Yet another reason to ban guns...

[Timster]

There is a subset of gun lovers who believes that even requiring that guns be registered is an unacceptable imposition on their constitutional rights. I believe the concern is that if there is a list of gun owners, then either alien invaders or their own governments (fed, state, local) may come and take them away. Sometimes, it seems to me, these sort of folk are in charge at the NRA.

In the late 1930's there was a push for registration in the US, based on the great experience Adolph Hitler was having with the registration of guns in Germany.  Soon afterward, German troops were kicking in doors, confiscating weapons, and hauling their owners into prison camps.  That pretty much soured that US movement right away.

Registration is mandatory in Canada, and they developed this multi-billion dollar database for it.  Failure to register them results in confiscation.  The problem is they can't prove you own them if they've been priuvately puirchased, and the police have no intention to kick in every door of every possible gun owner to enforce it.

[Timster]

At the end of the day, I think that the our gun fetish can be attibuted to mostly male feelings of sexual inadequacy in a country more-or-less founded by prudes (persecuted prudes, but prudes nonetheless). One would have thought that waves of immigration would have diluted the gene pool to the point where it would not be an issue, I guess they were dominant. Abortion never, abstinance not birth control sex education and guns for everone - makes sense to me. Heck if I was raised to not have sex until I was married, I would probably own a gun too. Have a nice day.

Very interesting Dr. Freud.  What's your reasoning behind why people collect stamps or coins?

[Reflex]

*laff*  That was my feeling as well.  Great response, Timster!

Just remember, all generalizations are false.  

[Nighteye]

Originally posted by: Timster

At the end of the day, I think that the our gun fetish can be attibuted to mostly male feelings of sexual inadequacy in a country more-or-less founded by prudes (persecuted prudes, but prudes nonetheless). One would have thought that waves of immigration would have diluted the gene pool to the point where it would not be an issue, I guess they were dominant. Abortion never, abstinance not birth control sex education and guns for everone - makes sense to me. Heck if I was raised to not have sex until I was married, I would probably own a gun too. Have a nice day.

Very interesting Dr. Freud.  What's your reasoning behind why people collect stamps or coins?

They don't compare. Guns, like cars, are compensation. Especially for NRA members. Collecting stamps or coins does not boost the imaginary power of status of the owner.

[Reflex]

How would you know?  Most gun owners I know are very discreet about thier collections.  Its not like they run around with a shotgun on their shoulder and a Desert Eagle strapped to their chest.  Whats the use of 'compensating' if no one even knows about your compensation?  At least with those who buy huge vehicles they have something to distract the world from their self-percieved inadequacies.

This line of argument dosen't really make sense for all but a tiny minority of gun owners that I've ever met.

[nemoComputing]

Mefistofeles, gun control/registration issues are second tier ones for me.  I believe that the majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners.  I suspect that far more Americans die each year because of limited/no access to health care than because of guns, and so on.

While I don't quite understand how registration limits use, it is not an issue I feel a need to debate.  Simliarly, and in reference to the German analogy, I find being against registration because of the possibility of the German scenario happenning here and not being concerned about the reduction of privacy and constitutional rights since 9/11 to be a tad schitzo, but again I don't feel the need to argue about it.

With regard to Freud's point, I don't suppose he meant it to apply if a weapon is aimed at you?  As to the way folk who aren't familiar with guns react, I am not too surprised.  I am not a fanatic either way here.  I have done some skeet shooting.  My brother carries a Glock as a fire marshal back east.  I do paintball every now and again.  I went to the 50th anniversary of the Air Force show at Nellis, which was awesome - six hours of flyovers (though since our invasion of Iraq my enthusiasm for military weapons has declined).  

Timster, while it would not be incorrect to addrss me as Dr. Stein, I am neither a psychologist nor a psychiatrist, though some of my friends are.  The way I look at it, we all define ourselves in an effort to establish meaning in our lives.  People take many different paths in this regard, and the path chosen often says something about the person taking the path.  But sometime a cigar is just a cigar.  I find the differing views folk have about various sorts of weapons to be interesting.  I also think that there is a big difference between hunting weapons, and handguns, but that is just me.

Reflex, not all generalizations are false - the application of generalizations often are.  For, example, The generalization that Earthlings are better chess players than Martians may well be true.  It would mean that on average Earthlings are better chess players than Maritians.  The problem with generalizations is applying them to a specific instance.  In this example, if the genralization is true that does not mean that the best chess player in the solar system is an Earthling.

