Thread: Discimination against gun owners

After being called a "hick", being referred to as someone who doesn't belong in the "civilized world, and other such things by worthless fucks like Gwahir, I got to wondering:

How many of you suffer discrimination because of your political beliefs?

Most of the time, it happens whenever I mention RKBA, or get involved in any [pro/anti] gun debate.
People start getting offensive, they make wild accusations, and insult you. This is all based on the fact that you hold a certain political belief, and you own a certain type of machine.

On the internet, half of the time, they make racist comments, assuming that I'm a lower class white person.


It's funny, I remember when tolerance meant respecting another's right to his beliefs, while disagreeing strongly.

I don't know when it changed to what it is today; "You have to agree with me, or you're a closed minded, ignorant hick!"


Anyway, have at it.

Gwahir actually said that stuff about you? 'Cause back in the LWS days, he participated in numerous gun-related debates with me, and even though he disagrees with me very strongly about guns, he was always quite decent.

Originally Posted by Syme

Gwahir actually said that stuff about you? 'Cause back in the LWS days, he participated in numerous gun-related debates with me, and even though he disagrees with me very strongly about guns, he was always quite decent.

Well it's not so much about Gwahir than it is about people in general who do this.
My experience and the thread is not limited to Gwahir, I just used him as an example of people.
As such, it's not about him, but about people who do similar things.

I agree that people are quick to call someone closed minded but won't hear any of your side.

Gwahir has made rash comments in the past, but seems to be a rational person at heart. Of course, it is hard to judge someone over the internet but through a series of PMs last year we came to terms, so to speak, and agreed to disagree on some things while gaining insight into others.

I have rarely encountered someone who walks away with a discriminatory stereotype about me in real life. I can talk all day, and they might think I am insane, but they will not think I am another mindless redneck. A big thing I have encountered online is the type of person that hides behind a keyboard; not caring for rational discussion but rather just sitting in the shadows waiting to troll an otherwise good subject, without even the courtesy to reply to counterarguments. If they used the same approach in real life, it would result in severe bleeding.

I love people who think a site like this is about serious discussions and get offended when people can't be bothered using statistics or even basic rationale because, to them, the internet is just a way to waste time between sleep, food and more sleep.

Originally Posted by simonj

I love people who think a site like this is about serious discussions and get offended when people can't be bothered using statistics or even basic rationale because, to them, the internet is just a way to waste time between sleep, food and more sleep.

...is the internet something more than that to people who DON'T have an interest in serious discussions?

In real life, Hell yes. I've been yelled down by my entire English class last year; or, rather a few very loud students. Didn't help that the (self-defined ultra liberal) teacher didn't care to reign them in until I just sat back in stupor, shaking my head.
I have a few teachers with their heads on right, but that teacher and my Modern Wars teacher (who called me disrespectful for calling her out when she said that "Kurdish people" were a denomination of Islam) are damned annoying and anti-gun rights.

'Sfar as the internet goes, it seems a common misconception that most if not all gun lovers are white, and taught to "love" guns from birth.
In my case, both could not be farther from the truth.

I personally don't own guns, but my old roommate in college was one of the most pro-gun right wing people I've ever met. But I respected his decisions because he always had good reasoning to back them up. As long as you feel justified, who gives a fuck what anyone else thinks? It's all personal choices anyways. And if you don't have good reasons for it, don't broadcast it and get yourself in a discussion you can't win. If you do have good reasons, by all means, tell everyone you meet. But don't expect them to agree with you, if you want your opinions to be respected you need to respect other's opinions too.

Just a brief note on "respecting people's beliefs": I don't see why I have to respect anyone's belief if I find their beliefs horrifying.

I wouldn't respect the beliefs of a society that believes baby-eating is awesome. I don't respect the beliefs of scientologists (but I respect most of them as individuals who do not know the nature of the organisation of which they are members). I don't respect the beliefs of christians (but I respect most christians). I don't respect the beliefs of very conservative people, because of how harmful their beliefs (or the beliefs that I specifically do not respect) are to humanity.

If someone doesn't respect your beliefs, don't just yell them out for being "intolerant", because there's a shitload out there that we well should be intolerant of. Either try to convince them that your beliefs are good and decent or listen to why they don't respect your beliefs, because they might have a reason.

Originally Posted by Shinysides

That is how we differ Gwahir, I can see things from most any point of view, whereas you seem to be unable to see past your own views. This is not intended to be an insult, it may make you a stronger individual than I, because I tend to sit back whereas someone with your temperament is more likely to stand up and act on their beliefs. I find it easy for me to respect everyones opinion because I would be more horrified by a world where everyone feels the same than by a world where people are constantly arguing.

