Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

This difference in culture ought to be very important to the gun control discussions. The amount of gun control required and beneficial is different in rural areas than in the cities. The temptation is to try to find a one size fits all set of gun laws which works equally well in urban and rural areas. Not so easy. What is needed is very different.

Yet the laws are written at the federal and state level. It would be very difficult to legislate something that would keep everyone happy. One might consider allowing cities to write local ordinances, but if folk can just drive a little bit to get weapons and ammunition this wouldn't be overly effective.

Thus, I would expect rural people to continue to advocate for laws that work for and are appropriate for a rural environment, while the city dwellers advocate for laws that would work in their environment. I can hardly blame either group for this.

Bob, you've touched on something I've been thinking quite a lot about lately... the Federal vs State solutions to issues. I believe you're right, gun control issues cannot be resolved adequately by a one-size-fits-all response, just as healthcare, social services and other issues of the day cannot be resolved (well) that way.

I posted the Gallup poll insight on American's views of gun control yesterday. Today, here's Pew's polling results.

Perhaps this People vs Government struggle that is going on could be resolved without too much pain by simply driving more decisions back to the State level. I'm not sure what barriers there would be, except if we truly do have a "Ruling Class" that wants to maintain centralized power.

Will have to give that more thought.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Also, if you intentionally wound animals in ways that cause them slow and painful deaths, you are one sick bastard.

Is that a purely professional diagnosis?

Originally Posted by The Rani

As for me, I think that hunting is the best form of free range/organic there is.
However, if you are going to claim some kind of ecological soundness to what you are doing, you'd better kill and eat does, fawns, and dying/weak animals (which is what predators do) rather than seek out the biggest antlers that you can hang on your wall.

My father-in-law points out that it's not only the physically weak that are grist for the predators. The mentally-weak are just as preyed-upon. And really, that's what hunting does over time.

Deer and elk up here are a lot better at hiding and otherwise avoiding us predatory apes than they used to be even several decades ago. The dumb ones get killed off, and the breed improves.

Also, if you intentionally wound animals in ways that cause them slow and painful deaths, you are one sick bastard.

For sure. Then again, I've never known or heard of a hunter whose goal wasn't to put the animal down as absolutely quickly as possible. It'd be pretty fucked-up to do it any other way.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

-edit-
You too, Jenny.

Would she be a tute-eth?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Move to a red state. And, take your guns with you.

You must have hurt your knee; jerking it about like that.

Originally Posted by Weave

The Liberal media Im referring to is the cabal of reporters, correspondents, actors, directors and writers who largely inhabit the major networks, the NY Times, WaPo and many news magazines as well as the entertainment industry. Many of them are from privileged backgrounds and attended prep school and Ivy league schools together and really havent a clue who most middle class Americans live. Like you, they consider anyone who doesnt reside in Beverly Hills, San fran or Manhatten as a dumb hick who cannot think for himself. Thier attitude is on display daily in the industry they work in. Notice how many "new" anchors and personalities are fomer staffers to Democrats....Russert (deceased) George Step-on-all-of-us, Brian Williams.
Jim Carney from Time who is now Bidens spokesman...it goes on and on. One big incestuous group of sycophants and backslappers.....

Yeah Weave but that's liberal and conservative. In general, they are all in cahoots because they all feed at the same trough. Greed and self interest motivate both sides of the elite political spectrum.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I like your brother in law. He does seem like a pretty preceptive guy. He may have a very valid point here. It has been us against them going all the way back to earliest settlers and Native American Indians. I don't think any group of immigrants were ever truly welcomed with open arms. The words at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty are very poetic, but I don't think most people living back then really wanted the tired, poor and huddled masses. Look at how many react to the Mexican immigrants today. Many countries have basically one religion. We have thousands. I'm not saying that we should one religion. I would be totally against that, but that is just another way we label and divide ourselves in this country.

