Gun Fetish in America - The Well-Armed Elephant in the Room

Introduction

I've decided to rant out my thoughts on the subject of gun control and the second amendment in a blatant attempt to try to compel the people of America to a sanity that seems far from their grasp. In particular though I want to point out the absolutely dangerous and zealous irrationality of those who refuse to allow even sane gun laws to pass.

Responsible, rational, compassionate gun owners need to unite against the irrational cult of guns that is far too vocal in America.

Alex Jones, complete nutjob

More Machine than Man Now

The Gun Lobby is a well-oiled machine that makes sure their interests are well-protected. Some see this as a noble endeavor with goals to protect the second amendment rights of gun owners in America but in actuality its all about business, keeping gun manufacturers raking in profits and fueling gun culture in America. There's a reason why after every tragedy some jackass comes on the news saying that MORE guns, not less, are the answer to being safer, because weapon sales often spike after mass shootings.

The reason why this sale spike often takes place is twofold, one you have people ignorantly being told that more guns are the answer, that they will be safe if they have guns, and two you have right-wing conspiracy theory nut-jobs who think that mass shootings are government planned inside jobs designed to give an excuse to take your guns away. These crazies actually think the government is going to impose Martial Law and that their dumb-asses are going to fight off actual well-armored well-armed well-trained military troops with civilian grade weaponry

This behemoth of lobbying is one reason why lobbyists, and money in politics in general, need major overhauls to keep from too much control by special interest groups. I can think of few special interest groups that are responsible for more death and more suffering than the gun lobby, who support the irrationality of citizens and feed into absurd narratives about it being your God given right to own extremely deadly weapons.

Defense Against Tyranny?

The creation of the Second Amendment was probably the second biggest mistake the Founding Fathers made when drawing up the foundational documents of American government – the biggest mistake being that they didn't nip slavery in the bud. I suppose it wasn't their fault considering that, at the time it was written and ratified, the second amendment was not just a good idea but a necessary one. Of course there is a big reason why the second amendment exists, and it's not what right-wing nutters tell you.

America was entirely built on a frontier with Native American tribes and other European nations controlling territory on a massive border that spanned all thirteen colonies. During the 1700s there was no railroad across states, travel was by horseback or horse drawn carriage or perhaps down the coast by ship meaning that it took an exorbitant amount of time to mobilize troops. So if some attack occurred, no matter who was doing the attacking, the fledgling nation was relying on armed militias and to hold out until help could arrive.

Keep in mind that there was no centralized Federally controlled military when the Constitution was being debated upon. The amendment is there so that State militias can be formed not so that any yahoo in 2015 can buy a semi-automatic gun with a 30 round magazine at a gun show with ease.

Minutemen and Militia members helped win the war and were crucial to the defense of our nation's massive border in the early years. It wasn't like today where there are troop transport helicopters and multiple branches of the armed services who could quickly respond to a threat on US soil. So for the Founding Fathers having Americans be armed was essential to preserving the liberty they'd just achieved, if the British or any other enemy decided to attack in some remote corner of the new Republic it would take a long time to move any troops to defend them.

Many right-wing gun fanatics will tell you that guns exist to fight the government if it steps out of line, as if the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure anyone who disagreed with the government they'd just set up could fight back against them. Of course this is absurd as George Washington himself put down a would-be rebellion that was caused, just as with the Revolution itself, by insurgents who didn't want to pay what they felt were abusive taxes. 13,000 Militia men were called up by Washington to end the so-called Whiskey Rebellion. Anyone stupid enough to think that the Founding Fathers intent with the Second Amendment was so that armed rebellions could spring up the moment some group decided the government was showing some amount of tyranny is an idiot.

Any rebellion has to be a response to real tyranny or it is totally invalid just like the Whiskey Rebellion, a bunch of selfish assholes who wouldn't submit to a reasonable tax - the same as selfish assholes who refuse to curb their gun fetish to help stop gun violence and view every attempt at gun control as tyranny.

- Disclaimer: I'm talking about terrorists who are the aggressors, who open fire on cops or bomb some building or take hostages FIRST.
- Disclaimer: I'm talking about terrorists who are the aggressors, who open fire on cops or bomb some building or take hostages FIRST.
Source

Your Right?

So what is my point anyway? The Second Amendment is about militia, a common man army that is not needed anymore but was a good idea at the time. Of course now the only militias that exist are usually right-wing nuts who are practicing for some imaginary New World Order scenario where they think they are going to hold out against the US military or some Red Dawn scenario where the Russians invade.