...Well, as do I, but if what you're advocating is automatic acceptance of people's points of view on the basis of it being their point of view, you're advocating automatic acceptance of pro-baby-killing points of view. I'm not equating gun ownership with baby-eating, here, but making the point that it isn't such a horrible thing to recognise that not all points of view are valid, and not all should be accepted.

Your criticism (veilled as a compliment) aside, it's not closed-minded to be intolerant of views, as long as you've actually considered those views and come to an educated conclusion thereabout. It's closed-minded (or worse; absent-minded) to simply set back and allow everyone's opinion to be treated as equal.

We should stop discriminating against gun owners and go back to discriminating against blacks (who are ironically mostly gun owners).

Originally Posted by gwahir

...Well, as do I, but if what you're advocating is automatic acceptance of people's points of view on the basis of it being their point of view, you're advocating automatic acceptance of pro-baby-killing points of view. I'm not equating gun ownership with baby-eating, here, but making the point that it isn't such a horrible thing to recognise that not all points of view are valid, and not all should be accepted.

Your criticism (veilled as a compliment) aside, it's not closed-minded to be intolerant of views, as long as you've actually considered those views and come to an educated conclusion thereabout. It's closed-minded (or worse; absent-minded) to simply set back and allow everyone's opinion to be treated as equal.

Less than one percent of people in the world are baby killers, you're nitpicking. I'm advocating acceptance of people's views because they have the right to have views. My point is not that everyone should have the right to do whatever they want, my point is that people should have the right to think however they want. Laws govern what you can and cannot do, and rightly so, for some people are sick and twisted, but laws cannot govern what you think or how you feel. Just because you have an opinion does not mean you have to act on it. And don't be so touchy, it wasn't criticism, it was meant as a compliment.

Originally Posted by Syme

I'm interested to hear more about this. If you don't think that less gun ownership would lead to less crime, in what way would it lead to a healthier society? What does "healthy" mean here? Or when you suggest that things might get worse before getting better, do you mean that crime rates might increase at first, but then eventually decrease in the long run, if there was less gun ownership in America? I'd agree that America would be better off if certain cultural value sets played a less influential role in our society, and that some of those value sets are championed by a lot of the same people who make up the country's gun-owning population, but is making gun ownership less common really going to help diminish the influence of those values?

Yes, no, possibly, absolutely never, Captain James Hook, and about 3:05pm.

Does that answer all your questions? No? Oh. Right.

"Healthy" means a lot of things and you're right to call me out on it. Healthy refers to the widely-held values and, therefore, on the behaviour of most of the people in the society. What ARE healthy values and behaviours I'm sure we mostly agree on, but we can go into that more in-depth if you'd like.

I do mean that crime rates might go up and then decrease in the long run. The evidence for this? Unfortunately none, which is why I mostly stay out of gun debates these days. It's not that I can't find evidence to support myself, it's that convincing evidence is hard to find to support either my view or an opposing one. What society (similar to that of yours) in history has consistently worked to control guns for a long period of time? None that I can think of. What I believe is that more control over guns will inhibit the spread and reproduction of the negative values I mentioned, eventually to the point that widespread gun ownership simply will not be necessary or desirable. Again, I have no evidence for this, as none exists either way.

Incidentally, I agree completely that intolerance of the intolerable is no bad thing (I just see nothing intolerable in gun ownership, of course). And thank you for joining this conversation. It's good to have you as a participant.

All that right back atcha.

I think this is a principle we can all get behind, frankly.

If wishes were horses. There are a lot of ethical relativists out there, unfortunately. It's a position I can sort of sympathise with, because at first glance it appears so convincingly reasonable and humanistic. I believe that if most relativists thought out their point of view or were educated in its implications they would change their minds.

Originally Posted by gwahir

Just a brief note on "respecting people's beliefs": I don't see why I have to respect anyone's belief if I find their beliefs horrifying.

I wouldn't respect the beliefs of a society that believes baby-eating is awesome. I don't respect the beliefs of scientologists (but I respect most of them as individuals who do not know the nature of the organisation of which they are members). I don't respect the beliefs of christians (but I respect most christians). I don't respect the beliefs of very conservative people, because of how harmful their beliefs (or the beliefs that I specifically do not respect) are to humanity.

If someone doesn't respect your beliefs, don't just yell them out for being "intolerant", because there's a shitload out there that we well should be intolerant of. Either try to convince them that your beliefs are good and decent or listen to why they don't respect your beliefs, because they might have a reason.

That's not what I said.

I said respect someone's right to hold a certain belief without automatically insulting and attempting to punish them for holding said beliefs.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

That's not what I said.

