.
Post a Comment