When the Amendment was written guns fired lead balls and most firearms were inaccurate and took 20-30 seconds to reload and even fire a second shot. Even the fastest most precise soldier in the Militia could probably only fire 3-4 rounds per minute with a Musket. Of course in the modern day we have pistols with 30 round magazines, we have semi-automatics that fire off as fast as you can pull the trigger and reload their sometimes massive mags in 10 seconds or less. No longer simple hunting rifles that take ramrods and powder to fire we now have weapon far deadlier than anything the Founding Fathers could have envisioned when they wrote the Second Amendment.

Dangerously, and irrationally, millions of Americans now defend the Bill of Rights without understanding it. Rather than being filled with AMENDMENTS – a word which reveals that the Founding Fathers were inviting us to CHANGE them as time went on – they see the Constitution as filled with incontrovertible truths handed down by God. This is a form of religious insanity that I cannot wrap my head around and which I can't imagine existing in a prior time. This fetishistic superstition about the Constitution being some sacred document literally makes no sense and bothers me to no end.

The Founding Fathers were reasonable men of their day, many were deep philosophical thinkers, learned men who knew what they were doing. But many were also slave owners and almost all were Universally dedicated to the rights of white male land owners. They were not infallible, they were not guided by the hand of God, they were just men, intelligent men for their time in history, but just men. Anyone who thinks that somehow the Bill of Rights is sacrosanct doesn't grasp what the term Amendment means.

The Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the future, they could not know the way our society would be structured in a few centuries time or how deadly our weapons would become. They also could not have foreseen the irrational belief that somehow the rights in the Constitution were sacred and could not be changed.

Yes its true Thomas Jefferson talks of inalienable rights coming down to us from birth from nature's god (deism not Christianity) but those rights are not easily discerned. See as deists most of the Founders believed that rights could be discovered, like they were part of the natural order, since human beings have an innate and natural sense of fairness, empathy and justice we could use reason to arrive at what rights might form the foundation of a better society.

The Constitution is not Sacred

Stop treating it like Jesus himself shit it out
Stop treating it like Jesus himself shit it out

Bearing it All

In modern times, with weapons far more dangerous than those of the Founder's time and with no discernible or rationally defensible need for militias what reason is there to defend the Second Amendment? Well for many the reason is simple, self-defense. Even with the amount of mass shootings and the amount of gun homicides in general in America people still believe that the safety guns provide to them and their families is more important than the lives of thousands gunned down each year.

Statistics, however, show that of all the gun homicides reported in America (thousands upon thousands) a small percent (BELOW 3%) of these deaths are actually justified instances of self-defense. Despite this there are as many guns in America as there are citizens. So where is the statistical benefit of gun-ownership versus the negative impact? Other than, perhaps, in hunting for food, I could find no numbers to justify gun ownership in the face of overwhelming violence. Please don't think that I am calling for guns to be outlawed, I do think that certain types of gun should remain legal, particularly hand guns and certain types of hunting rifles.

And what if the notion that if we take guns away from law-abiding citizens only criminals will have guns? This scare tactic applies only to people who want an outright ban on all firearms.

Should we Repeal the Second Amendment?

Your rights are your rights for a reason, they must be reasoned out and justified. I have seen, from people in my own life, the danger of the gun fetish. It is an irrational and fanatical thing. Of course there is nothing wrong in-and-of-itself with owning a fire-arm and I want to make it clear that I am in no way calling for the banning of all guns in America. What I am calling for, because of the irrational and absurd fetish some of my fellow Americans have with guns, is a repeal of the Second Amendment. Go ahead, gasp in horror, label me a tyrannical Statist or traitor, whatever you have to do to indulge your knee jerk reactions but it almost seems necessary at this point.

I know, its wishful thinking, but there seems little choice if we ever hope to actually curb gun violence in America since it is an irrational view of the Second Amendment as sacred holy scripture never to be questioned that keeps us in deadlock.

The moment people realize that owning a deadly weapon designed specifically to kill should not be their right in the twenty-first century is the moment we can actually move forward and dig ourselves out to the hole of these tragedies. Yes I do think people should be able to own certain types of guns, particularly hand-guns for self-defense and rifles for hunting. Many people dislike hunting but I know that many people use hunting to help feed their families and keep the population of certain animals from getting out of control. I am not unsympathetic to those who want to own guns, I simply don't see how any reasonable argument can be made establishing it as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT that should be in the Constitution.