I said respect someone's right to hold a certain belief without automatically insulting and attempting to punish them for holding said beliefs.

I don't know when you ever said that. Do you ever read your own posts? I would say that I recommend doing so, only that would be disingenuous.

The UK is importantly different to the US. For one thing, I'm under the impression that illegal guns are far easier to come by and far harder to stop in the US (this works against me, I know). For another, the undesirable social values are -- or seem to an outsider to be, at any rate -- more prevalent and more connected to things like property rights in the US.

I do know that gun violence is much higher in the UK than in the US.

I don't really think that gun ownership is the source of undesirable social values. I don't think that's true. I just think that they sort of promote it subconsciously. I don't have much reasoning for this, which is why, as I said, I mostly stay out of the gun debate these days.

Furthermore -- and this will be fairly controversial, I think -- I would rather see more gun crime committed by a few and better, more humanist, peaceful social values more widespread.

I suppose my basic, non-negotiable bottom line is that gun ownership should not be seen by anyone as a "good thing", but as a necessary evil. Guns are cool in video games, but in actual fact they are grotesque and their function horiffic. I'm not sure how that works into actual gun ownership laws.

Originally Posted by gwahir

I don't really think that gun ownership is the source of undesirable social values. I don't think that's true. I just think that they sort of promote it subconsciously. I don't have much reasoning for this, which is why, as I said, I mostly stay out of the gun debate these days.

But I know you're a reasonable person. If you think this, you must have SOME reason for it. Or is it just gut instinct and supposition?

Originally Posted by gwahir

I suppose my basic, non-negotiable bottom line is that gun ownership should not be seen by anyone as a "good thing", but as a necessary evil. Guns are cool in video games, but in actual fact they are grotesque and their function horiffic. I'm not sure how that works into actual gun ownership laws.

It sounds like you talking not about "gun ownership" in general, but about the specific use of guns to kill someone in self-defense. I'd of course agree that killing someone is horrific (though I still hope I'd be able to do it if it was truly necessary, since the alternative is, to me, even more horrific), but surely that doesn't mean that guns and gun ownership in general are horrific? I know that you know that guns do have other functions besides killing people. Earlier in this thread, you mentioned that you're very sympathetic to hunting, for instance. And you even mentioned that you have considered getting a gun yourself; it seems unlikely that you would do so for the purpose of having a lethal weapon around in case you needed to kill someone, so I'm guessing that your consideration of gun ownership was motivated by some other use for the thing (hunting, sport shooting?).

No, it does mean I think gun owning is pretty horiffic. Owning a weapon used specifically for killing people is just pretty horiffic to me. (We're not really talking about hunting in this discussion, though, but the owning of firearms for defensive purposes.) And if I were to own one, it would be for defense. So you're wrong on almost all counts.

As for the other point, it's basic supposition. What else could it be if it isn't based on evidence? It's based on supposition from a basically unsupported train of logic.

EDIT: You should know that I'm so sketchy and vague and useless in this debate not because I can't reconcile the facts with my position but because the facts leave me dissatisfied with any position. I am positionless except in that I know a pro-violence culture is not healthy -- as for what can be done to healthify it I have no solution that leaves me comfortable.

EDIT2: God damn, just nuke them all.

I heard the UK being mentioned there, so I will enter the ring. Be careful when mentioning the UK in gun control topics. Yes, the UK has a high crime rate, Scotland was delcared by the UN the most violent country in the developed world. The UK can be dangerous. The UK crime rate has nothing to do with gun control.

Gun crime isn't too bad in the UK, restricted to the big English cities of London, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. It is also mainly prevelant amongst street gangs. Gangs killing gangs, or cases of mistaken identity, or innocents getting caught in the cross fire. Syme I kind of got the impression you were implying a flaw with gun laws in the UK by mentioning us having a higher crime rate.

Gun ownership will not and cannot become widespread in the UK. Any politician to suggest this would be commiting political suicide, and should be excluded from serious discussions as the very notion of gun ownership over here is so abhorrant it doesn't bare thinking about.

Allowing the public to own guns does nothing to solve gun crime, since it is mostly contained within English cities via street gangs. So it would do nothing to solve this, indeed it can only make it worse as guns would be easier to come by. And I live in Scotland, Glasgow is the murder capital of western Europe and most murders are done by knifes, gun crime is very rare in Scotland, allowing gun ownership in Scotland (like the laws in some states in the US I mean) is such a horrifying notion. What good is a gun to me when there are 20 teengagers outside my house packing heat? I might shoot a couple before they kil me. It would only escalate things and no one needs that. That is not the way to build a safe society.