Nope, we are not one tribe. We are not one family. Many people don't even like others from their neighboring state.

Hell I don't even like some of my own family members. But we have some differences that perhaps separate us in our inclusiveness as a nation.

For example; a fellow came to my door today with the question, "Do you speak French?" After I put on a shirt I said, "NO. Why are you looking for French speakers?" Seems his church does outreach to political refugees who emigrate from west Africa. Where they speak French. To facilitate they work the members of his group were learning French and needed conversational partners with which to practice the language. So they were going door to door asking people if they spoke French! Amazing! He said his daughter was learning Vietnamese for the same reason. There are apparently a large number of expat groups in Omaha and they do this for many of them. Today in Omaha the high temperature was about 19 degrees and there is 9 inchs of snow on the ground. We may not all be family but we are, perhaps, uniquely inclusive. I think people from elsewhere see this more clearly then we do sometimes.

P.S. His name was Tom.

Originally Posted by Wes84

Here is my thought on the debate about hunting:

I am not an avid hunter, but I am not against the practice either (population control reasons). That said, I think Eric makes a perfectly rational point in that it is unethical to kill animals for sport. Asking what have living creatures done to deserve a death for fun is a question worthy of asking. This type of thinking is not particular to those on the lunatic fringe. Their are a lot people that I have met in my lifetime that are sane and capable of forming rational thoughts that make the argument Eric does. To add to this, all of these people that I know are not from San Francisco.

While "sporting", the killing is also for the purposes of population control. We have reduced all other predators to inconsequence, so it is incumbent upon us to fulfill that role. If we change the system by removing the sport hunter, we will have to pay someone to perform the service.

I might say that Eric has made points. But not particularly rationally.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Making something prohibitively expensive historically creates black markets. Law abiding citizens will have less access to weapons; criminals (and the government) will have more access to weaponless citizens. Instead I encourage everyone who wishes to own a firearm to train, train, and train with it. Then train some more. There is no shortage of gun ranges, training classes, instructional videos and books available. There are many places around the country that offer very serious, very regimented firearm operations instruction to everyone from soldier to police to civilian and these classes are often more in depth than what the military provides.

Having the ability to take a life if necessary is a great power to wield and huge responsibility. It should be treated and respected as such.

I am not interested in any solutions that remove personal responsibility from the individual.

Okay. Thanks for the input.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Here's a well-informed anti-hunting argument, I think?
HOW DEER HUNTING INCREASES THE RATE OF DEER STARVATION

Very interesting points in this article. I do wonder as to long term population control. Can human populations tolerate the predatory density necessary to adequately curb deer populations? Hmmm, any biologists out there?

Originally Posted by Tone70

Today in Omaha the high temperature was about 19 degrees and there is 9 inchs of snow on the ground.

You live in Omaha? I had no idea. My mother is from Blair.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

You live in Omaha? I had no idea. My mother is from Blair.

Good for her! I like it around here myself. The people are decent.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Perhaps this People vs Government struggle that is going on could be resolved without too much pain by simply driving more decisions back to the State level. I'm not sure what barriers there would be, except if we truly do have a "Ruling Class" that wants to maintain centralized power.

Totally agree with that last point.
I think that those that can afford their own influence like that the seat of power is on one edge of the country that most people cannot journey to on a daily basis.

That is a difference between us and, say France, where there was recently a massive protest against austerity. Because their country is smaller, and because they have such a good high speed rail system, it was easy to have a massive protest in a centralized location.

People have gone to DC for all sorts of rallies I know but I wonder sometimes what would happen if a riot were to break out like those happening in Europe after a national protest. If the government were to ground all planes, most people would be completely cut off from their home states.

Originally Posted by AnneZob

Instead of cracking down using the Patriot Act, the next possible next step may in fact be gun control.

The left seems to be trying to turn this into a gun control issue. Gun control interestingly enough being one of the key battle grounds of the 3T.

