Is America's gun culture fading away?

I can't wait, i'll keep any weapons I get there, like a secret armory. :9mm::biggun::rambo::m16shoot::2guns::sniper:
 
I have never understood how you can have gun owners vote and support candidates that are against the second amendment. It just blows away my mind. How can gun owners support someone like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Both are political figures that have and currently do wish to destroy the second amendment and limit the legal rights of the people of the United States of America.

Every gun owner that I know currently is supporting candidates that are in the Republican Party. Not all members of the Republican Party are pro-gun but they are few within the party. As with the Democratic Party there are far more anti-gun candidates then pro-gun candidates.

Having gun owners vote for and support candidates that are anti0gun is the same as I supporting and voting for a candidate that wishes to outlaw the first amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What is so hard to understand?

They understand these without an issue...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

In the First and Fourth Amendment the "people" means just that..... the "people" not the "state". But according to those that wish to strip you and I of our rights to keep and bear arms. The "people" means the "state". I don't see it... last time I checked it very simple. "People" means "People", "State" means "State", and "shall not infringe" means SHALL NOT INFRINGE!

'Nuff Said.......
 
I don't see America's gun culture "fading", but there is no doubt that more and more people are trying to make the gun laws more appropriate to the 21st century.

The biggest problem that i see will be trying to get sensible change. The harder the NRA push in one direction, the harder their opponents are going to push against them, consequently the argument becomes highly radicalised. If this attitude continues, and I'm sure that it will, the outcome, what ever way it goes, will not be good.

In my opinion most of the troubles that the USA is experiencing at the moment, are not caused by the Gun laws, but the stupid glorification of the "gun culture" as seen in movies and on TV, this is further exacerbated by the attention given to serial killers and their like in the media. If there was no media hype half of the serial killing would never happen as when these people are caught, it is most often the public attention and infamy that attracted them in the first place. This also applies to the gangstas who see it as being cool, or whatever the term is today.

My personal view is that any person using a firearm in the commission of, or promotion of a crime, should lose all rights to the normally accepted rules of law, and be subject to being shot on sight by any Law Enforcement Officer. If you behave like an animal, you get treated as an animal.

Yeah, I'm a Neanderthal, and I'm proud of it.
 
Last edited:
It works..... an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

When I'm working at do use the "If you behave like an animal, you get treated as an animal" theory. I use professionalism and respect but when they don't give me that back I go to 100% ******* and I don't let the damn scum run my scene. I'm in charge and if they don't like it tough ****.....

As for the radicalization. It is happening but only on the side that wishes to disarm us. They are going to more and more deplorable acts and lies while those on the right side are simply stating the truth and cold hard facts. More guns in law abiding citizen's hands reduce crime.
 
I don't like voting for folks who are against the second amendment. But I also don't like voting for people who invade countries for no reason, suspend habeas corpus, and s*** on the 4th Amendment.

Rather vote for a gun banner and lose my guns "in a fishing accident" than vote for someone who will be terrible for the country.
 
I don't think an outright ban will occur in my time, but eventually the public will grow tired of drive by shootings, random murders, snipers and school yard massacres and something will happen.

The pro gun community should be looking at the reasons why gun crimes are so prevalent and trying to get something done about it instead of taking all of the rap for everything that is being blamed on "guns". We all know that guns are inanimate objects, so therefore the blame should be on a certain part of the community who has access to them.

If gun owners do not start actively trying to stop the trend in gun crime, there is no doubt in my mind that they will eventually lose everything, it's just a matter of time.

All that Pro Gun rallies etc., do is antagonise the anti gunners, you're going to need something far better than that. Don't under estimate them, they are growing in strength every time someone is affected by a crime involving guns.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe that gun crime is as prevalent as the antis would have us believe. I have no evidence to back up that statement, which is why I used "believe" as a disclaimer, but I do know that gun crime and gun violence are often bracketed together to make one statistic. In that regard, a felon riding in his buddy's car with a single round of ammunition in it can (and often does) get charged with a probation violation for firearms - hence, it adds to the "gun crime" statistic. There are lots of scenarios like that.

The secret to solving gun crimes isn't much of a secret, and it isn't banning guns. Criminals will ALWAYS have access to firearms - that's why they are criminals: They do not respect the law. If we want to get rid of crime, stop being sheep, learn to shoot, get some balls, buy a gun and carry it. POOF. There go your crime statistics.

Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Period. Joe Schmuck with his rusty .22 Jennings revolver isn't going to go toe to toe with my Kimber .45 and my training to place two to the chest and one to the head and then to empty the mag and reload. The $20 in my billfold isn't worth it. He's going to go find the Emo guy down the street smoking a joint with a peace sign pinned to his shirt.

The problem is that the sheep will never understand the concept of violence. Their Utopia is to take away the objects used for violence; they cannot comprehend that violence only ends with a greater level of violence in return. A little bleach in the gene pool, if you will pardon the seemingly cold statement.

I shudder at the thought of running around scared of everything that goes bump because I refuse to accept the idea that I need to take care of myself rather than waiting 20 minutes for Mr. Police Officer to come to my rescue. Worse than that, it is abhorrent to me that anyone would walk around unarmed - if you come across 3 dudes raping a chick, what are you going to do? Hide in the bushes and phone the police? Get yourself killed and she still gets abused?

People need to wake up. They need to come to the realization that less guns and more police (and this by NO MEANS an offense to you, 5.56!) are not solutions to violent crime. Making the crime not worth it is what stops crime. Burglars don't break into houses guarded by an alarm and a German Shepard, and thieves won't assault you if you're carrying and have the training to properly and responsibly dispatch them to hell where they belong.

The "secret" to ending gun crime is to remove the motivation and not be a victim. Stand up and be a man.
 
The secret to solving gun crimes isn't much of a secret, and it isn't banning guns. Criminals will ALWAYS have access to firearms - that's why they are criminals: They do not respect the law. If we want to get rid of crime, stop being sheep, learn to shoot, get some balls, buy a gun and carry it. POOF. There go your crime statistics.

Can I ask where this method of crime prevention has ever worked?

Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Period. Joe Schmuck with his rusty .22 Jennings revolver isn't going to go toe to toe with my Kimber .45 and my training to place two to the chest and one to the head and then to empty the mag and reload. The $20 in my billfold isn't worth it. He's going to go find the Emo guy down the street smoking a joint with a peace sign pinned to his shirt.

Tell me what happens if Joe Schmuck decided he wants the $20 billfold more than you think and shoots you first?
There is just as strong an argument to say that those who place no value on peoples lives or property are going to evolve along with the "counter tactics" and rather than pointing a gun and demanding your money they will shoot first and take the money. Boy thats going to a be a fun society when "shoot first and ask questions later" becomes a national policy.


The problem is that the sheep will never understand the concept of violence. Their Utopia is to take away the objects used for violence; they cannot comprehend that violence only ends with a greater level of violence in return. A little bleach in the gene pool, if you will pardon the seemingly cold statement.

Ever notice that sheep don't kill each other?
Ever heard of a sheep taking pipe bombs and guns into the shearing shed and killing 20 of his flock-mates?

I am going to agree with Spike on this one, the intransigence of gun owners and their lobby groups will in the end backfire.
 
Having everybody carrying firearms is merely reverting to the days of the wild west, it didn't promote lawfulness then and it certainly won't do it now. If this happens, I would put a lot of money on the fact that it will eventuate in the the ultimate downfall of firearm ownership as we know it today.

We are all aware of the consequences of having everybody armed, both then and now. How did the Sherriffs of the day clean up their towns and lower the number of shootings? They disarmed the populace and killed those that did not want to obey the rules. Also, having every citizen armed will merely escalate the violence. If the bad guys think that there is a good chance that their intended victim is armed, what is their obvious answer? .... Shoot first, do not give him the chance to use his weapon. Drive by shootings are a good example of this type of thinking. The shooters do this because they know that there is a chance that their victims are armed or have access to arms nearby. This example is a microcosm of what will happen to crime if every citizen is armed.

Also criminals are risk takers, criminality is a risk taking business. They undertake crimes bearing in mind two things:

(1) All criminals think they won't be caught.
(2) They have the advantage of surprise as they choose the time and place of the crime.

So the fact that their intended victim might be armed, and might use it is not a great deterrent to them, it merely raises the chances that they will shoot their victim(s) first.

Firearms are great tools, and can be beautiful and highly collectible pieces of craftsmanship, but if wrongly used, will certainly result in their own banishment.
 
