Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,571 Posts
The gun debate is a culture debate | Fox News

This article has many good and interesting points about the current gun debate.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2
Good article...

and the indoctrination is starting in the schools... the gun free zones. The ZERO tolerance zones.... those same schools where we went, with a gun in the trunk of our cars so that we could go squirrel hunting after school... The SAME EXACT schools in many cases...

And, yes, there are parents who teach their children the truth... and there are some that even go s far as to home school... but they are in the minority. Our future generations are learning that guns are evil... not people. All people are wonderful... and welcome, and tolerated and accepted.... All people but the gun nuts... they're wrong... they are in the grip of the evil guns...

And the children don't learn that 77 men, regular citizens, just one month from now on that day in history (April 19th, 1775), stopped the government from taking their guns.... and because of those 77 minutemen, 700 were ultimately turned away. And without those "weapons of war..." in the hands of 77 citizens, we would all be serfs and vassals today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
314 Posts
Yeah, here's one of those "fine and interesting points":

"Some Americans teach their children that gun ownership is a right a responsibility, and that guns are tools to respect and enjoy. Others discipline five-year olds for fashioning pretend guns out of pipe cleaners; they view guns with something resembling disgust.

Productive conversations about guns can thus be difficult because the anti-gun movement gives little to no weight to the values of private gun ownership. That is because “gun disgust” engenders a bias against guns." :icon_rolleyes:

Speaking of impeding productive conversations about guns...pot meet kettle! I mean, seriously, the tone in this article toward those who favor gun control is so condescending and belittling while maintaining that pro-gun advocates are rational and reasonable is completely ridiculous and biased. Of course, I see the source (Fox "News") and understand the bias, but my larger concern is that some people will read this and accept this position as fact because it's "printed" on a "news" site. This is neither fact nor objective journalism; it's opinion, plain and simple, draped in the cloak of news. This is an op-ed piece without the clarification that we should read this as opinion. And I would say this is counter-productive, hurts gun-rights activists because it makes people mad. I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative, I believe in gun rights, and I believe in moderate, common-sense gun control. I agree that an assault weapons ban will do little to stem the violence in our nation, and I agree an AWB or a ban on 10rd. mags will NOT prevent another mass shooting. But this article is just too opinionated, which is fine. People are entitled to their opinions, but when he hides behind the cloak of "newscasting," that's when it becomes problematic.


Read more: The gun debate is a culture debate | Fox News
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Definitely lots of interesting points. There aren't many faster ways to remove people's thinking caps than to engage them in a cultural issue as the article demonstrates nicely.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
34,311 Posts
Yeah, here's one of those "fine and interesting points":

"Some Americans teach their children that gun ownership is a right a responsibility, and that guns are tools to respect and enjoy. Others discipline five-year olds for fashioning pretend guns out of pipe cleaners; they view guns with something resembling disgust.

Productive conversations about guns can thus be difficult because the anti-gun movement gives little to no weight to the values of private gun ownership. That is because “gun disgust” engenders a bias against guns." :icon_rolleyes:

Speaking of impeding productive conversations about guns...pot meet kettle! I mean, seriously, the tone in this article toward those who favor gun control is so condescending and belittling while maintaining that pro-gun advocates are rational and reasonable is completely ridiculous and biased. Of course, I see the source (Fox "News") and understand the bias, but my larger concern is that some people will read this and accept this position as fact because it's "printed" on a "news" site. This is neither fact nor objective journalism; it's opinion, plain and simple, draped in the cloak of news. This is an op-ed piece without the clarification that we should read this as opinion. And I would say this is counter-productive, hurts gun-rights activists because it makes people mad. I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative, I believe in gun rights, and I believe in moderate, common-sense gun control. I agree that an assault weapons ban will do little to stem the violence in our nation, and I agree an AWB or a ban on 10rd. mags will NOT prevent another mass shooting. But this article is just too opinionated, which is fine. People are entitled to their opinions, but when he hides behind the cloak of "newscasting," that's when it becomes problematic.


Read more: The gun debate is a culture debate | Fox News
I am interested to hear what you would regard as a productive conversation about guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OD*

·
Registered
Joined
·
314 Posts
and the indoctrination is starting in the schools... the gun free zones. The ZERO tolerance zones.... those same schools where we went, with a gun in the trunk of our cars so that we could go squirrel hunting after school... The SAME EXACT schools in many cases...
I agree with this to a point, and it is this point that MANY people, including yourself, fail to recognize. I went to a school like, I grew up in a town in west Texas like this, with kids and adults with shotguns and rifles mounted in the back of the trucks. I get that culture and mindset. BUT schools today are not OUR schools, they are not the schools we graduated from 5-10-20-30 years ago. That's just how it is: the world has changed.