So the left tries to enact extremely strong gun control nation-wide using the reason of acting against terrorist threats as the right used terrorism as a reason to push through the Patriot Act.

The right are more easily biased against foreign threats and find it easy to imagine a terrorist in every mosque but the left are easily biased against the domestic threats (i.e. the right wing nuts) and find it easy to imagine a Timothy McVeigh in every Tea Party rally.

The right-wing like to keep their guns because they don't trust the government and see gun control as an infringement on their civil liberties. Just as many on the left (and the libertarian right) see the Patriot Act as an infringement on *their* civil liberties.

One can argue about the humaneness of otherwise of guns and hunting and culture and tradition and whether it contributes to crime but I think the essence of the coming conflict is not going to be about those 3T issues going to be the left's fear of the right-wing nuts versus the right's fear of the government taking away their 2nd amendment rights.

Hence an attempt to use terrorism to win a 3T battle once again explodes into the issue of the People versus the Government and civil liberties with the left this time playing the role of the neo-cons and Bush and the right playing the role of the people fighting for civil liberties in a mirror image of what occurred after 9/11.

Where the public sympathy lies - with the left trying to take away the guns or with the right saying the exercise is a threat to civil liberties will be interesting.

This could be why some people (especially those on the left) are saying that the Obama speech reminds them of post-9/11. We could be in for another round but this time with the roles reversed. If that's the case I wouldn't expect the "unity" people are feeling right now to last too long given what happened post-9/11.

True. However, I don't see how the right-wing is interested in civil liberties-- except the liberty of owning a gun, which as a person on the left, I think it is really pushing it to call that "civil liberties." It is usually the right that wants censorship, racial profiling, increased police powers, etc., and it is them who are mostly behind the Patriot Act, because they are all in favor of protecting America against terrorists by any means or by war. Whether it is by threatening people with guns or a society of guns, or of sending people off to war, the right and the Republicans are for protecting my "liberty" at the expense of yours and the nation's.

Some people on the left and right have a few things in common, to the extent some right-wingers oppose the Patriot Act and similar government actions, and some on the left oppose gun control.

I was thinking about the society I enjoy living in, or aspire to live in, compared with the American heartland which I often say I don't want to visit.

I don't think people there are bad, or aren't as intelligent as me. However, I see the way the vast majority of them vote, and all the issues they are ignoring in favor of what seem to me non-issues, and I hear comments about how they need to have guns, and I surmise I would not find the life which I enjoy or idealize if I went there. It is my fetish, but when I go to a place, I want to feel that it might be special, even an alternative to where I am. At least that is in the back of my mind. I want to admire the place I visit.

But if everyone in heartland America owns a gun, and carries a concealed weapon, or keeps one loaded by the bed, what kind of society IS that? What about a society that feels it needs to go hunting animals to have fun, or to defend life and property, or even to eat? I used to hear philosophers discuss how much you lose by locking your door instead of leaving it open. It makes a difference in how much ease, openness and trust you have of your neighbors. How much more "locked up" is a community where most people feel they need a gun? Those of you defending guns on this thread, is that really the society you want to live in? How much fear and isolation is there in this kind of society, instead of enjoyment, freedom, mutual trust, respect, discovery, creativity and sociability? Those are the things I value.

A society of people that does not feel safe in its own home and neighborhood, cannot enjoy these things as much. It is a strain to look at another house, or another person on the street, knowing that he or she might be carrying a gun, or probably does. In my town, I don't feel that way. There is still some sense that liberation and creativity might break out at any moment. Youth feel free to flout convention and have fun together and party. Elders feel free to go to meetings without being frisked or be in fear about who might pull out a gun.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I was thinking about the society I enjoy living in, or aspire to live in, compared with the American heartland which I often say I don't want to visit.

