The Gun Appreciation Thread

[Oberon]

I reload my own ammo. I have a Rock Chucker single stage press.

So far, I've only reloaded .44 WCF and .45-70 both in smokeless and black powder. I save all of my brass though for the time when I have dies for all of my various ammo.

You reload .44-40? Do you use the orginal-spec .427 bullets, or will your gun shoot the much-more-common .429 projectiles? I'm pretty sure all the modern .44 WCF guns have .429 bores.

I have the best bullet mold for .45-70... it drops a 500-grain RNFP (round-nose flat point) bullet that takes a gas check. A friend of mine loads these in .458 Win Mag at .45-70 velocity and hunts whitetail with them... although with a little bit stiffer powder charge he's well-armed for Cape Buffalo. Even loaded down to 1500 fps, they're cloverleaf-accurate over a charge of IMR-4895.

 

[iwakar]

Would any of you like to shoot real things in real time via your pc? The Twisted Metal game release is doing this ShootMyTruck promo event today: http://www.shootmytruck.com/ There's a countdown timer running for a few more hours till the big finish. I'm not sure what big arse gun they're letting users remote control.

 

[ByMySword]

Would any of you like to shoot real things in real time via your pc? The Twisted Metal game release is doing this ShootMyTruck promo event today: http://www.shootmytruck.com/ There's a countdown timer running for a few more hours till the big finish. I'm not sure what big arse gun they're letting users remote control.

I don't think I'd get any pleasure out of that honestly. That being said, I'd probably give it a whirl.

 

[Lark]

Who is bymysword? Is that changed identity or just a really old poster come back and resurrected a thread?

 

[ByMySword]

I hope this post will not contain too much rambling as there are several issues I'm looking at here. I just needed to write my thoughts out. This will also have to consist of several posts. I apologize to everyone for this article, but I hope that it asks questions not previously considered at one time.

Since the shooting in Connecticut, the 2nd Amendment has come under attack once again, which I find fascinating, since no amount of legislation could have really prevented this type of tragedy. The shooter obtained the firearms from his mother, who had obtained them legally, even prior to Connecticut's 1993 ban on the sale or transfer of assault type weapons, which in itself is a misnomer. According to the US Army's definition of an assault weapon, semi-automatic AR-15s do not fall into that category as they are not selective fire. Now while his mother obtained them legally, the shooter stole them, which is a very common method of criminal firearm acquisition.

Yet despite the uniqueness of this situation, gun control advocates continue to push more gun legislation as if this tragedy could have been avoided. I'm not ignorant of the connection. I get it. And so I won't say anything more than that on this matter.

According to Mother Jones, since 1982, 61 mass murders involving firearms have occurred throughout the country. Of these, 43 of the killers were white males, and only one was a woman. Mother Jones focused on whether the killers obtained their guns legally. According to them, most did. Now this research only looked at mass murders, not standard homicides and other gun violence due to varying criminal activity (drug trafficking), which I'm sure would show highly different range of statistics. Obviously a greater number of single incidents. Taken together, obviously more victims overshadowing those who have been killed recently by the thousands if not more. As to the origin of the firearms, hard to say. I could see it likely that firearms used in homicides are often acquired legally, of course I'm sure there is a significant number of them that aren't. Criminal activity, I could make a general hypothesis that they are not acquired legally.

I do agree that there is something happening here at a rate that shouldn't be. To look at the causes of this problem, a more complex analysis must be looked at than just gun control. So I'd like to look at the possible origins of these problems. I start by utilizing the cliche statement that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". So I will focus on people first before I move on to the guns themselves.

Media violence:

Lt. Col. David Grossman believes that it is media violence which has spurred our youth to commit these grievous acts. In his book On Killing he goes into great detail on his belief that video games, movies, and television have programmed our children from an early age to commit violence in the blink of an eye. He brings up several statistics which I will not go into here. But his theory brings up two questions: Is this true and if so, what do we do about it? If it is true, our society must decide if more restrictive censoring is the answer or if the responsibility lies solely with the parents. I find this analysis interesting since it is the left that has usually been against censoring, video game violence excluded. Personally, I believe that the parents are responsible, but moving on.