Last edited:
Gun Crimes are actually a small percentage of the crime in most jurisdictions. Property crimes, narcotic based crimes, and crimes against person (violent w/o weapon) are all greater percentages all generally are a bigger piece of the pie chart than homicide or attempted homicide/agg assault with firearm. Alot of the homicide/agg assaults are committed with impact weapons (bats, sticks, pipes, hammers etc) or stabbing cutting instruments (knives, box cutters, and one I worked a meat fork)

The jurisdiction I work in it's a good bet that any residence you enter will have a deer rifle or at least a shotgun. Yet our incidents of firearm violence account for about 1.5% of the total stat's for the last year, and two incidents were accidental shootings during hunting season, 1 self inflicted.

Our incidents of home invasion burglary/robbery are .5 % the 1 incident last year was a dope house that got taken down by arival cook/dealer. Now compare that to my former agency in a large urban area (I work in the burbs on the very edge now) where firearm ownership was not nearly as prevelent and you worked home invasion's every freakin night. Because the scumbags were pretty sure the vic's weren't armed.
 
Any large man who lifted weights in prison for 20 years can beat and kill a normal person with his fists. Thus, the old saying "God created man and Col. Colt made them equal." Don't put much faith in the good will of a dim witted monster sparing you and your family from harm.
 
In life, you don't have to choose just those three. As Mel Gibson said in We Were Soldiers, "Three strikes, and you're not out! There's always one more thing you can do!"
 
Also criminals are risk takers, criminality is a risk taking business. They undertake crimes bearing in mind two things:

(1) All criminals think they won't be caught.
(2) They have the advantage of surprise as they choose the time and place of the crime.

And almost without exception they choose to prey on the weak and those who have the least chance to defend themselves. To them thats just a good business strategy.

You very seldom see a scumbag choose to try and take down a 6'2 225 lb athletic 20 something male. They much prefer a softer target that reduces their risk.
 
You very seldom see a scumbag choose to try and take down a 6'2 225 lb athletic 20 something male. They much prefer a softer target that reduces their risk.

Very true, but the point I was trying to make is, that as a group they are inherent risk takers, and if everyone is armed, and therefore supposedly equal it will not stop them, they will just try too improve the odds in their favour,.... if there's any doubt, they'll shoot first.

All this actually achieves is a much greater risk of the intended victim being killed.

If I could be armed without the knowledge of my attacker, I have a real advantage (over not being armed), but once the crim realizes that I am armed, my advantage largely goes out the window and he will be a lot more nervous, making my position much more dangerous. One sneeze or unexpected move, and I'm dead.
 
Last edited:
Sorry but I hate to tell you Criminal are cowards.... I know this on a personal level. I deal with them and their victims everyday. Most criminals attack the weak and timid. Most victims from criminals in the area that I work are small mexican workers, little old ladies, and women in general. I hardly see them go after someone that is a 6'2 260LBS man that works in construction. I see them target folks that are 5'0 and work in picking veggies from a field or cleaning dishes.

When I do get dispatched to folks that fight back against the criminals. Guess what... they flee or surrender. When I get dispatched to a burglary and the home owner went after the burglar with a firearm, baseball bat, or kinfe. 99.9% of the time nothing is stolen and the criminal flees in fear.

Criminals are not risk takers. They're cowards and predators. They prey on the weak and timid of society.

As for the wild west. It was a safer and more polite time. Why? Because everyone was armed. Respect was common because the idea of pissing off someone and getting into a fight meant getting shot, beaten, or stabbed.

AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY
 
Being a coward has no bearing on their ability to murder people.

Of course criminals are risk takers, the one thing that stops most persons from becoming criminals is that they are not going to take the risk of getting caught or being killed, whereas criminals just see it as another challenge to be overcome, they are convinced that others, (police and honest citizens are fools) and that they have the perfect plan. The fact that a great number of them are unsuccessful and get caught, and go to jail is no deterrent, they are in fact the "Classic Risk taker" just the same as he gambling addict who knows the odds are against him yet he must always have just one more gamble.

The wild west was not called that because it was quiet and peaceful. The real outlaws were in all reality just drunken thugs, the movie script writers have a lot to answer for.

I doubt that we'll ever see a movie or read the history of the peaceful west.
 
I've met a good number of people in my lifetime that I'd consider highly dangerous. The type of criminal who doesn't care if he makes it through the day because the thrill is all that matters. The type who randomly pulls insane stunts in all manner of vehicles because he has a death wish.

Those are the only ones I fear, outside of organized crime.
 
Back
Top