I don't think people there are bad, or aren't as intelligent as me. However, I see the way the vast majority of them vote, and all the issues they are ignoring in favor of what seem to me non-issues, and I hear comments about how they need to have guns, and I surmise I would not find the life which I enjoy or idealize if I went there. It is my fetish, but when I go to a place, I want to feel that it might be special, even an alternative to where I am. At least that is in the back of my mind. I want to admire the place I visit.

But if everyone in heartland America owns a gun, and carries a concealed weapon, or keeps one loaded by the bed, what kind of society IS that? What about a society that feels it needs to go hunting animals to have fun, or to defend life and property, or even to eat? I used to hear philosophers discuss how much you lose by locking your door instead of leaving it open. It makes a difference in how much ease, openness and trust you have of your neighbors. How much more "locked up" is a community where most people feel they need a gun? Those of you defending guns on this thread, is that really the society you want to live in? How much fear and isolation is there in this kind of society, instead of enjoyment, freedom, mutual trust, respect, discovery, creativity and sociability? Those are the things I value.

A society of people that does not feel safe in its own home and neighborhood, cannot enjoy these things as much. It is a strain to look at another house, or another person on the street, knowing that he or she might be carrying a gun, or probably does. In my town, I don't feel that way. There is still some sense that liberation and creativity might break out at any moment. Youth feel free to flout convention and have fun together and party. Elders feel free to go to meetings without being frisked or be in fear about who might pull out a gun.

I'm reminded of a play that takes place in NYC: "Door left open. All of junkie world lights up."

Most people in the American Heartland don't lock their doors (they're in the middle of nowhere--why would they need to?). In the cities? If you don't you're the dope who gets their things stolen when you've just gone out for "five minutes".

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I'm reminded of a play that takes place in NYC: "Door left open. All of junkie world lights up."

Most people in the American Heartland don't lock their doors (they're in the middle of nowhere--why would they need to?). In the cities? If you don't you're the dope who gets their things stolen when you've just gone out for "five minutes".

~Chas'88

That would make sense; except that it is the folks in the American heartland that are the most militantly opposed to gun control (as demonstrated on this thread), and folks in the most dangerous cities that often have very strict gun control, with strong support from the people in them. Those opposing gun control sound like they are the ones who are afraid the "junkie world will light up." This is the sentiment I get from them. I need to have a gun, and these are all the examples where someone has protecting himself from an intruder with a gun. Yet they are heartland voters. If Democrats push gun control, their states will all turn from purple to blood red. "Don't take away my guns! Let me carry them concealed under my jacket! Because you can't trust the criminals." You'd think they live in the Bronx. So therefore, they must have guns, and they must carry them around, because that's what they say they believe in.

I think they are locking their doors more now too. That would seem only logical. If you feel you need a gun for protection, even from a wolf, or from a thug, you are certainly going to lock your door too, and probably put up an expensive alarm system too. You think copperfield is going to keep a loaded gun by his bed, and not lock his door?

Sarah Brady says,

"If more guns reduced gun violence, we'd be the safest country in the world."

We're not, are we?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Sarah Brady says,

"If more guns reduced gun violence, we'd be the safest country in the world."

We're not, are we?

Well then how come after then-Governor George W. Bush signed a concealed-carry law in Texas (in 1995), violent crime in the Lone Star State plummeted?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I was thinking about the society I enjoy living in, or aspire to live in, compared with the American heartland which I often say I don't want to visit.

I don't think people there are bad, or aren't as intelligent as me. However, I see the way the vast majority of them vote, and all the issues they are ignoring in favor of what seem to me non-issues, and I hear comments about how they need to have guns, and I surmise I would not find the life which I enjoy or idealize if I went there. It is my fetish, but when I go to a place, I want to feel that it might be special, even an alternative to where I am. At least that is in the back of my mind. I want to admire the place I visit.