Just like it is not your right to own a chainsaw, a lawnmower or a machete, it should not be your right to own a gun even though, just as with the above items, I think that some guns should be legal to own.

We need sane gun reforms that help keep guns in the hands of those who can use them responsibly and keep them out of the hands of crazies and criminals. But every time the most basic gun legislation is introduced the gun lobby and the irrational rabble of gun-nuts that support it start bitching about their “rights” being infringed.

If you really think its your RIGHT to own an AR-15 there is something wrong with your thinking, you are not reasonably considering what your rights should and shouldn't be but are likely engaged in an irrational gun-fetish. There is a balance to be struck between safety and liberty but a certain brand of gun-owner simply do not see it that way, they think any attempt by the government to protect its populace from rampant gun violence is tantamount to tyranny.

Can we Keep the 2nd Amendment?

If you live in a bad neighborhood and need a gun for self-defense fine, I understand. If you live in the middle of Montana and need to hunt predators that are picking off your cattle, again, I get it, you should be able to own a gun. Where we disagree is this idea that 1) It is your God given right and 2) The government has no right to regulate who can own what kind of weapon and how hard it is for them to get their hands on said weapon.

Of course we understand at a fundamental level that the government does have the right to legislate gun control including what kind of weapons can be owned and ease of citizen access to such weapons as well as screenings to try to cut down on the amount of crazies and criminals who can get a hold of guns. Of course none of it will be 100% fool proof but that doesn’t mean the numbers can't improve drastically. We understand that we don't want citizens to have military grade weapons or armaments such as missiles, explosives, etc.

But of course most gun owners already tuned me out when I said we should repeal the Second Amendment. To those still reading this I say this – if you want to keep the Second Amendment the least you can do is support reasonable efforts at gun control legislation and be just as vocal as the uber right-wing crazies who decry every attempt at gun reform as a direct attack on the rights they assume were granted them by their magical Father figure in the sky.


Guns are Designed to Kill

People say that guns don't kill people, people kill people and use guns to do it. They also say things like “should we outlaw forks for making people fat?”. These arguments are meaningless red herrings designed to distract from the actual points being made. Guns are not like forks. Forks are designed to convey food to your mouth, the damage they do, if any, is slow and dependent entirely on the will of the user who can only harm him or her self (unless force feeding someone). Of course the analogy also compares being fat to being shot, which is a bit absurd. Fat people do have greater risks of various health issues but hardly the same sort of health issues a person with a fucking bullet wound faces.

Guns are DESIGNED to kill animals and humans that is their only purpose. They are not like cars, which convey people place to place and not like forks that move food from plate to mouth, guns move speeding metal into the flesh of living breathing targets with the intent to wound and kill.

Prime example of a red-herring

This logical fallacy is sponsored by Gun Fetish of America.
This logical fallacy is sponsored by Gun Fetish of America.

Conclusion

People need to think deeply, rationally and compassionately about guns in America. Unfortunately the vocal cult of guns and the powerful gun lobby that feeds them are here to make sure no sane discourse on guns in America ever take place. The voices of sane gun owners tend to be drowned out by the babbling irrational cacophony of the fetishists. To make matters worse we have a media that is, in large part, afraid to speak out on the issue.

Just look at this latest tragedy. Yes there has been some discussion about gun control but much of the discussion has been drawn into a quagmire - side-tracked into a debate about the Confederate Flag, Southern pride about the Confederacy. Rather than addressing gun control or the actual racism still present in America the discussion has been about a symbol of that racism, the Confederate Flag and the gun-nuts have called for Church leaders to ARM THEMSELVES under the delusional notion that more guns = more safety.

Something has got to give and while I know my opinions on the subject will win me no points with most Americans the discussion needs to come to a front. We can no longer obfuscate the issue or defend the irrational and borderline delusional way that some Americans deal with gun rights in America. At some point we have to address the well-armed elephant in the room.

Hope you enjoyed my ad-free rant, courtesy of hubpages automatic content filters - thanks for reading!

More by this Author


Comments 32 comments

M. T. Dremer profile image

M. T. Dremer 17 months ago from United States

I've tried, more than once, to deconstruct the religious fanaticism surrounding guns in the U.S. (I even wrote my own hub, similar to this one.) Gun supporters try to equate guns with freedom, i.e. taking guns away is taking away freedom. And they suggest that any microscopic change in existing laws will start a domino-effect down a slippery slope that always leads to a gun ban (or martial law, or whatever). We're not allowed to own nukes, but nobody is complaining that its a restriction on our freedom.