Human nature and mental health:

I've recently thought of this question which will probably be met with a flurry of attacks on myself. I've read somewhere about the theory that homosexuality occurs in nature in order to curtail population growth. While I'm not commenting on the validity of this theory, it did get me thinking about homicidal tendencies within the context of human nature. If homosexuality could possibly be used by nature, why not homicidal tendencies? I don't want to go M. Night Shyamalan from The Happening, I just wanted to throw out an out of the box question based on other theories relating to aspects of our species.

Mental illness has been ignored in many of these cases. Clearly these people are unstable individuals, yet many are slipping through the cracks and are able to purchase firearms. Why? Once they have been professionally labeled as mentally unstable they are not able to procure firearms since both a federal criminal and medical background check is done when one purchases a firearm. So to me, the issue with mental illness isn't more restrictions on firearms for everyone, but rather identifying the mentally unstable in the first place. So how do we identify these mentally unstable people who are slipping through the cracks?

 

[ByMySword]

It won't be easy. Mental illness occurs in people throughout various stages of their lives. In order to accurately identify it, there would more than likely have to be periodic psych evaluations on people throughout their childhood and even at points during their adult life (such as after going through a tragic event such as war, rape, etc.) This could be interpreted as infringing on parents' rights over their children and in cases of psych evaluations for adults, as an infringement on civil liberties. In fact, parent's refusal to allow their child psych evaluations possibly causes part of the problem. Children with mental illnesses are possibly slipping through the cracks this way. How do we fix this? If we were to conduct periodic psych evaluations on children, more than likely it would have to begin with children in the schools, without parents permission. These evaluations would become part of the child's permanent record which would follow them throughout their lives. Certain aspects of the psych evaluations could assert whether or not the individual is mentally stable enough to perform their 2nd amendment rights responsibly. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this. This is all just speculation.

As for adults, these psych evaluations could continue through college, be performed at their jobs, or be limited to certain traumatic events in their lives such as on Soldiers returning from war. Seems simple, right?

On the surface, it could work, but we cannot paint over these issues with a wide brush. Whoever is conducting the psych evaluations more than likely adheres to a particular school of psychology, hence, you will have one evaluation asserting the individual is mentally healthy, and another asserting the opposite. Even if psych evaluations were to become part of the norm, they would have to be performed by a board of evaluators in order to give an overall fair indication of an individual's mental health. Otherwise, you would have perfectly normal people being labeled crazy when in fact they weren't.

Is this a complete solution to the problem? No. Even under the strictest circumstances, someone will slip through the cracks. Could it effectively identify mentally people from an early age in order to prevent them doing harm to themselves and other in the future? If done correctly, I think so. I don't believe it will ever be perfect, however. And the questions on civil liberties and parents' rights still remain a questionable obstacle to a solution such as this.

If periodic psych evaluations are too much, then evaluations for gun owners and/or CHL holders could be made mandatory. Of course, this only weeds out potential gun offenders. Mass murderers such as Timothy McVeigh will still be out there. And as for CHL holders, here's a little statistic for you:

In Texas in 2011, there were 65,000 gun crimes. Of these, 121 were committed by CHL holders. I didn't do the math myself, but supposedly that's .018 percent. Most of those were either under the influence of alcohol or revealed their concealed weapon. Revealing your concealed weapon is cited as unlawful carry, since in Texas you are not even allowed to tell someone you are carrying unless its a police officer. So revealing your weapon could be as simple as bending over and your shirt tail rides up. Point is, CHL offenders are in the minority. This statistic will probably be brought up again at a later point in this analysis. It is put here as an example in order to better inform you of the issues when making your opinions on who should be evaluated.

Another statistic I found was interesting. The rate of inmate mental illness is five times greater (56%) than that of the regular population. Take from that what you will.