If you think being an administrator or teacher today is easy, you're wrong, flat-out. Schools indoctrinate a great many things other than a fear of guns, some of those things more harmful than a fear of guns, I would argue: A fear of "not-normal" gender roles, a fear of gays, a fear of non-Christians, a fear of non-conformists, a rigid adherence to sometimes non-sensical rules....I'm sure we could list others. I agree with you that many of these things are non-sensical, but I would also caution you about such blanket statements. While the general public may not understand the rules or believe in them, and while some of the rules may be just plain dumb (I would argue that many school rules are just stupid), many of the rules we may not understand are vital in ensuring a productive learning environment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
314 Posts
I am interested to hear what you would regard as a productive conversation about guns.
A conversation that is honest and not condescending or belittling to either side. So when this article says "productive conversations about guns can thus be difficult because the anti-gun movement gives little to no weight to the values of gun ownership," that is a primary example of NOT being productive. The author could have written something like this: "Productive conversations about guns can thus be difficult because BOTH SIDES UNDERVALUE AND DEMEAN THE BELIEF SYSTEMS OF THE OPPOSING SIDE." That moves toward a more honest and open conversation then the article as it's printed.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
107 Posts
Yeah, here's one of those "fine and interesting points":

"Some Americans teach their children that gun ownership is a right a responsibility, and that guns are tools to respect and enjoy. Others discipline five-year olds for fashioning pretend guns out of pipe cleaners; they view guns with something resembling disgust.

Productive conversations about guns can thus be difficult because the anti-gun movement gives little to no weight to the values of private gun ownership. That is because “gun disgust” engenders a bias against guns." :icon_rolleyes:

Speaking of impeding productive conversations about guns...pot meet kettle! I mean, seriously, the tone in this article toward those who favor gun control is so condescending and belittling while maintaining that pro-gun advocates are rational and reasonable is completely ridiculous and biased. Of course, I see the source (Fox "News") and understand the bias, but my larger concern is that some people will read this and accept this position as fact because it's "printed" on a "news" site. This is neither fact nor objective journalism; it's opinion, plain and simple, draped in the cloak of news. This is an op-ed piece without the clarification that we should read this as opinion. And I would say this is counter-productive, hurts gun-rights activists because it makes people mad. I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative, I believe in gun rights, and I believe in moderate, common-sense gun control. I agree that an assault weapons ban will do little to stem the violence in our nation, and I agree an AWB or a ban on 10rd. mags will NOT prevent another mass shooting. But this article is just too opinionated, which is fine. People are entitled to their opinions, but when he hides behind the cloak of "newscasting," that's when it becomes problematic.


Read more: The gun debate is a culture debate | Fox News

Uh what? The fact it is listed in the OPINION section of the news site doesn't clue you into the fact it's an opinion piece? Look at the URL. See that bit that says /opinion on it? Or how about scrolling to the top of the page. See that Highlighted tab that says in big bold letters OPINION. Still not doing it for you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
314 Posts
Oi! I totally missed that, humble. Dang it! Well nevermind then. Continue as before, nothing to see here. BTW, humble, my parents lived in Humble, TX, for near 30 years, worked for Eastern before it collapsed (my grandad worked for Eastern too), and retired out to Ft. Davis, TX, a few years ago. I don't know if that's what your "humble" refers to or not; I thought maybe it did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,586 Posts
A conversation that is honest and not condescending or belittling to either side. So when this article says "productive conversations about guns can thus be difficult because the anti-gun movement gives little to no weight to the values of gun ownership," that is a primary example of NOT being productive. The author could have written something like this: "Productive conversations about guns can thus be difficult because BOTH SIDES UNDERVALUE AND DEMEAN THE BELIEF SYSTEMS OF THE OPPOSING SIDE." That moves toward a more honest and open conversation then the article as it's printed.
Kind of hard to have a productive conversation when the other side (collectively) puts their fingers in their ears, holds their breath, and jumps up and down wearing a shirt that says "don't confuse me with facts....this is how I feel"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
314 Posts
Sig, you're totally right. But I will add that the RNC admitted that its campaign strategy was to ignore facts and run a presidential campaign as only an emotional appeal. Obviously that was the wrong strategy. My point: BOTH sides ignore the facts when it is convenient for their political agenda.

But chit, the fact that I missed the blatant OPINION tab at the top o the page makes me feel like an azz. Perhaps I should withdraw all my posts in this thread? I feel like a tool for havin not seen that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,571 Posts
I agree with this to a point, and it is this point that MANY people, including yourself, fail to recognize. I went to a school like, I grew up in a town in west Texas like this, with kids and adults with shotguns and rifles mounted in the back of the trucks. I get that culture and mindset. BUT schools today are not OUR schools, they are not the schools we graduated from 5-10-20-30 years ago. That's just how it is: the world has changed.