As with most things, it comes down to money in politics. Had gun lobbies not held so much power over congress, we would have seen common sense laws passed during previous shootings. Laws that the majority of Americans support. And, I also think that education is another problem. The more we understand about the world, the less paranoid we become. Sure, you learn more about bad things that happen, but you're able to put it in perspective and context. And, that makes us less likely to buy into conspiracy theories about Obama coming for our guns.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 17 months ago from back in the lab again Author

The worst thing is it seems to infect even otherwise intelligent people. I once had a falling out with a friend of mine, a fellow atheist/agnostic who I had been friends with since high school because he began spouting Alex Jones style nonsense and collecting and glorifying guns. When I called him out on this he said something along the lines of "its my right, I don't have to justify it to you, I should be able to own any kind of gun I want, any regulation violates my rights"... to which I pointed out that he was using something akin to religious thought by saying that his rights don't have to be justified - of course they do!

People seem to think the edicts of the Constitution are somehow beyond question, its frightening. I mean the word AMENDment itself should give it away to them, this document was meant to be changed as society and technology change.

I agree very much so that money in politics is a big part of it as is the fact that many children are indoctrinated at a young age into the American gun cult.

Thanks for the comment!


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 17 months ago from The Midwest

Thank you for letting us know that you would be more than willing to drop bombs on citizens who are trying to defend freedom. Tells us more about you and your mindset than you might realize, eh.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 17 months ago from back in the lab again Author

You're welcome.

But like I said, domestic terrorists probably shouldn't be surprised when the government takes them out and anyone who violently rebels for an invalid or irrational reason (such as the South during the Civil War for example) deserves to be confronted. Just as with the Jihadists who attempted to shoot up the Draw Mohammed competition recently and were immediately taken out I have no sympathy for someone who decides to go the way of terrorism OR would-be armed rebellion.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 17 months ago from The Midwest

So when a Dick Cheney type gets to be president and decides to call off any further elections you'll go along with that and feel good about yourself?


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 17 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Again, I said invalid reasons for rebellion. If someone decides to make themselves Galactic Emperor of America that is different.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 17 months ago from The Midwest

So YOU get to choose the valid vs invalid reasons for rebellion, eh. That's sweet to know.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 17 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Yes Jack, I have to decide for myself whether I think something is a valid or invalid reason. WHO exactly would you like me to let decide on my own behalf? Here are two hypothetical examples to illustrate what I'm talking about with these groups:

Group 1: Believes that anyone who insults the Prophet Mohammed should be killed, so they plan a series of attacks and bombings to strike fear against their enemies. They believe the US governments protection of free speech, including free speech of those who insult the Prophet, is a violation of their highest rights from Allah. They organize into a militia. But before they can actually do anything the FBI finds out, they fight back and are killed.

Group 2: Believes that anyone who passes gun control is a tyrant and should be taken out and is threatening rights given to them by God. Believes that Obamacare is tyrannical as well. After a new gun law passes they begin openly discussing things like assassination, fighting law enforcement, and they form a militia. But before they can do anything the FBI shows up and these jackasses fight back and are killed.

So we're talking about OBVIOUSLY invalid irrational paranoid beliefs here, one group motivated by religion, the other by the absurd gun-cult or anti-Obama cult that has sprung up in America. The hypothetical groups are domestic terrorists, they deserve what is coming to them.

Remember, again, that I talked about the Whiskey Rebellion. The Founding Fathers didn't create the Second Amendment so every jumpy paranoid anti-government group of jackasses could spill into an armed rebellion.

The Founding Fathers were rational minded THINKERS, not paranoid delusionals, and rational vs irrational is a big part of valid vs invalid


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 17 months ago from The Midwest

Well, you can also include those who would rebel with arms because the government raised the tax on Twinkies if you want to create more strawmen arguments.

Since your supposed group 2 doesn't really exist outside of perhaps a few dozen rable rousers and your fevered imagination we can dismiss that fairly easily.

Which still leaves you in the position of believing that "some" rebellion is okay as long as you approve of it.


