Gun Fascination?

[MisplacedTexan]

I think such things as described in the OP could be said about any sport or hobby someone is passionate about. For instance, golf:

.

Damn, Doheny beat me to it..... but I wasn't going to use something so G rated.

[kygen]

1-4

I'm on a list!

[razr]

I attended a "violence at work place" seminar at work and it was suggested that anyone who "hunts" could be potentially dangerous. It all depends on how you spin it I guess.

[sl0re10]

Maybe the guy means 'obsession'.. or should have said that instead of fascination.

But yeah; the list is also 'off' since a lot normal gun owner behavior overlaps.

Also not all people are the same. The author of the list probably doesn't have the "look ahead to tomorrow" gene. I do. I "stockpiled" sriracha sauce when I heard the factory was having legal problems (six of the bigger bottles). I stockpile stuff I know I need that might be hard to get. Its normal for me. People that don't; appear to me as having something 'wrong'. That and I use sriracha every day....

ditto other things on the list. A conservative type is likely to be interested in the history of a weapon while a prog is not (re: as someone who does not care about the past since he knows it all right now). Then there is the classical view of male virtues which include skill in martial arts. Pajama boy on the other hand; not on board / interested. But the point I'm making; different personality types exist. Trying to make those unlike you out to be nuts of some type is a problem in itself... See Soviet abuse of psychiatry.

[smle-man]

I agree! I really would like to channel my violence more efficiently!

A workshop to identify fellow workers who may go off the deep end and hurt others on the job. It was very well done and thought out until we got to the firearms part.

[mabilis_matulis]

All except #6 and #7...

[russ69]

Logic fail. Just because nut jobs do all those things doesn't mean that people that do those things are nut jobs.

[hornswaggled]

Meet all of them except I don't wear camos because I've been a responsible IT nerd in polo shirts and jeans for 20 years. But hey, if the moderator thinks I'm a loose cannon, go for it.

[Jimmybacon43]

I attended a "violence at work place" seminar at work and it was suggested that anyone who "hunts" could be potentially dangerous. It all depends on how you spin it I guess.

That's really sad.

Real effect of "workshops" like these is not improved safety. It's making people so afraid of gun owners that you become a pariah for hunting or owning a handgun.

[sl0re10]

That's really sad.

Real effect of "workshops" like these is not improved safety. It's making people so afraid of gun owners that you become a pariah for hunting or owning a handgun.

yep; and creating a hostile work environment under the guise of preventing one.

[Simply115]

Me except #6 and #7. Must mean I'm ultra-violent.

[send it_hit]

sorry guys, reporting you all to DOJ. you're unhealthy and dangerous!

[Thefeeder]

...

I don't own any weapons..... sporting shotguns, hunting rifles, target pistols and collectable revolvers only.

A round of Sporting Clays is 100 targets, which means 100 shells.....the wife and I use 200 shells in one afternoon. x3 days a month, I only have a couple of months worth on hand.


Oylimpic team shooters shoot 3-400 rounds of amunition a day to train .....causual sport shooters go through 500-1000 a month.

[omgwtfbbq]

This thesis is entirely based on the idea that violence, any violence with any motivation, is and of itself a bad thing.

People like the moderator of this panel would have us believe violence is black and white; violence is bad and the absence of violence is good. I would argue from a moral and historical perspective, this is simply not the case. Violence is gray as gray can be.

Violence for the sake of personal gratification or material gain is almost universally considered bad or evil. However, violence for the purpose of self-preservation or the protection of State interest or authority is generally considered acceptable or even noble.

What appears to have happened in recent history is the opposition has taken the idea of violence and stripped it of all its usefulness, leaving any morally redeeming traits aside and focusing only on the instances in which evil men use violence to further their personal ends. This has bred a population of individuals who are ignorant to reality. Many of the opposition refuse to believe that people can and do perpetrate violence for good as well as for evil. They refuse to believe that for every evil man with a gun, there are ten good men willing to do violence against the first man to prevent others from harm.

This type of thinking is exactly why the opposition raises reactive and ultimately ineffective solutions to reducing gun crime. When a gunman shoots and kills school children, they decide it's time for more laws, which we all know will do nothing to dissuade someone who is mentally ill or who possesses a deeply criminal psychi. When the same event occurs, we suggest we place armed security in schools to stop another attack before it starts and yet we are derided as bloodthirsty and told this will only do more harm. If they were to admit that violence can be done for a good cause, then they would have to accept that men themselves are responsible for their own morality, not the system, not the gun, but men.

For the opposition, accepting that good men are self-made and not manufactured by the legislature is too much for them and unfortunately, the consequences of their indigence are the lives of innocent people.

/end rant.

[Mitch]

A violence workshop that I attended recently listed a major risk factor as 'fascination with weapons'. The moderator went to great lengths to stress that gun ownership is fine, hunting is fine, the NRA is fine but 'gun fascination' is a major indicator of a predilection to violence.

I can't imagine there is any research at all to back that up. Millions of Americans harbor "gun fascination" and go through their entire lives without committing any violence of any kind.

Now, the reverse of that, that a large proportion of violent people also have "gun fascination" would not be very surprising. But that in no way suggests "'gun fascination' is a major indicator of a predilection to violence."

For one anecdotal example, a mechanical engineer I know once told me he didn't know an engineer who wasn't in some way fascinated by firearms. Should we start keeping an eye on engineers?