If you think being an administrator or teacher today is easy, you're wrong, flat-out. Schools indoctrinate a great many things other than a fear of guns, some of those things more harmful than a fear of guns, I would argue: A fear of "not-normal" gender roles, a fear of gays, a fear of non-Christians, a fear of non-conformists, a rigid adherence to sometimes non-sensical rules....I'm sure we could list others. I agree with you that many of these things are non-sensical, but I would also caution you about such blanket statements. While the general public may not understand the rules or believe in them, and while some of the rules may be just plain dumb (I would argue that many school rules are just stupid), many of the rules we may not understand are vital in ensuring a productive learning environment.

Tele-pathic? not so much... you are telling me that the schools are now teaching fear of "not-normal gender roles?" Is that why Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy's Roommate are in the school libraries?
A fear of gays? really? see above.
Fear of non-conformists? Not unless "non-conforming" is having little green army men on your cupcakes. Not unless non-conforming is wearing a USMC tee shirt.
Fear of non-Christians. No, they teach the opposite of that...

They teach that oddity is acceptable... as long as it's a certain oddity... But that's okay... in the near future, I see a time when middle class, Christian (or otherwise "God fearing"), heterosexual, hard working, Constitution-believing folks will be a true minority.... Then, we'll be able to apply the minority status "rules" to ourselves and have even more rights than the majority.... just have to be patient.

And yes, "some of my best friends" are teachers, and they know what's going on, too... and they don't like it much either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
i have friends who are/have been teachers and educators. when i recently mentioned that the governor of South Dakota recently approved legislation allowing approved people to carry firearms in the public schools, and that i was in favor of the law, one reacted very vehemently against the idea. those who are strongly anti-gun really do think/feel as described in the article. they just loath guns. this makes it impossible to have an intelligent conversation with them, because their response to every pro-gun argument is not a fact-based, rational one. pushed to explain how any of the restrictive laws their side advocates would actually DO ANYTHING to stem or even lower the killing of innocents by firearms, their response is, "i don't like guns, and i don't think that anyone should be allowed to own one."

the good side is that people like this are still a minority. an impassioned and vocal minority, but still a minority. most Americans want the ability own firearms if they want to. many of them don't own guns now, but they want to be able to get one if they felt it necessary. and they are against laws that would prevent them from obtaining them.

it is, pardon the expression, a "common sense" conclusion. if you're in danger of physical attack, it's better to have a gun. even Arthur Kellerman, who authored the infamous study which concluded (very misleadingly) that, "a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used against a member of the household than an attacker," once confessed to an interviewer that if his wife were being attacked, that "yes, he'd want her to have a gun."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Kind of hard to have a productive conversation when the other side (collectively) puts their fingers in their ears, holds their breath, and jumps up and down wearing a shirt that says "don't confuse me with facts....this is how I feel"
Have got family members who do just that, minus the shirt.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
34,311 Posts
A conversation that is honest and not condescending or belittling to either side. So when this article says "productive conversations about guns can thus be difficult because the anti-gun movement gives little to no weight to the values of gun ownership," that is a primary example of NOT being productive. The author could have written something like this: "Productive conversations about guns can thus be difficult because BOTH SIDES UNDERVALUE AND DEMEAN THE BELIEF SYSTEMS OF THE OPPOSING SIDE." That moves toward a more honest and open conversation then the article as it's printed.
The anti-gun movement is, by definition anti-gun. Anti=against. What is to have a conversation about? This isn't being belittling, but pragmatic. How much more honest and open can we be?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,072 Posts
I subscribe to the culture of freedom and personal responsibility.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
The anti-gun movement is, by definition anti-gun. Anti=against. What is to have a conversation about? This isn't being belittling, but pragmatic. How much more honest and open can we be?
And against a constitutionally-protected liberty. = Anti-liberty.

I'm all for crime control, all day every day. I'm all for criminal removal from our midst, every time (though, the effectiveness of our crime "schools" is unsettling). What I'm not for is when nearly all such attempts instead go after lawful tools/devices in which the primary impacts of such attempts (a) are to criminalize the upstanding for mere ownership/possession, and (b) are unconstitutional infringements. Most arguments upholding such attempts, that I've seen, both conveniently ignore such points and stridently reject such notions, either claiming such points irrelevant or worth it. It's hard to hold an intelligent "conversation" about such things, let alone keep a straight face when it so quickly goes in that direction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,761 Posts
In a nutshell that is exactly what the problem is.........
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top