User Tag List

First 4048495051 Last

Results 491 to 500 of 507

  1. #491
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    I've always wanted to take a class on rifles. I loved firing my grandfather's bolt action .22 at targets. However Connecticut is a terrible to place to own firearms, nowhere to shoot them.

    =X


    Irony.

  2. #492
    ByMySword
    Guest

    Default

    I'm an old poster as you can see by the date I joined. I've returned intermittently. I just had something on my mind that I wished to post.

    I thought about writing more about our society/culture, too. You bring up good points, Lark.

    The problem with America is that it is comprised of various cultures and subcultures, and so there is a slim chance of a stronger more defined culture to help stabilize anything. At least in the case of stabilizing mentally ill peoples, as all of these cultures have different values.

    I would not say that the connection with firearms is necessarily necrophilious, but that's a generalized statement. Obviously, there are those such as myself that enjoy firearms and hobbies that involve them, but I would not classify it as worship. A great deal of money is invested in firearms. Personally speaking, as a professional historian and reenactor, there is a historical connection. Even moreso, many of my firearms have been passed down through my family, so there is an emotional connection. But these are personal connections that I have and I cannot say that they are mutually exclusive of being biophilious.

    As a whole, where I think the majority of the passion or "worship" comes from in the pro gun arguments, is not for the firearm as a tangible object, but the second amendment as an intangible "right" or principle as stipulated by the Constitution. It could be interpreted as worship, but not necrophilious as a principle is an inanimate object. That being said, there are other necrophilious aspects in our society that in an indirect way have caused the suffering of people, i.e. money, alcohol. And so I will not deny that these aspects do exist.

    I don't believe that my question on species level control is necessarily the cause, either. It was more like a question that came to me as I was thinking about Edward O. Wilson's ideas on homosexuality in his book On Human Nature. Even if it was a factor, I would not say that it would be the sole cause. The world is too complex to be that simple. But nor would I lay the cause on one sole thing in any explanation. Like you said, games and media may contribute to desensitization, but they are not the root. There are multiple factors at play here.

    I also understand what you mean by celebrity status and of course the victims should be remembered. However, it is easy to provide faceless killers when one faces an entire country. Less focus is placed on each individual's reasons for fighting and more is placed on the country's motives. When there is a sole shooter, though, it becomes very personal. We see one face on the news and naturally the question asked is why? And so investigations into the background of the individual and the quick association of killers such as Timothy McVeigh and Adam Lanza could be said to be inevitable.

    I do think that in the case of the recent shooting, that there has been admirable attention provided to the victims, though.

    And jontherobot, that is a very ironic statement.

  3. #493
    Sweet Ocean Cloud SD45T-2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 so/sp
    Posts
    2,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ByMySword View Post
    If you're reading this, thank you for your patience. lol
    It's worth it, IMHO.

    Officer "Smith" is one of my favorite bloggers. I don't agree with him 100% of the time, but the only person I agree with 100% of the time is myself. At any rate, I thought this was good: http://officersmith.blogspot.com/201...ere-gonna.html
    1w2-6w5-3w2 so/sp

    "I took one those personality tests. It came back negative." - Dan Mintz

  4. #494
    ByMySword
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SD45T-2 View Post
    It's worth it, IMHO.

    Officer "Smith" is one of my favorite bloggers. I don't agree with him 100% of the time, but the only person I agree with 100% of the time is myself. At any rate, I thought this was good: http://officersmith.blogspot.com/201...ere-gonna.html
    Thank you for your comment.

    Officer "Smith"'s article was good. He makes a good point about what would happen if guns were magically banned at once. To further his argument, if such an occurrence were to happen, people are forgetting the thousands upon thousands of firearms and high capacity magazines that are already present among the civilian population. It would take almost one hundred years for all of them to be expelled from the system.

    His ideas on school security are good. Like me, he understands that forcefully arming teachers might not be the best solution, although a solution I'd be willing to discuss. His advocation for CHL holders is admirable. If you combine these two issues in order to allow teachers who have taken the OPTION of getting their CHL to carry on campus, that is a huge step forward, not only in civil liberties, but in the security of our children. That being said, I'm not against alternative methods, such as improved perimeters and security personnel around schools. Personally, though, even with this presence, I believe that CHL holders should have less restrictions on where they can carry. And even though I don't particularly like it, I would be willing to talk about more regulation on what you must go through in order to carry concealed.

    And on a side note, I'd also be willing to talk about regulations for open carry be permitted, such as in New Mexico.