As another example, consider the question of whether most white Americans are typically  far more uptight than black/African Americans.  The African Americans I have asked about this have agreed with the statement.  If the statment is true, that doens't mean that any specific caucasion is particularly uptight.

I really am not a big fan of the PC view that all generalizations are false.  I am very much against presumptively applying generalizations to individuals.  I know you had a smiley after your statement, and that the statement itself was self-contradictory, but this is something I do feel strongly about.

[Nighteye]

Originally posted by: Reflex
This line of argument dosen't really make sense for all but a tiny minority of gun owners that I've ever met.

But even if it holds only for a tiny minority, it's still a fun argument to use

[Mefistofeles]

With regard to Freud's point, I don't suppose he meant it to apply if a weapon is aimed at you?

Yes but in all fairness neither was your point:

At the end of the day, I think that the our gun fetish can be attibuted to mostly male feelings of sexual inadequacy in a country more-or-less founded by prudes (persecuted prudes, but prudes nonetheless). One would have thought that waves of immigration would have diluted the gene pool to the point where it would not be an issue, I guess they were dominant. Abortion never, abstinance not birth control sex education and guns for everone - makes sense to me. Heck if I was raised to not have sex until I was married, I would probably own a gun too. Have a nice day.

You equated firearms to sexuality in a non hostile situation and to me this proves that Freud's point may actually be quite correct.  Your statement actually reinforces what Freud said.  

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.

In fact although it probably isn't true in your case I think my Joesph Campbell/ possibly Jungian interpretation applies to perceptions of firearms that they are indeed totems of power that evoke the same response that totems or artificats may have had in more primative peoples.

[Timster]

While I don't quite understand how registration limits use, it is not an issue I feel a need to debate. Simliarly, and in reference to the German analogy, I find being against registration because of the possibility of the German scenario happenning here and not being concerned about the reduction of privacy and constitutional rights since 9/11 to be a tad schitzo, but again I don't feel the need to argue about it.

At the time registration was considered, the intent behind it was to be able to tack another offense onto mobsters.  Besides killing someone or robbing a bank, they did so with an illegally owned firearm, which meant more jail time.  Most people would agree that was a good reason for registration.  However, our cousins in Germany demonstrated how an oppressive government (that was voted into power none the less) could use registration as a means to turn it's citizens into subjects.  Since the 2nd amendment was intended as a check and balance to an unresponsive  government,  registration will be met with opposition.

Timster, while it would not be incorrect to addrss me as Dr. Stein, I am neither a psychologist nor a psychiatrist, though some of my friends are. The way I look at it, we all define ourselves in an effort to establish meaning in our lives. People take many different paths in this regard, and the path chosen often says something about the person taking the path. But sometime a cigar is just a cigar. I find the differing views folk have about various sorts of weapons to be interesting. I also think that there is a big difference between hunting weapons, and handguns, but that is just me.

There are multiple facets as to why people possess firearms, and that's why I felt it was unwise to make blanket statements about gun owners.  I won't argue the existence of people who get off on things that go bang or people who feel empowered when they hold a gun, but they are far from being the majority out there.  If someone appeared on the forums and made a generalization that all people that build high end computer systems have inferiority complexes and are sexually dysfunctional, I'm sure the membership would not hesistate to set them straight.  Shooting and collecting firearms is a hobby to me.  Firearm ownership to me is the in the same category as owning a home theatre system, a nice computer, a go-kart, or a gaming console.

[nemoComputing]

Mefistofeles, the way I see it extreme fear and extreme attraction are two ends of a continuum.  And it isn't just that humans can sit anywhere on the continuum with regards a particular thing, but rather that we can be at multiple points on the continuum at the same time and that you can't just do a weighted average to arrive at a single point.

Oftentimes, either extreme can be unhealthy.  I think that parents who have a problem with say paintball are a little over the top.    Being uncomfortable in a household with a gun case is ridiculous.  I think you get my point.  And given that nature of this site, I also think that parents who worry about shooter games are worring about the wrong thing - they should be concerned about compulsion and addiction, not simulated violence.