Moving on....

 

[ByMySword]

Gun Legislation:

Gun control advocates are calling for more restrictive gun legislation. While I hate the idea of it, I cannot be close minded to it. Gun owners must take an open minded stance when addressing this issue. Unfortunately, we as gun owners must preserve our restraint when confronted with those who do not respect our rights. The media often paints us as revolutionary anarchists with a sick perverse affinity for firearms. We must find a way to effectively state our case in an intelligent manner. Unfortunately, the media always focuses on the most extreme advocates as evidence for their arguments. Because of this, we are forced to play their game. Unless we find some connection with those who do not understand us, then our cause is lost.

Part of this is to be open minded about gun legislation. If all else fails, then reform to gun legislation is our only answer. But it does not have to take the form of gun restriction.

A new idea is circulating on expanding the rights of CHL carriers, especially teachers. With the recent shooting, there is outrage over teachers who are prevented from carrying their concealed handguns onto schools. When I was a teacher, I dealt with the same thing. Those unfamiliar or uncomfortable with firearms are opposed to this idea, but in this particular case it does not make sense. We already trust teachers with our children everyday. If they want to do harm to them, nothing is stopping them, especially the trouble they went through to get a firearm AND a CHL. And especially not a Gun Free Zone sign.

Others are wanting to offer either mandatory OR optional counter-terrorist training to teachers to include psych evaluations and annual re-qualification training. Now I'm all for higher requirements for teachers, but they mostly fall in the category of higher education. I wouldn't be completely against this type of training, but its definitely a step beyond something as simple as letting teachers who have CHLs (which is not all of them, I assure you) to carry while on the job.

If the government trusts CHL holders to carry in the first place, then I do not understand the reasoning behind limiting where they can carry. If they want to shoot up a place, nothing is really stopping them. School campuses, post offices, COLLEGE CAMPUSES. It seems most advocates of these restrictions come from people who are simply uncomfortable with firearms in general. Now you could argue for more restrictive measures for CHL holders such as more extensive training, initial psych evaluations, etc. But even with that, there will be opponents of CHL holders' rights to carry in certain places, which to me makes no sense. The only place you could possibly make an argument is an area such as court houses or military bases where there is an armed presence there for the protection of the people there. But even that apparently isn't a perfect solution, i.e. the Fort Hood shooting.

 

[ByMySword]

Another option which is up for discussion is a waiting period on firearms. This restriction unfortunately is often painted with a broad brush. From my conversations with proponents of this method, the waiting period is intended to curtail the hothead, those who on a whim get angry, go get a gun, and shoot someone. Typically, the general consensus is 30 days. Well, this can be looked at in several ways.

First of all, this solution is not an end all. While it may curtail the hothead element, those who are methodical enough to wait 30 days are going to do it anyway. So where do you draw the line on the waiting period if it is just for the hothead element? A week, 2 weeks, or the full month. No matter what, there are always going to be those who slip through the cracks.

And the waiting period does not go into the intricacies of firearms purchase. The waiting period is designed for guns that are already in store, yet paints over in a wide brush firearms that are custom made or imported. For example, I ordered a lever action rifle from Uberti, a manufacturer in Italy. I had to go through a FFL dealer in order to purchase it. The rifle was already on back order and had to be made a the factory, then imported to a middle man before being sent to the dealer I went to. All told, I waited a year and a half for my rifle. Now, where does the waiting period come in then? If painted with a wide brush, I could possibly have to wait 30 more days to actually get the rife if such legislation was passed. Point being, the waiting period is inconvenient, but it could possibly work provided that it doesn't inconvenient a person any more than it has to.

And personally, I doubt that people are custom ordering 19th century replica weapons from Italian manufacturers in order to go on a shooting spree. So it should be stipulated that the waiting period should be reserved for those weapons that are already in store, if it were to be enforced.