    Once again, thank you for your contribution to what little discussion has taken place recently. lol

  5. #495
    Sweet Ocean Cloud SD45T-2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 so/sp
    Posts
    2,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ByMySword View Post
    Personally, though, even with this presence, I believe that CHL holders should have less restrictions on where they can carry. And even though I don't particularly like it, I would be willing to talk about more regulation on what you must go through in order to carry concealed.
    Yeah, I don't think declaring a place like a mall or a theater a gun-free zone and not allowing people to legally carry there improves safety. A lot of mass shootings have been in so-called gun-free zones.

    California is a "may issue" state. The issuing authority is the sheriff, so your ability to get a concealed carry permit varies depending on where you live. In some counties the only way you'll ever get one is if you are rich and famous or a politician. In other counties (the more rural and/or Republican ones) Joe or Jane Sixpack can get one if they've got a clean record.

    I don't think this is a very good arrangement. There is no standard criteria, so the sheriff can decide whether or not to issue you a permit for totally arbitrary reasons. And in some places the list of people issued permits and the list of people who donated money to the sheriff's election campaign are remarkably similar.
    1w2-6w5-3w2 so/sp

    "I took one those personality tests. It came back negative." - Dan Mintz

  6. #496
    ByMySword
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SD45T-2 View Post
    Yeah, I don't think declaring a place like a mall or a theater a gun-free zone and not allowing people to legally carry there improves safety. A lot of mass shootings have been in so-called gun-free zones.

    California is a "may issue" state. The issuing authority is the sheriff, so your ability to get a concealed carry permit varies depending on where you live. In some counties the only way you'll ever get one is if you are rich and famous or a politician. In other counties (the more rural and/or Republican ones) Joe or Jane Sixpack can get one if they've got a clean record.

    I don't think this is a very good arrangement. There is no standard criteria, so the sheriff can decide whether or not to issue you a permit for totally arbitrary reasons. And in some places the list of people issued permits and the list of people who donated money to the sheriff's election campaign are remarkably similar.
    Interesting, I didn't realize that about California. I mean, at least an option exists there, but you're right, it puts too much subjective power in the hands of one person.

    I recently read this post from another forum on the argument for Open Carry. I'm going to New Mexico for Christmas and so I was researching the ins and outs of open carry laws there in case I decide to exercise that right. I found this post to be extremely informative. The only thing really barring me from carrying open now is worrying about law enforcement harassment. And possibly having to deal with negative public perception in the wake of recent tragedies, which upsets me that people's emotional reactions often overshadow logic and fact.

    But perhaps I should swallow my pride in order to pay respect to the nation's high emotional stress during this time. *sigh* At least I can carry concealed.

    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-...-argument.html

  7. #497
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ByMySword View Post
    I would not say that the connection with firearms is necessarily necrophilious, but that's a generalized statement. Obviously, there are those such as myself that enjoy firearms and hobbies that involve them, but I would not classify it as worship. A great deal of money is invested in firearms. Personally speaking, as a professional historian and reenactor, there is a historical connection. Even moreso, many of my firearms have been passed down through my family, so there is an emotional connection. But these are personal connections that I have and I cannot say that they are mutually exclusive of being biophilious.
    First of all, your posts on the subject of gun control have been enormously thoughtful, and I appreciate you taking the time to share them.

    I was hoping you wouldn't mind expanding a bit on what I've quoted above. I had asked a question in the thread on the Sandy Hooks shooting regarding the basic appeal of gun ownership. Why do guns and the right to own a gun mean so much to proponents, especially when the human cost of collective gun ownership outweigh any discernible benefit?

    I didn't get a satisfactory answer to this question in the other thread. But what I've inferred isn't all that positive. People who have a genuine passion for gun ownership appear to be driven by fear more than anything else.
    And so long as you haven’t experienced this: to die and so to grow,
    you are only a troubled guest on the dark earth

  8. #498
    ByMySword
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    I was hoping you wouldn't mind expanding a bit on what I've quoted above. I had asked a question in the thread on the Sandy Hooks shooting regarding the basic appeal of gun ownership. Why do guns and the right to own a gun mean so much to proponents, especially when the human cost of collective gun ownership outweigh any discernible benefit?

    I didn't get a satisfactory answer to this question in the other thread. But what I've inferred isn't all that positive. People who have a genuine passion for gun ownership appear to be driven by fear more than anything else.
    Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts.

    You ask a good question, and it is not a question that is answered easily since gun owners across America have certain aspects of gun ownership that they feel a connection with. From my quote, you can see a bit of my personal connection to gun ownership.