Handguns were totally banned in the 90's after a dude went into a school in Dunblane and murdered a load of children. It was decided that the price for handgun ownership, no matter how restricted was just too high a price to pay and at the end of the day was not worth it. That is how I see gun ownership in the UK. It is just plain stupid and I doubt very much that it makes you any safer.

If you did not mean to imply our laws on guns were somehow wrong, then forget everything I just said.

I don't pretend to know what effect allowing UK citizens to own guns would have. I don't particularly care, either, since I have no intentions of living in the UK, ever.

What interests me is the belief that some seem to hold; that the primary function of any given gun is to kill.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.

For instance, I know that many of us here in this subforum own many guns. Most are kept locked away, and only one or two are regularly carried or stored at the ready in case of a home invasion--those few guns have the function of killing in self or home defense. The others... not so much. Range toys or sharpshooting tools or hunting tools would better be used to describe the rest of them. I don't understand why some people seem to be concerned when some of us openly admit to liking the feeling of shooting a firearm. What's wrong with liking power? Because, when you come down to it, that's what a firearm is--power.

I don't understand, though, why people aren't willing to acknowledge that.

I like power.

I like cars, computers, security systems, aircraft, martial arts, and schooling because they all empower me, and give me an increased degree of control over my life. Guns are not different.

Originally Posted by gwahir

No, it does mean I think gun owning is pretty horiffic. Owning a weapon used specifically for killing people is just pretty horiffic to me. (We're not really talking about hunting in this discussion, though, but the owning of firearms for defensive purposes.) And if I were to own one, it would be for defense. So you're wrong on almost all counts.

I know you're saying this out of ignorance, so I guess that's why nobody's really corrected you.


You don't own a gun to kill someone, ever.

You own a gun to <b>stop</b> a threat.

If drawing the gun (pointed at the floor), yelling at the person trying to hurt you a little bit, works and they stop, the gun has served its purpose.

Likewise if you have to point it at him.
If you fire, and he receives a superficial wound, but stops and runs, the gun's purpose was not to kill, it was to stop him.

If you fire, and the guy receives a life threatening wound, but it had to be done to save your life (and/or the life(ves) of your loved ones) the guns purpose was to save a life.



Honestly, Gwahir, if there were absolutely no guns at all in the world, and I mean it literally, no one had guns, I wouldn't mind it one bit; In fact, I'd like it even better.

I could visit my family in mexico without worrying about getting shot by cartel faggots.


However, we live in an ugly world, and I'm not comfortable relying on someone else's father/husband/son/brother responding to a 911 call to risk their lives because I wasn't responsible enough to provide for my own well being.

anyhow, I've gone on too long.

Bacon ops, I may have read all the wrong things, but everything I read from CCP holders, self defense enthusiasts and military-trained people says the same thing: don't pull your gun out unless you intend to fire it, and don't shoot someone unless you intend to kill them.

Guns can be used to scare and maim but their purpose is as a deadly weapon. And if you kill someone to save your own life, you've still killed someone. The function of a gun when it's used in self defense is to a stop -- nay, eliminate -- a threat by killing it. You can't skirt around that by saying they're intended for "protection" and killing is just an unfortunate side-effect.

Originally Posted by Syme

But "gun owning" and "owning a weapon used specifically for killing" aren't the same thing. You can't discount hunting, for instance, just because we haven't been talking much about it in this thread. A lot of people who own guns do own them for the purpose of hunting rather than killing people, no matter how little we've discussed hunting thus far. The same is true of sport shooting, historical collecting, and so on. I feel like it's disingenuous to say that gun ownership as a whole is horrific because one use for guns is horrific it happens to be the use we've talked about the most in this thread.

Well, gun ownership in the context of owning guns to kill people. I don't mean to discount hunting, I just mean that we haven't been discussing gun ownership of this kind, so it doesn't enter into this discussion. Owners of guns for hunting have essentially nothing to do with anything I've talked about, so I really have no problem with the concept whatsoever.

I don't mean to say hunting and sport shooting has no place in the gun ownership debate, I mean to say it's irrelevant in this debate because it's just not the type of gun ownership anyone's talking about.

Berneard Getz??

Originally Posted by simonj

Berneard Getz??

David Finch?

It's spelt Bernhard Goetz sorry.

I dont really get it around here. I live in a largely pro gun area. And all of my friends except for 2 are gun owners. And only one of them doesnt really care for guns. He will come shooting with us if there is nothing else to do, but he has yet to come.

One thing that really aggrivates me is when I show someone a gun I have, and they say "remind me to never piss you off lolololol."