Zena Lefae profile image

Zena Lefae 17 months ago

Titan-Sxull raised some excellent points about how terrified people are about changes in gun control. I agree on better management on who we are selling certain guns to because we do not know everyone's intentions. At the same time, the moment you started talking about changes to the Constitution...NO. Additions to it are acceptable but outright changes would allow our government to easily manipulate the people (Ex: Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984). Some matters should be left to the experts (like wielding weapons), but is it so wrong for civilians to learn how to use guns and respect them as a weapon (not a toy)?


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 17 months ago from back in the lab again Author

If the amount of people posting on facebook and elsewhere that they would shoot government or law enforcement officials in the instance of anything they personally believe tyrannical are any indication I wouldn't call my hypothetical a strawman. Of course I don't actually think most of those who espouse a "cold dead hands" mentality or who claim Obama is the Muslim Communist Anti-Christ actually have the balls to act out, so maybe you have a point... but like I said they are hypothetical examples, its why the quote you're actually responding to call the idea of some militia group rebelling and ending up fighting the US government an "insane contingency".

"Which still leaves you in the position of believing that "some" rebellion is okay as long as you approve of it."

Right, as you said, if some Dick Cheney President decided he was Emperor and started rounding people up into FEMA camps - but my exact point is that this shit is extremely far-fetched conspiracy theory nonsense. I mean yeah, hypothetically if we woke up tomorrow and America was suddenly a theocracy, or highly repressive like Saudi Arabia, a rebellion of some kind might be in order.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 17 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Thank you for your comment Zena Lefae. I only suggested repealing the amendment because people are treating the Constitution like a holy document beyond question. Some people in America have forgotten that we can change the Constitution and that we should be having discussions on whether or not its necessary in 2015 for it to be a fundamental right to own a gun, given how much more deadly guns are today. If we can get reasonable gun control passed we wouldn't even have to repeal it, but we have to break that irrationality about it that some gun owners have.


SanXuary 17 months ago

You claim the media is afraid to speak out. I think they have no problem doing that at all. If America was a Democracy and was not in violation of everyone's human rights, I would throw all guns away. Unfortunately every thing America claims to be is a lie. In reality no guns are going to stop modern warfare. They only exist so that we can have less apathy and people who are willing to die for their freedom. There will always be guns, the only argument is who gets to have one. Is it your government and anyone rich enough? Perhaps the people who protect them as they rape your life, just as they do now. Perhaps you have not been indoctrinated into the system that insure you of no financial future. When disaster comes, there will be no government coming to save you. If you do not believe me ask anyone who survived Katrina.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 17 months ago from back in the lab again Author

What the hell are talking about?

You think the government is "raping" our lives?

This hub is about gun laws to keep mass shooters, crazy people and criminals from having guns so that law-abiding citizens, law enforcement, and the military are the ones with guns (obviously its not possible to have a law which perfectly does this but perfection is not needed to reduce the amount of gun violence in America.

This hub is not about war or conspiracy theory nonsense or disaster relief efforts the government failed to provide. Please take conspiracy theories about America to another hub.


Christopher Jay T profile image

Christopher Jay T 17 months ago from Fort Worth, TX

Love the Article. I noticed your Admiration for Alex Jones. You should read my article on The hysteria surrounding the military's Jade Helm exercises. You will be able to tell I like him as much as you do. Lol!


Duane Townsend profile image

Duane Townsend 13 months ago from Detroit

Very well done Titen-Sxull...great hub.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 12 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

People are so unreasonable about guns and abortions. If only there were a way to get people to think logically instead of emotionally, the world would be a better place.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 12 months ago from back in the lab again Author

We need the holy trinity to guide us... Of course I'm talking about Spock, Bones and Kirk, the balance of logic, emotion and ego that makes Kirk such a great Captain.

I think some emotion is needed, namely compassion, empathy and reason work best when they are together and until people learn to empathize with one another the debate won't go forward.


Wild Bill 12 months ago

Titen,

Great Hub! Every time I read an article you have written, I become more and more impressed with your writing. I am sure that when you truly decide to choose this as your profession, you will succeed tremendously.

While I do enjoy your writing, we do tend to be on opposing ends of the spectrum in our way of thinking. Although we do have different ways of thinking, I appreciate your point of view because you don't usually let your emotions get the better of you, but this time I think you let that slip. But in your defense, you did say this was a rant, so I completely understand.

In my view it is near sighted to make broad sweeping generalizations in the blame for gun violence (right wings, etc.). Society is to blame, not Republicans. As a matter of fact, Obama has passed a few pro-gun laws, including allowing concealed carry in a National Park, yet he talks as though he is for gun control.