I can certainly see a gun collector valueing a fine piece the way I valued my Contax G1 camera.  The craftsmanship was something to behold and it was a joy to hold.  The biggest difference between a camera and firearm is that one has to treat the firearm with at least the same respect with which one treats a running chainsaw.  I have no doubt that you and Timster are safe and sane owners/shooters.  And as I don't believe in jumping to conclusions based upon an anecdote and I don't see the story that started this thread as more than a horrible accident that could easily have been prevented.

As to regulation and registration, I do have a question.  After the background check is complete, is the record of the check maintained or expunged?  Who besides the gunstore keeps a record of the fact that you purchased a given gun?

I do feel strongly about carry permits.  I really think that people who get them should have a darn good reason (say diamond dealers) and that it would not be unreasonable to require gun safety classes and periodic reapplication for the carry permit.

Timster, I took an extreme position to stir the conversational plot.  I thougt that I was enough over the top to avoid being taken literally - my apologies.

I do find it a tad strange that the Germans who experienced the episode you mentioned don't seem to feel particularly strongly about the gun control issues that are debated here all the time.

[Reflex]

Reflex, not all generalizations are false - the application of generalizations often are. For, example, The generalization that Earthlings are better chess players than Martians may well be true. It would mean that on average Earthlings are better chess players than Maritians. The problem with generalizations is applying them to a specific instance. In this example, if the genralization is true that does not mean that the best chess player in the solar system is an Earthling.

As another example, consider the question of whether most white Americans are typically far more uptight than black/African Americans. The African Americans I have asked about this have agreed with the statement. If the statment is true, that doens't mean that any specific caucasion is particularly uptight.

I really am not a big fan of the PC view that all generalizations are false. I am very much against presumptively applying generalizations to individuals. I know you had a smiley after your statement, and that the statement itself was self-contradictory, but this is something I do feel strongly about.

Once you add the specific qualifiers you are adding, such as 'on average' and 'typically' it is no longer a generalization but a specific statement.

While I don't quite understand how registration limits use, it is not an issue I feel a need to debate. Simliarly, and in reference to the German analogy, I find being against registration because of the possibility of the German scenario happenning here and not being concerned about the reduction of privacy and constitutional rights since 9/11 to be a tad schitzo, but again I don't feel the need to argue about it.

Honestly I don't understand why more people aren't stockpiling weapons.  Our government has demonstrated an intense distrust of its citizens for the past few years since 9/11, actively spying on them, imprisoning them without trial, and blocking our knowledge of what is going on through intense levels of secrecy at all levels of government.  If anything, the paranoid arguments of right wing gun owners are given more weight by the (supposedly) right wing administration we have today.  If the government today suggested that all guns be registered and eventually turned in, it wouldn't suprise me if most of the country complied.  You know, 'for the children' or 'for our safety from terror' or some other such nonsense...

The biggest difference between a camera and firearm is that one has to treat the firearm with at least the same respect with which one treats a running chainsaw.

Or, you know, simply keep it unloaded like most sane gun owners do.

I do feel strongly about carry permits. I really think that people who get them should have a darn good reason (say diamond dealers) and that it would not be unreasonable to require gun safety classes and periodic reapplication for the carry permit.

I assume your talking about concealed carry permits.  And I have to disagree with you there.  To get one most states require a gun safety class, periodic renewals, and at the federal level you have to undergo an extensive background check.  Those with such permits are the safest gun owners in the country and the least likely to be a threat.  Also, due to their training they are the most likely to be of assistance should something bad happen(and they would be better equipped to handle the situation properly).

I do find it a tad strange that the Germans who experienced the episode you mentioned don't seem to feel particularly strongly about the gun control issues that are debated here all the time.

Germany does not have a history of guaranteed rights to gun ownership like the US.  The loss of such a 'right' really wouldn't be a big deal if they considered it only a priviledge to that point.

[Timster]

As to regulation and registration, I do have a question. After the background check is complete, is the record of the check maintained or expunged? Who besides the gunstore keeps a record of the fact that you purchased a given gun?

The FBI knows there was a request for a background check, and that information is uxpunged afterward.  The 4473 form is kept by the dealer/ FFL license holder as proof he legally and properly transferred a firearm.  Some states (Michigan in my case) have a handgun registration program, and in order to buy a handgun from a dealer or private seller you must pick up a purchase permit from your city's police or county's sheriff's office and take a safety test.  Then you can go buy the handgun.  You have two weeks after the issue of the purchase permit to bring it back to the sheriff's office  or city police department to have the gun safety inspected (officer drools over gun, wishing his wife would let him have another one) and you receive an ownership permit.