One last note on gun control. I notice that there is a lot of examples from gun control advocates on the low crime rates of countries with high gun control restrictions. While to an extent, these restrictions can be used, there are differences in the reasoning behind them. First and foremost, is national culture and history. Many countries, such as England, have not had a history and culture that has been steeped in firearms use. America has, for good or worse. Gun control measures such as they are in other countries would not work in our society. A complete ban on firearms could very likely result in a Prohibition era type industry, which would only propagate the violence. I find this internationalist ideal that what works in one culture will work in anther fascinating, since it is very hypocritical to many of the leftist views on other issues, such as democracy. During this war in Iraq, there was much talk from the left purporting that democracy will not work for all nations and cultures since they have different ideas on what the role of government should be, etc. Ethnocentrists on the right, disagreed, believing that everyone wanted democracy, etc. I just find it interesting that when it comes to gun control, the left does not have a problem resorting to an ethnocentrist attitude that policies that work in one country must work in all. In which case, if one follows Switzerland's gun policies, then everyone in America would own a firearm. Tangent over.

This is just a couple of gun control measures I've seen being thrown around lately. I'm more than willing to discuss the particulars of any of them that I mentioned or did not mention. But we as gun owners, while it is inconvenient for us, must take an open minded stance on these discussions. We must be willing to bend a little, even though we personally have done nothing wrong and are having to pay for others crimes. If we do not, negative stereotypes will continue to follow our cause.

I honestly had more I wanted to discuss, but I'll stop for now and let this incomplete analysis rest a little bit. Perhaps others can share their ideas on the matter. If you're reading this, thank you for your patience. lol

 

[ByMySword]

Who is bymysword? Is that changed identity or just a really old poster come back and resurrected a thread?

Who is Lark? Is that the shark or the guy feeding it?

 

[Lark]

Who is Lark? Is that the shark or the guy feeding it?

I've been around for a while, which makes me think you're an older poster come back rather than a regular poster with a name change.

Moving on, I think the biggest thing is whether or not a culture is biophilious, ie celebrates life, or necrophilious, ie not necessarily death worshiping but loving inanimate objects as opposed to living things, and also issues to do with authoritarianism, dominance and especially how the feature as channels for people who've not developed much emotional or social intelligence or just lack maturity and consequential thinking.

Those are largely cultural things but I think that stronger, more defined, less confused and contested cultures can provide some stabilising influences upon mentally sick or troubled persons, maybe not if they're part of a subculture or counterculture, even if its largely make believe like Brevik, but its something and if its pervasive enough perhaps it can bridge the gaps or exercise an influence even there in those other camps.

The thing about the biophilious ideas and others associated with them is that whatever the differences about fine detail I'd sure as hell hope that there'd be basic consensus about them between even highly polarised cultural camps or scenes.

I dont think that these things are species level population control anymore than I think it was triggered by subliminal messages or any conspiracy crap, I dont think its comparable to abortion or war or any of the other things that liberals or conservatives have sought to make mileage or political capital out of in the past couple of days either, I'm not sure that games or the media cause it but they could stoke already existing desensitisation or problems like that.

There shouldnt be celebrity status attached to shooters, instead we should remember victims or survivors, this has been a change, in the past reportage, especially of wars did not identify perpetrators of violence, they were faceless killers, ie "charlie" or "the hun", but it did identify and identify with victims and survivors, frequently valourising them instead. I think if something like this was done, it cant really be overdone, the whole "victim culture" thing is something different and linked to fast bucks and consumer paradises, things would be different. I actually think that aggression or dominance strivings per se would be different if this took place.

 

[WALMART]

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.

 

[ByMySword]

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.

 

[SD45T-2]

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/2012/12/pull-up-chair-and-grab-drink-were-gonna.html

 

[ByMySword]

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/2012/12/pull-up-chair-and-grab-drink-were-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

 

[SD45T-2]

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.

 

[ByMySword]

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-carry-discussion/7230-open-carry-argument.html

 

[violet_crown]

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.

 

[ByMySword]

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.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

...

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.

 

[Lark]

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.