Gun sales have risen during Obama's presidency due to the fact that every time a mass shooting occurs, he talks about gun control. I am not a genius, but even I would know not to keep doing the same thing over again and expect a different result. I mean, they guy is POTUS. He is supposed to know what he is doing. He should stick to trying to solve the problem and not push his ideology.

As for the NRA; they are a special interest group and that is what special interest groups do. They are not a thinking entity that is created to solve society's ills. They are funded for the purpose of protecting a specific right. They have their purposes, but don't think they are going to be reasonable about how they get that result. This also goes for PETA, National Right to Life Committee, NARAL Pro Choice Committee, etc. etc. A workers union is not created to help companies and workers unite. They are only created to protect the rights of the workers and this is their only interest. No one should cry about the NRA being at fault. If so, then maybe we should get rid of ALL special interest groups, not just the ones they don't like.

I do agree that most Americans feel that assault weapons are not for your average citizens; me being one of them. But what you have to realize is that thinking something is wrong doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. It just means that I choose not to purchase one. I don't agree with abortion, same sex marriage or legalized marijuana, but I am also not picketing in D.C. or petitioning these measures. As a matter of fact, most Americans think abortion is wrong, but they don't feel the need to overturn Roe vs Wade.

The problem is that people don't believe gun control nuts when they say that they only want a ban on assault weapons because a ban on AR's would not make a dent in gun violence. If gun control nuts really cared about limiting gun violence, they would ban pistols. Here is an article on murders in the US.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/how-p...

While they do not specify AR's, it doesn't take Einstein to see that murders committed with them would only be a fraction of a percent (I am sure they would be a minor percentage under the 'Rifle' tag). Also, murders by guns are going down every year, which means the culture is changing not by laws, but by choice. We don't need no stinking gun bans!

Another reason the American public is not allowing gun control is that guns in general have always been legal, but mass shootings are on the rise. As a matter of fact, we did have a ban on AR's in the 90's, yet mass shootings began to rise during that decade.

Also, what we are seeing is mass murders due to ideology. Before, it was because someone at work pissed them off or they were getting bullied.

What we are seeing now is people wanting to get recognition for killing strangers even though they know they will be dead afterwards.

Every time I hear gun control nuts screaming after a mass shooting, it makes me think they are trying to push an agenda, not make things better. It is like they have blinders on an only use the misery of others to push their politics on others.

That is just my take, but who knows.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 12 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Thanks for your comment Wild Bill!

You're absolutely right that I did not spread the blame enough politically, as you noted this hub came from an emotional place, not a purely rational one. Obama, despite all claims the contrary, is a very centrist President by my reckoning, he has kept many Bush era policies in place. His half-hearted calls for gun control have the opposite effect he intends by driving UP gun sales. Perhaps he is in the pocket of the gun lobby as well...

"If gun control nuts really cared about limiting gun violence, they would ban pistols."

Gun control nuts don't seem to be on the same page. Personally I grew up in a fairly high crime city, I understand why people living in those places feel they might need to carry a gun for protection. Yet you are right that hand guns are the main type of weapon used when we're talking gun deaths. Personally I'm not for outright BANNING anything other than automatic military grade weapons and even those I think should be obtainable in defunct form (modified so that they can never shoot again but still good as display pieces for collectors).

There are those on the far far left who WOULD ban all guns if they could.

"Also, what we are seeing is mass murders due to ideology. Before, it was because someone at work pissed them off or they were getting bullied."

We are seeing both still. I think the gun fetish I talked about has something to do with this. Everyone, from the law-abiding citizen who just wants to go hunting to help feed his family, to the mentally disable guy tired of being pushed around with self-destructive violent feelings, to the homegrown terrorist waiting to shoot up an abortion clinic or join Isis, all of these people see guns as an expedient answer to their problems. Guns are a unique kind of tool because they are designed specifically to kill, and this is what makes it such a delicate issue.

"What we are seeing now is people wanting to get recognition for killing strangers even though they know they will be dead afterwards."

The media is a HUGE part of perpetuating the gun fetish and glamorizing mass murder. There are some who will be self-destructive and become shooters hoping they get popped by the cops and there are those who would rather draw things out with a trial and their time in the spotlight, not to mention book deals and interviews down the line. Making mass shooters into minor celebrities is a big part of the problem. We live in a country with a "free" press however and we can't force them to not make a big deal out of these sorts of stories. Honestly though we can't keep giving shooters all the coverage in the world, it only gives others out there watching the idea that they too can solve all their problems with some guns and a few magazines of ammo.