I do feel strongly about carry permits. I really think that people who get them should have a darn good reason (say diamond dealers) and that it would not be unreasonable to require gun safety classes and periodic reapplication for the carry permit.

What's more valuable, $10,000 worth of diamonds or any other inert material, or you and your family's lives?  I hope you don't have self esteem problems and choose life.  I can only speak for Michigan again, but we require 12 hours of training (8 hours with an NRA certified safety instructor, 4 hours with a state police officer and a lawyer) to get a concealed carry permit.  You renew your permit every 5 years.

Before Michigan went to a "shall issue" system, meaning anyone with a clean record can take the course and get a permit if they pass, they had to go a county gun board comprised of the county sheriff and a few other designees.  You had to prove your life was in danger (raped or beaten nearly to death a couple times) or proved you transported large sums of money, diamonds, or other valuable goods (human life means nothing, I guess.)  If you walked in and the sheriff didn't like your the length of your hair or the way you looked or dressed, that was enough to deny you a permit.  Of course, this also meant all of the sheriff's buddies and major political contributors received permits.

I do find it a tad strange that the Germans who experienced the episode you mentioned don't seem to feel particularly strongly about the gun control issues that are debated here all the time.

As with most European countries, firearm ownership wasn't that common among normal citizens, and more of a luxury enjoyed by the wealthy and nobility.  Other than that a farmers and merchants (Jewish shop owners) may have had guns.  They weren't missed by the average Joe.

[bluebomberx]

Originally posted by: Nighteye
They don't compare. Guns, like cars, are compensation. Especially for NRA members. Collecting stamps or coins does not boost the imaginary power of status of the owner.

Perhaps you have some inadequacies, Nighteye? Why else would you be bent on deciding for others that guns are bad for everyone?

Oh and I feel strongly about the carry permits too... The State Police better have a damn good reason about why I can't have one. Remember that whole innocent before proven guilty thing, Nemo?

[ScutMonkey]

Originally posted by: Reflex

Honestly I don't understand why more people aren't stockpiling weapons.  Our government has demonstrated an intense distrust of its citizens for the past few years since 9/11, actively spying on them, imprisoning them without trial, and blocking our knowledge of what is going on through intense levels of secrecy at all levels of government.  If anything, the paranoid arguments of right wing gun owners are given more weight by the (supposedly) right wing administration we have today.  If the government today suggested that all guns be registered and eventually turned in, it wouldn't suprise me if most of the country complied.  You know, 'for the children' or 'for our safety from terror' or some other such nonsense...

Interesting Paradox isn't it?  I'm sure the reasons have something to do with the "we can talk it out" belief system which is being nurtured to a dangerous level around the world.

[Babar]

I'm sure the reasons have something to do with the "we can talk it out" belief system which is being nurtured to a dangerous level around the world.

Please clarify/fill in the blank. Talking it out is worse than ______?

[VorLonUK]

Nemo,

I like your view as to perhaps guns to a large proportion of the US population (legal or not) are along the lines of a Fetish.

Ric,

That was pretty funny! lol. I only noticed the "Vorlon" title after guessing it would be a bloody great gun. To me that would be better served orientated Vertical and used a s a lead pile driver

Mist,

I too would get more enjoyment out of looking at a processor! I can't deny that there looks to be some fine workmanship in some of these guns, but nevertheless it still doesnt do it for me. If anything I've got a fetish for Tanks or Fighter planes! lol

[Timster]

Again, I'd say the fetish crowd is a minority, yet a highly visible one.  For those that hunt and compete in shooting sports, a rifle, handgun, or shotgun has the same relevance as a fishing rod, a bowling ball, or a set of golf clubs.  When not in season, they're put away, otherwise brought out for informal target shooting or sighting in.  This is actually the mainstream and majority that are out there, and alot of anti-gun groups try to turn them against those who collect and shoot the more exotic weapons (inluding those considered to be assault weapons or battle rifles) and people that carry for self defense.  They also employ the tactics that these owners are less like them and more like the fetishists and knuckleheads that get off on things that go "bang."  By making these other shooters look like deviants, it's easier to make it more appealing to take their weapons away, then keep whittling away until nothing is left.