    One note to your question, however. The very fact that within it you insinuate that collective gun ownership is automatically connected with a loss of life would typically be met with opposition from proponents of gun ownership. And its due to the fact that its a very black/white interpretation. Gun ownership cannot be treated as a black/white issue. Not saying that guns and loss of life cannot be connected, but for proponents of gun owners, firearms are more than a tool used for killing. They are a piece of history, culture, a tool, and a hobby.

    Let's start with the most basic appeal. Do I think that there exists a Freudian connection with certain people for firearms. Absolutely, especially among our youth. Why is this? Honestly, I really can only look at Hollywood and video games. These media outlets focus on the assault aspect of firearms. Even in zombie movies, the heroes are frequently equipped with modern style black synthetic stocked weapons such as AR-15s, etc. It creates a romance behind these firearms, because they are associated with these Hollywood fantasies. Can this association be treated as a healthy hobby? Absolutely. For example, I own an M4 carbine. Of course, I'm also in the military and so I have other reasons for owning such a firearm.

    But the desensitization of violence using these weapons also possibly has an effect on certain youths. It cheapens the value of life, etc.

    But this Hollywood association with firearms is nothing new. For example, being a reenactor and Western Action Shootist, I frequently associate with older gun owners from a much older generation, including my own father and grandfather. These men grew up watching Westerns in their heyday and other series such as Davy Crockett, Daniel Boone, etc. Their interest in these firearms and to a greater extent history in itself grew from their early association with Hollywood. Contrary to the ultra-senseless violent media today, these films/series projected a different mood. Rather than long extended grotesque scenes of violence (think Quentin Tarentino), the conflicts in these films were often concluded very quickly (the quick draw in the street). More than that, they emphasized the use of violence for a just cause and de-emphasized the glory of violence in and of itself. In other words, there was a set a values projected and a clear sense of morality. They also emphasized a very individualistic nature, which was also prominent in American culture. Now, were these films historically accurate? Hell no. Were they an accurate reflection on the complexities of life? Once again, no. But as far as their treatment of violence and firearms go, they provided some sort of stable code for how they were presented that I believe clearly had an influence on older gun owners today.

    It also sheds light on the firearms that these men are most interested in. Rather than AR-15s, they prefer sixguns, black powder rifles, and to a lesser extent firearms from the WWI-WWII era. These are not the high capacity firearms that are receiving so much negative light today.

    Is this interpretation the root cause of appeal? No. But it might be worth looking at.

    Aside from that tangent, lets look at the historical appeal. And this is where I believe you might find an answer to your question

    Also inherent within this older generation, was an indoctrination in consensus history. I will not go into the intricacies of the historical field, but consensus history was a proponent of that very 1950s feel of supporting and loving your country. This ardent patriotic indoctrination combined with the Western/pioneer films helped solidify the connection between guns, individualism, America's greatness. An individualistic America created for civil liberties and good wholesome values. Idealistic, yes?

    Now, this is very overly simplified and I do not wish to insinuate that gun owners passion for their 2nd Amendment rights has been manufactured from 1950s ideals, but it definitely helped solidify the notion in the minds of older gun enthusiasts today. I believe that these aspects helped to develop the passionate pro-gun opposition that anti-gun proponents face.

    I must include a dose of historical reality. The ideas of individualism and gun ownership are older than this era, however. Although many historians have tried to prove otherwise, gun ownership was a common aspect of American life during colonial periods and Western expansion. Not only was it an aspect of self defense, but it was a tool for survival. Most importantly for the Founders, the American people as a whole was considered the militia, which is why a full time regular army as we interpret it was not truly formed till around the War of 1812. Prior to that, much of the military force was thought to rely on the militia. Of course, if you look at the definition of militia today, even the US government today still considers as a last resort every male between the ages of 18-60 to be the militia. How likely is this? Not very, but its there as a last resort.

    The Founders also recognized the possibility of a government gaining too much power. The 2nd Amendment was also formed to counter this. Once again, is another revolution very likely today? No, its not. But gun owners still believe that their loss of guns is a symbol of that fear that stretches back to the 18th century. This fear is held on to, and it maybe the fear that you refer to.

    The fear is there, I'll grant you. Because loss of gun ownership is symbolic for gun owners as a loss of a right they've always had, and therefore, further loss of the individualistic America many believe it to be. Any loss of a right is interpreted as a loss of power. Not the literal power to combat the government, but symbolic power. When it comes down to gun ownership as a staple of freedom, it is symbolic security. Will gun owners rise up in revolution? No. Even if they did, all the semi-automatics AR-15s in the world would amount to nothing against the government's arsenal. But knowing they could is a sign to them that they still retain the rights that the Founding Fathers laid down.