But if everyone in heartland America owns a gun, and carries a concealed weapon, or keeps one loaded by the bed, what kind of society IS that? What about a society that feels it needs to go hunting animals to have fun, or to defend life and property, or even to eat? I used to hear philosophers discuss how much you lose by locking your door instead of leaving it open. It makes a difference in how much ease, openness and trust you have of your neighbors. How much more "locked up" is a community where most people feel they need a gun? Those of you defending guns on this thread, is that really the society you want to live in? How much fear and isolation is there in this kind of society, instead of enjoyment, freedom, mutual trust, respect, discovery, creativity and sociability? Those are the things I value.

A society of people that does not feel safe in its own home and neighborhood, cannot enjoy these things as much. It is a strain to look at another house, or another person on the street, knowing that he or she might be carrying a gun, or probably does. In my town, I don't feel that way. There is still some sense that liberation and creativity might break out at any moment. Youth feel free to flout convention and have fun together and party. Elders feel free to go to meetings without being frisked or be in fear about who might pull out a gun.

In the little town I grew up in nobody locked their doors, we all felt safe in our own homes. The concept of always locking your doors came as a major culture shock to me.

One reason a lot of folks in rural areas are armed:

It takes a while for the cops (usually a sheriff's deputy) to arrive. It pays to be able to defend oneself.

The same is true pretty much anywhere. The cops are not much help if you are a woman walking home from work and some creep tries to kidnap and rape you.

Originally Posted by Odin

One reason a lot of folks in rural areas are armed:

It takes a while for the cops (usually a sheriff's deputy) to arrive. It pays to be able to defend oneself.

The same is true pretty much anywhere. The cops are not much help if you are a woman walking home from work and some creep tries to kidnap and rape you.

You can't rationally debate the issue with someone who is emotionally tied to believing that a vast majority of the country is the "Wild West" of old Hollywood's making instead of what it really is. And refuses to even consider the truth of the matter.

Just as there are people who irrationally believe that walking down any sidewalk in a big city will result in them getting mugged. It's an irrational phobia.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Sarah Brady says,

"If more guns reduced gun violence, we'd be the safest country in the world."

We're not, are we?

We had more guns and more states that have passed CCW laws in the last 20 years and the crime rate has plummeted to the lowest rate since the early 1960's. Seems more guns do equal less crime.....

Originally Posted by Xer H

You can't rationally debate the issue with someone who is emotionally tied to believing that a vast majority of the country is the "Wild West" of old Hollywood's making instead of what it really is. And refuses to even consider the truth of the matter.

Just as there are people who irrationally believe that walking down any sidewalk in a big city will result in them getting mugged. It's an irrational phobia.

I'm probably one of those irrational people when it comes to big cities. I never truly felt safe when I lived in downtown Chicago. I remember once all those years ago when I lived there, I took a wrong turn one night and ended up in some neighborhood. There were a bunch of young guys standing around and there were literally fires burning in trash cans on the sidewalk. It scared the crap out of me. I had to stop at a stop light and on the corner were the guys with trash can fires. I locked my car doors and waited for the light to turn. When it didn't turn fast enough, I ran the stoplight. I just wanted to get the hell out of there. I have never come across a scene like that in small town America.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I'm probably one of those irrational people when it comes to big cities. I never truly felt safe when I lived in downtown Chicago. I remember once all those years ago when I lived there, I took a wrong turn one night and ended up in some neighborhood. There were a bunch of young guys standing around and there were literally fires burning in trash cans on the sidewalk. It scared the crap out of me. I had to stop at a stop light and on the corner were the guys with trash can fires. I locked my car doors and waited for the light to turn. When it didn't turn fast enough, I ran the stoplight. I just wanted to get the hell out of there. I have never across a scene like that in small town America.

Not to say that there isn't a need to be on your toes in neighborhoods like that, but I'm imagining the scene after you left and the guys hanging at the corner bursting out laughing. I'm seriously not naking fun of your fears, fear by thier definition are irrational and the animal part of the brain takes over; but in all actuality you might have over reacted.
Again, nothing but love for ya.