"It is like they have blinders on an only use the misery of others to push their politics on others."

To be honest the rhetoric on both sides becomes intolerable at times. There are so many red herrings and so many unreasonable people who refuse to compromise. The agenda, I feel, should be to keep people safe, to find that balance of liberty and safety which maximizes both as much as possible. A big part of the problem is this cultural gun fetish where guns are ALWAYS portrayed as the best answer for everyone involved, criminal and ordinary citizen alike. Why must a deadly weapon ALWAYS be the answer? I can understand it for those who want to defend their homes or feed their families but for some I just do not understand the motivation behind their gun ownership and merely declaring it their right doesn't really give an answer as to why they felt the need or desire to own a gun.


Wild Bill 12 months ago

You gave great replies and I agree with all of your responses, especially the one about the media. The more dramatic the story, the better it sells. Keep on with your writing. Great job.


Matthew Harvey profile image

Matthew Harvey 12 months ago from lake havasu city

Can anyone name a gun control law that helped stop any mass shooting just out of curiosity.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 12 months ago from back in the lab again Author

I think your question is malformed. We can't name an event the law prevented because any event that was PREVENTED never happened. Perhaps rephrase the question.


Matthew Harvey profile image

Matthew Harvey 12 months ago from lake havasu city

Can you name any gun control law that has passed that has stopped any mass shootings


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 12 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Gun control would work by keeping guns out of the hands of unstable people and criminals, so if they never get guns they can never actually shoot a place up and thus we're talking about events that never took place. So your question still makes no sense. Any gun control laws that have prevented shootings we would never know, because the shooter would never have to reveal themselves as a shooter, they would never get a gun in the first place (unless they resorted to overtly illegal black market means).

Of course here in America its so easy to get a gun that I'm guessing the answer would be: not many, if any. As far as I know however places like the UK have extraordinarily low gun death rates compared to the United States, no doubt due in part to gun control laws and as such you generally don't see mass spree shooters from the UK. Honestly in looking up the numbers again to type this comment its just appalling, of 16,000 some homicides in America you can expect 10-11 thousand of them to be gun related. That's more than 60%. In the UK if you see about 600 homicides about 30-40 are gun deaths, that's about 6 or 7 percent. I don't usually quote statistics but damn that is a stark difference and honestly it makes me wonder if the FBIs numbers are way way off.

Now with that said I don't think that gun control laws are the best answer to the gun problem in America, I think a big part of the problem is a cultural one, a societal one and that tougher gun laws are not the only option that should be on the table. Someone needs to address the deeply ingrained gun fetish, the irrational fervor that drives Americans to cling to guns as the answer to all of their problems.


Matthew Harvey profile image

Matthew Harvey 12 months ago from lake havasu city

yes your right the UK has a lower death rate by a fire arm but a high home invasion rate high murder rate and robbery and assault rate because no one can defend themselves and if any of the gun laws worked we'd know because the democrats that put them there would brag about it left and right.

Keeping guns out of the bad guys and unstabled peoples hand still wont work at all because if they still have the means to hurt some one there still going to. look at China the have a strict gun laws and in 2014 they had a mass stabbing in a train station. So no new or old gun law with help in any way what so ever becaus eif some one has the means to hurt or kill they'll find another way so why are we always blaming the gun and asking for stricter gun laws.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 12 months ago from back in the lab again Author

"and robbery and assault rate because no one can defend themselves"

This is a fallacy called post hoc propter ergo hoc, do you have any evidence that the lack of guns is the thing driving these stats? Also the UK has lower murder rates than the United States, per capita the USA has about 42 muders to UK's 11.

"look at China the have a strict gun laws and in 2014 they had a mass stabbing in a train station."

An irrelevant red herring. Stabbing multiple people to death is harder than aiming and shooting with a gun that can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. Yes its true gun control cannot stop crazed maniacs from stabbing people, but that isn't what it's supposed to do.

"becaus eif some one has the means to hurt or kill they'll find another way"

Nonsense. I'll give two scenarios and you tell me which will result in more killing. 1) An unstable citizen buys a gun and 1200 rounds of ammo and shoots up a school with an AR15 that can fire as fast as he can pull the trigger. He has massive drum magazines. 2) An unstable citizen decides to use a kitchen knife to cut up a bunch of students. Which person is more likely to be taken out by another citizen? Which one will be able to kill more quickly and more efficiently?

The guy with the gun, the guy using a tool designed specifically to kill, is far more dangerous.

"so why are we always blaming the gun"

We're not, we're blaming the gunman/gunwoman, but also pointing out that guns are a tool specifically designed to kill and thus that makes anyone holding one more deadly.


Matthew Harvey profile image

Matthew Harvey 12 months ago from lake havasu city

ok let's look at the unstable guy with a knife 1) In 2014 in Kunming China a knife welding man killed 29 people and injured 130 more on top of that so where was the citizen to take him out. and that is almost just as bad as some as a mass shooting so there was no difference between him holding a gun or a knife.

In the UK alone teaches being stabbed their own unarmed offices have been stabbed hell look up stabbings in the UK or any country in the world that has strict gun laws and you'll see if someone has the means to hurt or kill they will always find another way.

We are to consumed by the gun and the so called great gun laws in other countries that work because they have a low murder rate by gun we do look to see if crime when up or down in any other way well it has gone up majorly in the UK they had to hire 20000 more police officers to count for the extra crime rates they have been having and the crime rates are still high.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 12 months ago from back in the lab again Author

"and that is almost just as bad as some as a mass shooting so there was no difference between him holding a gun or a knife."

A knife is always going to be harder to kill with, just from a straight up PHYSICS perspective. There's a reason guns supplanted knives/swords/blades as tools of war, guns are WAY WAY WAY more efficient at killing. Yes someone can kill 29 people with a knife, but it takes a lot longer than it would with a semi-automatic gun with a 30 round mag, and the longer it takes for them to do the killing the more likely it is someone will stop them.

"We are to consumed by the gun and the so called great gun laws in other countries that work because they have a low murder rate by gun we do look to see if crime when up or down in any other way well it has gone up majorly in the UK they had to hire 20000 more police officers to count for the extra crime rates they have been having and the crime rates are still high."

Their murder rates are low and their gun death rates are exceedingly low... so what is the problem? Burglaries? General assaults? No one is claiming that tougher gun laws are going to reduce ALL other forms of crime. Gun laws are there to prevent gun deaths and gun violence. It sounds to me like they've solved the problem of mass shootings and general gun homicide almost entirely, of course no amount of laws can prevent ALL shootings but it seems to me that they've reduced them to absurdly low numbers compared to the American stats.

Like I said above American homicides are 60+% gun related, UK homicides about 7% gun related, the UK murder rate is about one third what the American rate is per capita. Sounds like their gun control laws work fairly well.

But I'd also say they don't have the cultural hard-on for guns that Americans have and that is a big part of the sickness of America relating to guns. Everyone, be they criminal or ordinary law-abiding citizen is taught that owning a gun is basically a birthright and the media portrays guns as the answer to everyone's problems. Want to protect your house? Buy a gun. Want to hunt? Buy a gun. Want to be a good American? Buy a gun. Want to shoot up a school? Guns work for that too. Want to stop someone from shooting up a school? NRA says buying a gun is a good idea for that.

We're never gonna solve the problem without changing people's minds that guns are a huge responsibility because it is a tool designed to make killing easier. People need to understand that there is a balance between liberty and safety that can be reached.


Matthew Harvey profile image

Matthew Harvey 12 months ago from lake havasu city

The United States ranks 3rd in Murders throughout the World. But if you take out Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC and New Orleans .... the United States is 4th from the Bottom for Murders. These 4 Cities also have the toughest Gun Control Laws in the United States. All 4 are controlled by Democrat mayors (and legislators). It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data...RIGHT?" Also isn't it a fact that ALL the mass shootings happened in these

GUN FREE ZONES ? 1 more thing if we stop selling guns people won't get killed by them, right? We should make meth , heroin , cocaine and plenty of other drugs illegal too. So people don't do them.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 12 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Nothing you've said even resembles a rebuttal or even a response to any argument or statement I've made so I'll assume you're just rambling to yourself.

You wanted an example of gun control that has worked. The UK is such an example.

I've already conceded the fact that laws are not the only answer because America is so steeped in guns and the idea that guns are the answer/our birthright that laws can only do so much.


Matthew Harvey profile image

Matthew Harvey 12 months ago from lake havasu city

oops that was to the wrong post lol

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working