    But the self-defense aspect is a very real power, and that power to protect oneself and one's family in the absence of police (which according to the 2005 Supreme Court do not have an Constitutional duty to protect people anyway) I believe is a very natural instinct. Gun owners are not cheering on these mass shootings. They fear them just as much as any anti-gun enthusiasts. But they do not interpret the solution the same way. They see a means to protect their loved ones. Rather than the inanimate object, focus is placed on the person. In the end, its a different interpretation of values that I believe some may have to agree to disagree on.

    The fear exists because the threat exists. If there was no threat to restrictions on gun ownership, you would never hear the passion for the principle of gun ownership in the first place. You WOULD probably hear about their passions for hunting, speed shooting, reenacting, etc. The focus would be on the hobby itself, rather than the gun.

    Once again, I apologize for my rambling narrative. And I cannot say that my answer should be taken as a universal answer to your question. If there are any other gun owners who share a different interpretation, I hope you will enlighten us with it.

  9. #499
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ByMySword View Post
    ...
    An excellent treatment of the issues.

    If I might add... I think locus of control theory has a lot to do with it.

    Locus of control theory is basically the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events that affect them.

    I would think those that have a strong internal locus would be for firearm ownership, while those with an external locus would be against it.

  10. #500
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ByMySword View Post
    I'm an old poster as you can see by the date I joined. I've returned intermittently. I just had something on my mind that I wished to post.

    I thought about writing more about our society/culture, too. You bring up good points, Lark.

    The problem with America is that it is comprised of various cultures and subcultures, and so there is a slim chance of a stronger more defined culture to help stabilize anything. At least in the case of stabilizing mentally ill peoples, as all of these cultures have different values.

    I would not say that the connection with firearms is necessarily necrophilious, but that's a generalized statement. Obviously, there are those such as myself that enjoy firearms and hobbies that involve them, but I would not classify it as worship. A great deal of money is invested in firearms. Personally speaking, as a professional historian and reenactor, there is a historical connection. Even moreso, many of my firearms have been passed down through my family, so there is an emotional connection. But these are personal connections that I have and I cannot say that they are mutually exclusive of being biophilious.

    As a whole, where I think the majority of the passion or "worship" comes from in the pro gun arguments, is not for the firearm as a tangible object, but the second amendment as an intangible "right" or principle as stipulated by the Constitution. It could be interpreted as worship, but not necrophilious as a principle is an inanimate object. That being said, there are other necrophilious aspects in our society that in an indirect way have caused the suffering of people, i.e. money, alcohol. And so I will not deny that these aspects do exist.

    I don't believe that my question on species level control is necessarily the cause, either. It was more like a question that came to me as I was thinking about Edward O. Wilson's ideas on homosexuality in his book On Human Nature. Even if it was a factor, I would not say that it would be the sole cause. The world is too complex to be that simple. But nor would I lay the cause on one sole thing in any explanation. Like you said, games and media may contribute to desensitization, but they are not the root. There are multiple factors at play here.

    I also understand what you mean by celebrity status and of course the victims should be remembered. However, it is easy to provide faceless killers when one faces an entire country. Less focus is placed on each individual's reasons for fighting and more is placed on the country's motives. When there is a sole shooter, though, it becomes very personal. We see one face on the news and naturally the question asked is why? And so investigations into the background of the individual and the quick association of killers such as Timothy McVeigh and Adam Lanza could be said to be inevitable.

    I do think that in the case of the recent shooting, that there has been admirable attention provided to the victims, though.

    And jontherobot, that is a very ironic statement.
    Its awesome that you mention Edward O. Wilson because he's the only person, besides Fromm, who I know who uses the biophilious thesis, although I dont know if its the same way as Fromm and I know that the reverence for life theory amounts to something the same.

    I dont think that gun ownership is necessarily necrophilious at all, just that it could be, commodity fetishising goes way beyond guns and you could be necrophilious in your love of cars or property more than people but guns are a special case because it seems like for some the new american dream is spree killing, finally putting a gun to its intended use and enjoying it and damn the victims.

Similar Threads

  1. [INTP] The INTP Appreciation Thread
    By MacGuffin in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 1013
    Last Post: 03-06-2012, 05:59 PM
  2. [INFP] The INFP Appreciation Thread
    By Azseroffs in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: 08-22-2010, 11:53 PM
  3. [ENTP] THE ENTP Appreciation Thread
    By tinkerbell in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 262
    Last Post: 10-15-2009, 04:21 PM
  4. The Beard Appreciation Thread
    By Kingfisher in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 06-29-2009, 12:18 AM
  5. The Hmm Appreciation Thread
    By Brouhaha in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 01-29-2009, 10:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO